Minor and Other Application
Cttee: 13/01/2010 Item No. 01
Application no: BDB/71053 For Details and Plans Click here
Site Address Tile Barn Farm, Little Dean Lane, South Warnborough, Basingstoke, RG25 2RS Proposal Erection of a pig shed, hardstanding, bund, associated landscaping and access track (Part retrospective)
Registered: 10/09/2009 Expiry Date: 05/11/2009 Type of Full planning Case Officer: Bethan Bramley Application: permission 01256 845441 Applicant: Mr R Janaway Agent: Pearsons Ward: Upton Grey and The Ward Member(s): Cllr M Ruffell Candovers Parish: Upton Grey OS Grid Reference: 471030,147844
Recommendation: Refuse and Enforce
This application was deferred from the previous Development Control Committee to allow for the re-consultation of interested parties following the submission of amended plans. A copy of the original Committee report follows below, along with an update for this Committee.
General Comments
This application has been brought to the Development Control Committee at the request of Cllr Ruffell for the following reason:
'I would like it dealt with by the Committee. There are a number of other difficulties at the farm and it would be better for Officers if the committee took these decisions, especially as the committee took one of the original decisions in relation to the house. Furthermore, as I understand it there is no problem with the shed only the bund which is apparently screening it?'
Description of Site
The application site is located to the north of Tile Barn Farm, separated from the main farm complex by Little Dean Lane. The site comprises a fallow field that is situated in an elevated position above the village of Upton Grey, which lies to the west.
The site itself is predominantly flat, with land sloping away from its western boundary. The field to the west appears to be used for rearing pigs, with a number of pig sheds on this hillside. The site is bound to the east of by a belt of woodland and to the north by a narrower belt of trees that becomes narrower to its western end (and thus has the appearance of an overgrown hedgerow with hedgerow trees, rather than a woodland belt). The nearest building is a pig fattening shed to the south east, located along Little Dean Lane. 1 of 71
The site is located within a wider landscape of gently rolling agricultural fields with scattered villages and hamlets served by occasional narrow windy lanes. Land use in the area comprises arable and pastoral agricultural use interspersed with blocks of woodland, connected by a network of native hedgerows with hedgerow trees. The nearest public rights of way are numbers 10 to the north east, 7 to the south west and 12 to the west.
There is a bund running along the western boundary of the application field, which sits on the ridge of the hillside. It is a total of 400m long, varying in height to approximately 5m high adjacent to the site of the proposed building. The bund is constructed from earth and other material, along with topsoil that has been removed from the site. At the time of the officer's site visit a large hole had been excavated and the resultant chalk spread across part of the remaining field. The bund and other earthworks do not benefit from planning permission and are therefore unauthorised.
Proposal
The application seeks permission for the erection of a pig shed, hardstanding, bund, associated landscaping and access track.
The building would have a rectangular footprint with a floorspace of approximately 1000m². It would have a pitched roof with a ridge height of 5.8m and would be constructed from a steel frame with grey concrete panels for the walls and cement sheeting for the roof.
The supporting information for the application states that the pig-rearing shed would be used for the existing pig breeding business at Tile Barn Farm, which currently keeps pig outdoors. It goes on to state that the housing of pregnant sows inside will halve the current amount of land being used for pig farming. The applicant has confirmed that the shed would house approximately 250-300 sows and is to be isolated from other buildings in order to prevent the spread of disease.
The proposed building would be accessed via an existing unmade farm track off the north side of Little Dean Lane, which would be extended through the existing tree belt towards an area of concrete hardstanding directly adjacent to the proposed building.
The bund as proposed would run along the south western boundary over a length of 400m and width of 4m. It would have a height of 2.5m with an additional 2 - 2.5m height of planting atop the bund. Although this element of the proposal is retrospective, it must be noted that the bund as constructed does not accord with the submitted plans, but is larger in its width and height.
Relevant Planning History
BDB 20421 Erection of agricultural building Granted 07/07/86
BDB 36298 Erection of agricultural building for seed Granted drying 13/07/94
BDB 51180 Erection of a telecommunications column Withdrawn tower with six antennae and two dishes 20/08/01 and installation of an equipment cabin
2 of 71 BDB 52982 Erection of steel portal frame, open sided Granted straw barn 04/07/02
BDB 53503 Erection of open sided lambing shed Granted 28/08/02
BDB 54112 Erection of a pig fattening shed Granted 12/12/02
BDB 61432 Erection of a cattle shed Granted 21/09/05
BDB 66948 Erection of a detached dwelling and Withdrawn creation of new access 31/10/07
BDB 68628 Erection of a detached dwelling with Granted agricultural restriction 21/11/08
BDB 70685 Erection of a pig shed Withdrawn 17/07/09
Consultations
Parish Council: Objection
'Visual intrusion in a Conservation Area. Light pollution in a village with no street lighting. Screening may be inadequate for such a large structure and take many years to be effective. Smell, noise. Mud on road (a public highway) already a problem and certain to get worse. Increased volume of traffic.'
Local Highway Authority: No objection
'The access is existing, the likely associated use is ancillary to existing farm activities.'
Landscape Officer: Objection
Recommend refusal for the following reasons:
The proposals in their current form would constitute an adverse impact on both landscape character and visual amenity, which is not consistent with Policy E6 of the Local Plan.
The above issues could be overcome with the following amendments: Removal of the bund, as it is inconsistent with local landscape character and would have an adverse effect on visual amenity Extension of the existing woodland belt to north of site around and along the western boundary (that is currently demarcated by the bund) to provide appropriate screening for the pig shed. This should be of a similar width and contain similar species type as the northern woodland belt. External materials of a recessive colour (brown or dark green) should be used for the roof and walls of the proposed shed, to reduce the visual impact of the building from public right of way (PROW) 12 and nearby roads.
3 of 71
Existing Landscape Character
This section describes the character of the site and local area, it comprises all of the elements that make up the landscape (such as land use, land form, vegetation etc). Landscape character is separate to visual amenity as these impacts will not necessarily be visible but an application may have an impact on the fundamental nature of these and therefore the landscape character of the area.
The site is located within the Tunworth and Upton Grey Down Landscape Character Area as described in the Borough Landscape Character Assessment (June 2001). The following characteristics and key issues of this area are particularly relevant to the site;-
undulating landform More open arable landscape with infrequent, small woodland blocks to the north-east of the area around Upton Grey; generally high intervisibility to the north-east of the area
It is evident that the area in which the site is located reflects the character of the wider area and intervisibility is of key importance.
Existing Visual Amenity
This section describes what can be seen of the application site from locations where the site can be seen such as roads, public rights of way, dwellings etc. This element is separate from landscape character.
The area from which the site is currently visible is extensive to the west, within an area that extends to approximately 1.2km from the site. The site is not visible from any public viewpoints to the north, east or south due to intervening woodland blocks, farm buildings and landform.
Open views are possible from the following locations: From the north eastern end of Public right of way (PROW) 7, where it emerges onto the road; From the western end (between Upton Grey and Little Dean Lane) of the road between Upton Grey and South Warnborough; from approx a 200m section of PROW 12 to the west of the site.
The most significant views are from PROW 12 due to its elevated position, which gives clear views of the site and views of the full length of the existing (unauthorised) bund.
Glimpsed views are possible from Bidden Road between vegetation and dwellings along this road. There are also glimpsed views between vegetation along PROW 12 for a distance of approx 300m before these views become open as described above.
Impact on Landscape Character
This section describes the impact of the application on all of the elements that make up the landscape (such as land use, land form, vegetation) - these impacts will not necessarily be visible but the development will have an impact on the fundamental nature of these and therefore the landscape character of the area.
The principle of a pig shed on this site is not inconsistent with local landscape character, as this area contains a wide variety of agricultural practices, including rearing of pigs and
4 of 71 other animals, as well as arable farming. There are already a number of agricultural buildings in the vicinity, which contribute to this agricultural character. The proposed access and hard standing are also consistent with local character, as these are common features of the area.
However, the proposed bund (retrospective) is not a feature that is consistent with local landscape character. The area is typified by gently rolling hills, enclosed by hedgerows and woodland blocks. Boundaries are commonly marked by native hedgerows with intermittent hedgerow trees. The proposed bund (retrospective) would constitute a large landform feature, particularly given its length of approximately 400m. This 4m wide x 2.5m high feature would constitute an alien feature within this rural landscape.
Impact on Visual Amenity
This section describes the visual impact of the application from locations where the site can be seen such as roads, public rights of way, dwellings etc. It will describe how the amenity of users is likely to be affected by the proposals. This element is separate from landscape character impact.
It is considered that the following changes in views are likely to occur as a result of the development:
Existing open views will have full views of the proposed (retrospective) bund and associated planting, which would constitute a significant change to existing views, as the bund is an alien feature in the rural landscape of gently rolling landform.
It is likely that the roof of the pig shed would be wholly or partially visible from existing open views, even with the construction of the bund and planting, due to the elevated nature of the viewpoints (this is most significant from PROW 12). Although this constitutes a change to visual amenity, its impact is assessed to be limited as the pig shed would not be an unusual feature in the rural landscape, which already contains agricultural buildings. Glimpsed views of the site may become more noticeable due to the bund and the roofline, with the greatest impact occurring in winter when trees lose their leaves, but the impact of these would not be as significant as from open views.
Overall, it is considered that this application would result in a significant impact on visual amenity, due to the number of public open views of the site and the alien feature of the bund with planting (which together would be up to 5m high).
Conclusion It is considered that this application would have an adverse impact on the landscape character of the area. The key issues of relevance are as follows: the creation of a 400m bund (retrospective), which would be an alien feature in the local area and would be inconsistent with local landscape character as identified in the Borough’s Landscape Character Assessment (2001).
With respect to visual amenity, this application would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area. The key issues of relevance are as follows: the proposed (retrospective) 400m long bund and planting would create a landscape feature, the total height of which would be up to 5m, which would result in a significant change to open views of the site, of which there are a number. The shed itself, although it would be visible in part, would have a less significant impact as agricultural buildings of this type are a common feature of the local area. 5 of 71 It is therefore considered that overall that the proposals are unacceptable in their current form.
Environmental Health Officer: No comments received to date. Any comments will be provided in the update
Public Observations
5 letters of objection, raising the following points: Impact on views, which are noted in the Conservation Area appraisal Shed should either be relocated or suitably screened Planting will take years to screen the building Smell, noise and light pollution Noise reduction and smell filtration systems should be considered Increase in mud on Little Dean Lane Inappropriate to intensely farm pigs on a small farm with so many neighbours Number of pigs should be restricted, to ensure those in the barn are not in addition to the ones already outside Little Dean Lane is not suitable additional vehicles
Planning Policy and Material Considerations
Policy and Principle
The site is located outside any Settlement Policy Boundary and as such is considered to lie within the countryside. The proposal must therefore be assessed against the relevant countryside, design, highway and amenity policies, as set out within the Development Plan and other material considerations.
National Guidance Planning Policy Statement 7: 'Sustainable Development in Rural Areas' (PPS7) recognises the environmental, economic and social value of the countryside and states that 'planning authorities should continue to ensure that the quality and character of the wider countryside is protected and where possible, enhanced'. It also 'recognises the important and varied roles of agriculture, including in the maintenance and management of the countryside and most of our valued landscapes'.
South East Plan The South East Plan Regional Spatial Strategy 2009 (RSS) sets out the long term spatial planning framework for the region.
Policy C4 (Landscape and Countryside Management) of the RSS aims to protect and enhance the diversity and local distinctiveness of the region's landscape.
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011
Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 1996 - 2011 states that all proposals for new development will be permitted provided that they are of a high standard of design, make efficient use of the land and respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. It also states that proposals should not generate traffic of a type or amount inappropriate for roads, properties or settlements in the locality and provide safe and convenient access for all potential users. 6 of 71 Policy E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan relates to landscape character. This policy states that development proposals should contribute to the regeneration, restoration, repair or conservation of any landscape likely to be affected.
Policy A1 of the Local Plan requires proposals to provide sufficient parking to serve the development in accordance with the Council's adopted Parking Standards.
Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents
The Design and Sustainability SPD is a material consideration in respect of this proposal. It includes Appendix 14 - 'Countryside Design Summary' which explains the design relationship between the landscape, settlement patterns and buildings.
Impact on character
The local area contains several farms, which consist of agricultural buildings that typify the landscape character of this rural area. Tile Barn Farm itself contains a number of modern steel-framed buildings which, although separated from the application site itself, are visible from surrounding viewpoints and would be read within the same context. Although the proposed pig shed would be sited in an elevated position and would be visible across the adjoining fields that slope downwards to the west, a building of this nature would be in- keeping with its context as a functional agricultural building. It is therefore considered that the proposed pig shed is consistent with the local landscape character and would therefore be acceptable on these grounds. The proposed access and hard standing are also consistent with local character, as these are common features of the area.
It is however considered important, in order to minimise the visual intrusion of the building, that appropriate soft landscaping is planted to screen and soften the impact of the pig shed. Although no details of landscaping have been submitted as part of the application (other than planting on top of the proposed bund), the surrounding land is within the ownership of the applicant and therefore an appropriate scheme could be achieved by condition, if minded to approve the application. The materials of the building should also be of a recessive colour such as brown or dark green in order to aid the integration of the building with its surroundings. Again, external samples should be required by condition if minded to approve the application.
The proposed bund would be sited at the top of a ridge, which is visible from surrounding roads and public rights of way. The landscape character of the area is defined by rolling landform, whereas the bund would introduce a steep bank that would be at odds with the topography of the area. As such, the bund would be an alien feature in relation to its surroundings and is therefore unacceptable in terms of its impact on the landscape character of the area. Furthermore, the overall length and height of the proposed bund would exacerbate the visual impact of this alien feature, and would be unduly prominent, to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area.
As discussed above, the principle of a pig shed is considered to be acceptable and therefore the bund in itself is not necessary to screen the building. In any case, the roof of the building would be visible above the proposed bund and the building would therefore not be completely screened from view. Instead, suitable planting would be sufficient to soften rather than hide the structure. Over time, a woodland belt would mature to screen the building and would be in keeping with the local landscape, which contains frequent woodland strips and hedgerow features.
7 of 71 Impact on neighbouring amenities
The proposed development would be separated from the nearest neighbouring property at Little Dean Farm by approximately 250m, which is considered to be sufficient distance for it to create no overbearing impact or loss of residential amenity. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed development would be visible from dwellings in the surrounding area due to its elevated position, the loss of a private view is not a material planning consideration.
A number of nearby residents have raised concern with regards to the potential noise and smell generated from the proposed pig shed. It should be noted that the proposal is to serve an existing pig farming operation, which currently generates noise and smell consistent with an agricultural activity that is considered to be appropriate to this countryside location. The pig farming operation can be carried out on site without planning permission and without any control of the number of animals. It is therefore not considered reasonable to impose any conditions relating to the number of pigs that can be kept on the site.
Notwithstanding this, the Environmental Health team has been consulted and any response will be provided in the update.
Highway matters
The proposed building would be accessed via an existing track off Little Dean Lane, which would be extended to the north west towards the proposed hardstanding. The proposed building would relate to an existing farming activity and would therefore not generate any additional traffic to Tile Barn Farm nor have any significant impact on the surrounding road network. The Local Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposal and it is considered that the proposal would not prejudice highway safety.
Other matters
The application has been screened in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2008. It is considered that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on the environment and therefore an Environmental Statement is not required.
The Parish Council and neighbours have raised objection to the impact of views from the Conservation Area. The Upton Grey Conservation Area incorporates the village settlement and the application site lies approximately 500 metres outside of the boundary of the Conservation Area at its closest point. The Conservation Area Appraisal does not identify any important views towards the application site and it is considered that the proposal would be separated by sufficient distance for it not to have any detrimental impact on the setting of the Conservation Area itself.
Objection has also been raised in relation to light pollution as a result of the proposal. The proposal states that internal flood lights will be provided within the barn and it is considered that a condition could be imposed (if minded to approve the application) to require details of lighting to be submitted for approval, in order to prevent any undue light spillage to the surrounding countryside.
8 of 71 Enforcement action
A bund has already been constructed, although it has been constructed larger than proposed through this planning application. As such, the visual impact of the bund as existing is even greater than the proposal and is harmful to the landscape, for the reasons discussed above. It is therefore recommended that enforcement action is taken to require the removal of the unauthorised bund and the reinstatement of the land to natural ground level. A large hole has also been excavated on the site and the resultant chalk has been spread across the field to provide a raised base. These earthworks also constitute an engineering operation that requires planning permission and the recommended enforcement action should therefore also include the removal of the raised earth from the field and the in-filling of the excavated hole.
Update for 13 January 2010
Amended plans have been received relating to the proposed bund. The amendments have re-profiled the bund to provide a gentler gradient, thereby increasing the overall width of the bund from 4m to 20.5m. The maximum height of the bund remains similar to that originally proposed, at 2.5 - 3m. The proposal also now includes the planting of a woodland strip along the south western side of the bund. The amendments have increased the size of the application site to accommodate the additional width of the bund and associated planting.
Amended Plans - Impact on character
The Landscape Officer has been re-consulted on the revised proposal and maintains an objection, with the following comments:
'The amended proposals demonstrate an improvement to all previously submitted proposals for application BDB 71053, and respond to a number of items raised in my previous comments.
We note the applicant’s inclusion of a wider strip of native woodland planting, to provide softening of the proposed pig building (now 8-10m wide) which addresses my previous concern regarding the importance of creating a woodland belt, rather than an avenue of trees.
Please note that my previous comment regarding the importance of providing plant spacings and percentage mixes of the proposed woodland species has not been addressed by the revised plans and if the DC Committee were mindful to approve the application we would like to see a landscape condition applied to ensure that this is dealt with adequately.
Please also note that my previous comment relating to the importance of the roof colour in reducing the visual impact of the building remains. This should be of a recessive colour (dark green or brown) as the roof will potentially be the most visible feature of the building. A recessive coloured roof, combined with a woodland strip of a suitable width is considered sufficient to soften the impact of this agricultural building.
My previous comments regarding the re-profiling of the proposed bund still stand. We note the applicant’s re-profiling of the proposed bund, which is indicated as typically 20.5m wide x 2.5 - 3m high, which compares with the previously submitted profile of 4m wide x 2.5m high (with another 2- 2.5m of managed native shrubs on top). Although the reprofiling of
9 of 71 the bund has reduced the gradient on each side, these gradients are still 1:4/1:5 to the west and 1:3 to the east. Therefore the bund itself remains an alien feature in this landscape of gently rolling landform (typically 1:20). The impact on the landscape is heightened by the location of the bund at the top of a ridge. Even though the proposed woodland strip would screen the bund (thus reducing the visual impact of it), the bund remains unacceptable in terms of landscape character.
The bund in itself is not necessary in order for the principle of the pig building to be acceptable. Softening of the building is required, to reduce the negative visual impact from Upton Grey (and notably the PROW 12), but complete screening of the building, which is an agricultural building typical of an agricultural landscape such as this, is not necessary. The proposed woodland strip (now widened to 8-10 metres) would provide a suitable method of softening the impact of the building over time, and once the woodland strip reaches maturity it may screen the building altogether. In addition, this woodland strip is in keeping with local landscape character, which contains frequent woodland strips and hedgerow features.'
It is therefore considered that, whilst the amended plans have addressed the concerns regarding the visual impact of the proposal through woodland planting, the bund remains alien to the landscape character of the area and is unacceptable on this basis. The recommendation to refuse and enforce therefore remains, but with an amended reason as follows:
1. The proposed bund would be an alien feature in the local area and would be inconsistent with local landscape character as identified in the Borough’s Landscape Character Assessment (2001). As such the proposal is contrary to Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.
Environmental Health
Since the previous Committee report, the Environmental Health Team has now responded to the proposal as follows.
'Due to the close proximity of neighbouring properties environmental health are concerned about odour nuisance from the proposed pig shed. Current best practice recommends that floors should be partly slatted with frequent removal of slurry to a covered store. However, the applicant has not stated how the slurry would be stored and what mitigation measures will be implemented to control odour arising from slurry and urine in the proposed building.
On this basis we recommended that the application is refused. However, if permission is granted then we would recommend the inclusion of the following condition.
Prior to commencement of the development, an odour management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Upon approval, the scheme shall be implemented in full and the measures maintained to prevent the transmission of odours to neighbouring premises. REASON: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and to protect the amenities of nearby occupiers and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.'
The impact on neighbouring amenities is assessed in the main body of the report. Due to the concerns raised by Environmental Health, an odour management plan has been
10 of 71 requested of the applicant in order to provide additional information as to how odour will be controlled. Should this information be forthcoming prior to the Committee meeting, the Environmental Health Team will be re-consulted and any additional comments will be reported in the Update.
In the case that an odour management plan is not received prior to the Committee meeting, and if members are minded to approve the application, the Environmental Health Team has recommended an appropriate condition that could effectively control odour nuisance from the pig shed. Given that this requirement could be met by condition, it is not considered reasonable to recommend a reason for refusal on these grounds.
Re-consultation of interested parties
Neighbours and the Parish Council were notified of the amendments to the application on 7 December 2009, and have been given a period of 14 days should they wish to comment on the amendments. This provides sufficient time for any new issues that are raised to be reported within the Update to Committee at the meeting on 13 January 2010.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is RECOMMENDED that A) the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:
The proposed bund would be an alien feature in the local area and would be inconsistent with local landscape character as identified in the Borough’s Landscape Character Assessment (2001). As such the proposal is contrary to Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.
B) if the Head of Legal Services is satisfied with the evidence, and in the opinion of the Head of Planning and Transport it is expedient to do so, enforcement action as defined in Section 171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), be initiated requiring:
The removal of the bund and other raised earth from the site and the reinstatement of the land to natural ground level, including the in-filling of the excavated hole with the excavated or similar materials.
Period of compliance
6 months
11 of 71 Minor and Other Application
Cttee: 13/01/2010 Item No. 02
Application no: BDB/71264 For Details and Plans Click here
Site Address The Laurels, Hyde Lane, Ecchinswell, Newbury, RG20 4UN Proposal Erection of 1 no. two bedroom, 1 no. five bedroom dwelling and building forming garage block and store. Demolition of existing dwelling. Change of use of residential land to agricultural land and change of use of agricultural land to residential land
Registered: 18/09/2009 Expiry Date: 13/11/2009 Type of Full planning Case Officer: Anne Wilkinson Application: permission 01256 845559 Applicant: Mr & Mrs E Jones Agent: Interspace Design Ward: Burghclere, Ward Member(s): Cllr J Lewin Highclere and St Cllr H Mitchell Mary Bourne Parish: Ecchinswell, OS Grid Reference: 450590,161116 Sydmonton and Bishops Green
Recommendation: Refuse
General Comments
The application was deferred at the Development Control Meeting on 09/12/09 for the site to be viewed.
This application is brought to the Development Control Committee for determination at the request of the ward Councillors, Cllr Mitchell and Cllr Lewin, for the following reasons:
'There are no objections to the application from the parish council or neighbours. There is an extant permission for one dwelling and the application is to amend this and provide a further replacement dwelling. The scale of the proposed dwelling is consistent with the nearest neighbouring dwellings, sits well within the boundaries (as proposed through an equal swap of agricultural and curtilage land). The site is well screened from the nearest roads and there are no distant views or views from footpaths. The matter of design is subjective and the fact that the architects panel has been consulted indicates uncertainty. The design is not unusual or exceptional and is in fact similar to recently approved applications, including some in more sensitive and visible locations. Overall it is difficult to see what harm can be demonstrated by permitting this application and we request that it be considered by the committee.
This request is belated because we had no reason to expect any controversy regarding the application, where the principle of development is agreed and the proposal is considerably scaled back from the prior application which was refused at appeal on grounds of scale and a design that was regarded as inappropriate to the rural location.'
12 of 71 Description of Site
The site is located in an area of countryside to the north of Ecchinswell. It is approximately 100m AOD and is generally flat, although slightly higher to the western part of the site and falls away slightly to the south and east. Hyde Lane runs along the western boundary and an access track to Hyde Farm runs along the northern boundary.
The original property at the Laurels, consisted of a single storey bungalow and a collection of outbuildings, all of which have recently been demolished. The caravan which was the subject of a lawful development certificate ref: BDB 51732 was located approximately 30m to the south east of bungalow and the has also been removed from the site. Prior to the removal of the bungalow and the caravan from the site, each was considered to be a lawful dwelling.
Except for an access into the site it is bound on the northern and western boundary by a native hedgerow. Immediately to the south and east of the residential curtilages are fields beyond which are other lines of mature vegetation defining the southern and eastern boundaries.
The wider context around the Laurels is of a rural agricultural landscape with a number of small and medium sized fields and a number of scattered farmsteads linked by a number of narrow winding lanes.
Proposal
Erection of a replacement detached two storey dwelling house (to replace the demolished bungalow), triple garage/store and detached cottage (to replace the mobile home previously sited on the land). The proposal also seeks permission to change the use of residential land to agricultural land and change of use of agricultural land to residential.
The proposed two storey dwelling would be located partially over the footprint of the previous bungalow on the site, although it would be set slightly further into the site. The proposed triple garage/store and detached cottage would be located in the north east part of the site. The proposed replacement two storey dwelling, currently being considered would have a footprint of approximately 267m² and a floor area of approximately 470m² as well as a garage/outbuilding with a floor area of 95m². The proposed cottage would have a gross floor area of approximately 109m².
Relevant Planning History
BDB 51732 Retrospective permission for siting of Granted mobile caravan since 1987 for 19/12/01 independent human habitation
BDB 56244 Replace existing mobile home with Granted detached bungalow on same site 25/09/03
BDB 58085 Erection of 1 no. three bedroom house Granted following demolition of existing 28/04/04
BDB 59050 Replace existing mobile home with a Refused detached dwelling 24/09/04
13 of 71 BDB 61372 Replacement of existing mobile home Granted with detached dwelling 07/09/05
BDB 65634 Erection of a replacement detached Refused dwelling house. Erection of a triple 29/05/07 garage/ store, detached cottage and Appeal dismissed creation of new vehicular access, 16/04/08 following demolition of existing buildings. Change of use of residential land to agricultural land and change of use of agricultural land to residential
BDB 67922 Certificate of Lawfulness for the proposed Refused erection of a single storey side extension 18/03/08 and erection of a pool house building. Erection of a detached garage building
BDB 67923 Certificate of Lawfulness for the proposed Refused erection of a single storey side extension, 18/03/08 and erection of a pool house building. Erection of a detached garage building
BDB 69678 Erection of a replacement detached Withdrawn dwelling house. Erection of a triple 18/12/08 garage/store, detached cottage and creation of new vehicular access following demolition of existing buildings. Change of use of residential land to agricultural land and change of use of agricultural land to residential land
Consultations
Parish Council: No objection
Local Highway Authority: No objection. It is accepted that the existing site access from the track leading to Hyde Farm was deemed suitable under BDB 65634, notwithstanding alterations are now proposed to formalise this entrance, whilst also seeking to preserve the existing hedge and tree screen. However, alterations to the existing site access from Hyde Lane, to convert this into a future field/paddock access only, where not quantified under BDB 65634. The layout shown on BDB 71264 proposes a double gate arrangement, with one gate potentially serving the dwellings and with the field/paddock accessed via a second gate inside the curtilage of the site. A simple direct access into the field/paddock is achievable using the existing Hyde Lane opening and is the preferred option for future use by agricultural vehicles and or machinery. Details of the proposed conversion of this access need to be submitted for approval.
14 of 71 Notwithstanding that I understand the application may be recommended for refusal if it were approved or appealed I strongly recommend that Conditions be attached to safeguard the conversion of the existing Hyde Lane access into a field/paddock access only and that the existing drive leading from the existing Hyde Lane access be permanently removed; details of the access conversion should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any further development activities commence on the site. Environment Agency: The application has been assessed as having a low environmental risk. Environmental Health: Comments awaited. Landscape: Unacceptable. The scale and bulk of the application would have an adverse impact on the appearance of the local area and would therefore be contrary to Policy E6 of the local plan. Thames Water:. No comments received.
Public Observations: None
Planning Policy and Material Considerations
The site is located beyond any Settlement Policy Boundary within the countryside and the following national and local guidance and development plan policies are relevant.
National Guidance
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system including the importance of good design.
Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3) reinforces this principle of good design and the importance for development to be appropriate to its context and well integrated with its surroundings.
Planning Policy Statement 7: 'Key Principles 1 (vi) states 'All development in rural areas should be well designed and inclusive, in keeping and scale with its location, and sensitive to the character of the countryside and local distinctiveness.'
When considering the design of new development Para 12 states that development '…Should also contribute to a sense of local identity and regional diversity and be of an appropriate design and scale for its location, having regard to policies on design contained in PPS1 and supported in By Design.'
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan and Local Guidance
Policy D4 relates to the sub-division and loss of dwellings. The policy states '.....Except where development proposals can be shown to result in an overall planning benefit, permission will not be granted for development, redevelopment, or change of use which would result in an overall depletion of the existing dwelling stock.'
Policy D6 relates to new residential accommodation in the countryside and in relation to this application states that within the countryside, residential development will only be
15 of 71 permitted where it: 'i) is a one for one replacement of an existing dwelling which has been continuously occupied and is not the result of a temporary or series of temporary permissions and the building is not derelict or no longer in existence (other than in cases of accidental destruction such as fire).' In addition the supporting text states 'Replacement dwellings should not significantly change the siting, scale, setting and character of the existing dwelling in order to protect the rural character of the area and ensure that there remains a variety of dwelling sizes in the countryside to provide for a range of housing needs. However, it is recognised that there may be instances where some positive environmental benefit may be achieved by relocation to an adjacent or nearby position. The original dwelling should then be demolished before the new dwelling is occupied.'
Policy E1 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure a high standard of design, respect the amenities of neighbouring properties. Criteria (i) states that new development should 'Respond to the local context of buildings in terms of design, siting, density and spacing, reinforce attractive qualities of local distinctiveness and enhance areas of poor design; extensions should respect their host building.' Criteria (iii) states development should 'not generate traffic of a type or amount inappropriate for roads, properties or settlements in the locality, and provide safe and convenient access for all potential users, integrating into existing movement networks and open spaces.'
Policy E6 relates to landscape character and will only permit development where it is demonstrated that the proposal will be sympathetic to the landscape character and quality of the area concerned.
Appendix 13 of the Councils Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document relates to householder extensions and replacement dwellings. Appendix 14 consists of the Countryside Design Summary and explains the design relationship between the landscape, settlement patterns and buildings.
The Council's Landscape and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document seeks to ensure that new developments respect the character of the local landscape, successfully incorporate features of landscape importance and, where appropriate, include the creation of a high-quality functional landscape within the sites; ensure that new developments avoid causing harm to important wildlife habitats and species that are under threat; and encourage the incorporation of features into new developments to sustain and enhance wildlife. In addition the following national and local guidance is also material in the consideration of this planning application.
The Landscape Assessment is Supplementary Planning Guidance and contains an assessment which was carried out in accordance with the Countryside Agency's national guidance on landscapes within the Borough.
Planning History
The site has an extensive history. The existing bungalow has been on the site for a number of years and although no planning history exists for the property, it is considered to be a lawful dwelling. In 2001 a certificate of lawful development was granted for the siting of a mobile caravan since 1987 for independent human habitation (BDB 51732). The caravan was located to the rear (east) of the bungalow.
Since this time outline permission, with access only having been considered, was granted in 2003 under BDB 56244 for the replacement of the mobile home with a detached 16 of 71 bungalow. Planning permission was also granted under BDB 58085 for the erection of one 3 bedroom house following demolition of the existing bungalow. The pre commencement conditions of the planning permission BDB 58085 have been discharged and the Council Building Regulations Section has advised that they have visited the site and inspected the digging out for foundations of one corner of the dwelling approved under BDB 58085. Confirmation of the works undertaken are awaited from the applicant so that the Local Planning Authority can confirm whether planning permission BDB 58085 has been lawfully implemented. This will be reported on the update.
Under BDB 61372 planning permission was granted for a replacement of the existing mobile home with a dwelling on 07/09/05. The applicant's agent has advised that the mobile home has now been removed from the site following the granting of BDB 61372. Consideration therefore has to be given to the existence of this extant permission as well as the existence of the existing bungalow and the permission to replace this bungalow with a two storey dwelling as approved under BDB 58085.
More recently permission was refused under BDB 65634 to replace the existing bungalow with a much larger dwelling with a floor area of 599 m² compared with the existing bungalow which has a floor area of 154 m². In addition it was proposed to erect a triple garage/store and detached cottage, which would have substituted the replacement dwelling approved under BDB 61372 to replace the mobile home. The applicants appealed the Councils decision to refuse this application however this appeal was dismissed with the Inspector considering that the proposed 'restrained classical country house' appearing alien in this location and the proposed development would have had a 'marked visual dominance in the landscape. In concluding the Inspector considered that 'the appeal proposal would because of its design, scale and landscaping lack sensitivity and would have a detrimental effect on the scenic qualities of the surrounding stretch of countryside. Moreover the height and mass of the proposed house would detract from the character and appearance of the area. As such it would conflict with Policies E1 and E6 of the local plan, as well as the supporting text of Policy D6.'
Following this appeal an application was submitted under BDB 69678 and was withdrawn. The proposal was for a large classical style property. Again the Council advised that it was considered that the proposal would be unacceptable for similar reasons as to those for which BDB 65634 was refused and dismissed at appeal.
Landscape Character and Visual Amenity The site is located within the ‘Ecchinswell Lowlands and Heath’ Landscape character area of the Borough Landscape Character Assessment. The key characteristic relevant to this site are as follows;-
generally well-wooded, unspoilt, rural character giving distinctive sense of place, the tree cover creating enclosure and intimacy, and reducing the impact of occasional roads or buildings, except near the A339;
medium-sized fields under arable and pasture reflecting assorted land and, in the northern half, 18th–19th century parliamentary enclosure (possibly including post- parliamentary enclosures of downland or woodland) and the large wavy-edged fields resulting from 17th-18th century informal enclosure;
generally low intervisibility through the area, with views contained by frequent hedgerows and woodland blocks. The more open farmland and woodland areas have slightly longer views, but are still contained within the woodland framework. 17 of 71 numerous scattered remnants of ancient semi-natural broadleaved woodland. Overall, the area has a strong rural character reinforced by the agricultural land use and well defined vegetation structure. This vegetation and the generally flat landform gives the area a small scale character. The settlement pattern is characterised by the contained village at Ecchinswell surrounded by isolated farmsteads and occasional properties within the surrounding countryside. With regard to the existing visual amenity, views of the site are most apparent from local locations along Hyde Lane and the track to Hyde Farm House. Other viewpoints are also possible from more distant locations, the most significant being from footpaths to the south-west of Springbourne Stud Farm and a public right of way to the north-east of the site. From the nearby locations, views are partly screened by existing vegetation surrounding the site, however, this is less effective due to the proximity of the viewer being able to see through the vegetation and also during months when the vegetation is not in leaf.
Design, and size and impact on the character and visual amenities of the area
The description of the proposed development is similar to that of the previous refusal proposing a detached dwelling and a triple garage/store and detached cottage. The agent has advised in support of the application that the house has been redesigned to reflect various elements found in the location together with a variance of roof shape to give a changing scale whilst using the roof space to maximum effect. Furthermore the agent asserts that the proposals have been conceived in a way to identify with the landscape area, and would be an enhancement on the current valid planning permissions BDB 58085 and BDB 61372.
Whilst the design of the large proposed dwelling no longer takes a formal approach which was previously proposed under the planning applications ref: BDB 65634 and BDB 69678 there are concerns that it lacks a coherent design appearing as a mixture of elements which do not fit well together. The resultant dwelling appears as a property which has been extended over time using different styles and approaches. These concerns over the design have also been raised as a concern by the Architects Panel.
The proposed dwelling is also very large. In his decision the Inspector for the appeal of the application ref: BDB 65634 stated 'I therefore consider that any alternative development proposals for the appeal site should be assessed against the 2 extant permissions, albeit in the knowledge of the increase in built floor space these represent over that currently pertaining on the site.' Both Policy D6 and the Council’s SPD state that the replacement dwelling should not be significantly larger in order to protect the rural character of the area and ensure that there remains a variety of dwelling sizes in the countryside to provide for a range of housing needs. Whilst the proposed dwelling would be replacing the original bungalow which has now been demolished, following the advice of the Inspector any replacement should be considered against the 2 extant permissions and also taking into account the increase in the built floorspace over the original bungalow on the site.
In comparing the proposed dwelling with that approved under BDB 58085, it can be seen that the applicant is seeking to gain planning permission for a larger dwelling than that approved under BDB 58085. The original bungalow on the site, which has now been demolished had a height to the ridge of 4m and a footprint and floor area of 154m². The replacement dwelling approved under BDB 58085 would have a ridge height of 7.1m and a first floor, whereas the current proposal seeks to increase the ridge height to 8.1m. In 18 of 71 addition dwelling approved under BDB 58085 would be 2 storey 3 bed house with a footprint measuring 158m² and a gross floor area of 272.5m². The proposed replacement dwelling, currently being considered would have a footprint of approximately 267m² and a floor area of approximately 470m² as well as a garage/outbuilding with a floor area of 95m². Such a proposal represents a significant increase over both the original bungalow and the replacement approved under BDB 58085. Whilst the site was also occupied by some outbuildings, they were small in scale and whilst run down reflective of the sites rural location.
The replacement of the caravan BDB 61372 would have been a 3 bedroom chalet bungalow with a footprint of 99m² and a floor area of 146m² and an open porch area of 25m². The caravan it was replacing had a floor area of 35m² and a height of 3m. The proposed cottage which would replace the dwelling approved under BDB 61372 would have a gross floor area of 109m².
The resultant development, for which planning permission is currently being sought, is considered to be significantly greater than the original dwelling and its associated outbuildings and the development which would result from the replacement dwelling proposed under BDB 58085. It is considered that this is not only apparent from studying the drawings submitted with the application but that the figures referred to above also demonstrate the proposed increased in built form being proposed.
The most significant impact of this application on the character of this area is the overall increase in the mass and scale of the buildings, especially the main dwelling. The original property at the Laurels was a modest single storey dwelling and the relationship of all the proposed buildings on the site would be a greater massing of what was until recently on the site and indeed what is proposed as part of the extant consents, which were also located further apart. In granting the replacement of the bungalow and the caravan, the replacement dwellings were larger however it was considered that in terms of their size, scale and bulk they related well enough to the site and its context. The current proposal, which would also be to replace the bungalow and caravan, as a whole would result in a greater built form, which would be closer together within the site and would detract from the character and appearance of the area and would not respond as well to the local context compared with the fallback position. In relation to the planning application ref: BDB 65634 the Inspector concluded that the proposal 'fails to recreate the rural and informal appearance of the existing scattered development..' It is considered that this is also true of the current proposal which would appear as a very large scale dwelling with large ancillary outbuilding buildings. As such the proposal would be harmful to the rural character of the area.
In addition the overall scale and bulk of the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the local visual amenity, particularly from Hyde Lane and the track to Hyde Farm. Whilst there is a mature hedgerow on the road verge, the proximity of the viewer at these locations would make the increased bulk of the main building more apparent. The bulk of the development is also made more apparent by the significant variety of building sections of the larger dwelling and the positioning of the single storey dwelling and the garage.
The proposal also seeks permission to convert an area of agricultural land to residential curtilage and also to return the same amount of land from curtilage to agricultural land. In landscape terms there is no objection to this proposed swap but in the absence of a legal agreement to secure the return of the land to agricultural land this part of the proposal is considered to be unacceptable. In addition if the proposal is granted, planning permission
19 of 71 could be implemented in addition to BDB 61372, which would result in three dwellings being erected on the site and would be contrary to the countryside policies of the development plan. It is therefore considered that if the application was to be considered acceptable it would be subject to a condition/legal agreement to ensure the non implementation of BDB 61372. In addition it is considered that any permission would also need an agreement to ensure that no further mobile home could be sited on the site as approved under BDB 57132.
The proposal is therefore considered to be unacceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is RECOMMENDED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The proposed replacement dwelling, detached cottage and associated development by virtue of its design, size, scale and character would be visually harmful to the character and appearance of this area of countryside and landscape. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies D6, E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan and the Council's Supplementary Planning Document 'Design and Sustainability' Appendix 13 which seeks to ensure that replacement dwellings are of a similar scale and character to the existing dwelling(s) and sympathetic to the landscape character and quality of the area concerned.
2. The proposed development is unsatisfactory and contrary to Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local 1996-2011, as in the absence of any suitable condition or legal agreement, it does not safeguard the provision of the change of use of residential land to agricultural land as proposed.
3. In the absence of any suitable condition or legal agreement the proposal does not safeguard the provision to ensure that the proposal would be implemented in substitution for and not in addition to planning permission BDB 61372 dated 07/09/2005 and that no further mobile home would be sited on the site as approved under BDB 57132. As such the proposal is unsatisfactory and contrary to Policies D5, D6, E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local 1996-2011 which seek, among other matters, to restrict new housing in the countryside.
20 of 71 Minor and Other Application
Cttee: 13/01/2010 Item No. 03
Application no: BDB/71337 For Details and Plans Click here
Site Address Foxs Farm, Foxs Lane, Kingsclere, Newbury, RG20 5QD Proposal Erection of a six bedroom detached dwelling, car port, store and double garage with staff accommodation above following demolition of existing dwelling and farm buildings. Construction of an enclosed tennis court and erection of detached building forming 3 no. stables, tack room, store with associated hard standing and new access
Registered: 03/11/2009 Expiry Date: 29/12/2009 Type of Full planning Case Officer: Katherine Miles Application: permission 01256 845249 Applicant: Mr T Cooksey TBC Agent: Bell Cornwell Partnership Developments (Kingsclere) Ltd Ward: Kingsclere Ward Member(s): Cllr Mrs F C Osselton Cllr K Rhatigan* Parish: Kingsclere OS Grid Reference: 452073,158583
Recommendation: Refuse
General Comments
This application has been brought to committee at the request of Councillor Mrs Osselton who states:
"I disagree with the following:
The buildings do not have an adverse impact on visual amenity The buildings do not have adverse impact on the landscape character AONB will be enhanced Scale and bulk of the buildings Highways - this is a house"
Councillor Rhatigan has agreed that this application should be reported to the committee but retains an open mind as to the merits of the proposal.
Description of Site
The application site comprises a 4.8 ha site located to the south west of Kingsclere. The site is occupied by vacant poultry buildings, orientated in an east/west direction. The buildings are located within a series of terraces on the site.
The land rises upwards in a westerly direction from Fox's Lane. To the north of the site and close to Ecchinswell Road is an existing agricultural dwelling which consists of a brick and tile bungalow built into the slope of the site. Both the existing dwelling and the poultry 21 of 71 units are accessed via a road from the top north eastern corner of the site at the junction of Ecchinswell Road with Fox's Lane.
There is a public footpath (Footpath no. 81) located to the south of the buildings which runs in a north/south direction along the rear western boundary of the site. There is also another footpath that runs in an east/west direction further to the south of the site.
The northern boundary of the site is formed by the Ecchinswell Road. This is narrow and sunken where the national speed limit applies. The speed limit changes to 30mph at the junction of Ecchinswell Road with Fox's Lane.
To the western, eastern and northern boundaries of the site, there is mature vegetation and tree coverage. Ecchinswell Road is generally very verdant in character and rural in appearance. The eastern boundary with Fox's Lane consists of raised verges with hedgerow and trees. Fox's Lane is leafy and rural in appearance. It should be noted that the trees to the northern boundary along Ecchinswell Road and those to the southern end of the site are preserved by Tree Preservation Order BDB 255
Opposite the site to the north are large properties in relatively large plots located within Fieldgate Drive. These properties are more recent in their construction and are typically modern, executive style, estate dwellings. Opposite the site to the east are large properties in substantial plots that are linear in shape. These properties are generally more traditional in design. To the south of the site are two residential properties. These are partially screened from the site by mature vegetation.
Proposal
The application proposes the demolition of the existing disused poultry buildings within this site. The application proposes the replacement of the existing bungalow with a large detached Georgian style dwelling with an associated annexe. The proposed dwelling would be located approximately 20m to the southwest of the existing dwelling and would be on higher ground.
The proposed dwelling has a main two storey section with rendered gabled features and a brick central section to the front (east) elevation. The northern side and rear (west) elevations of the dwelling would be of brick construction. The rear elevation contains a central two-storey bow window projection with a central parapet roof area. The southern elevation of the dwelling is proposed to be rendered. The roof of the proposed dwelling would be tiled with a centrally located dormer window on the front elevation and a central flat area at ridge level. Three dormer windows are proposed on the rear elevation, two to the northern elevation and one to the southern elevation. The dwelling incorporates plinth and string course detailing and window heads and sills in the Georgian style. The windows are proposed to be timber sash. The attached annex would be part single and part two storey and would be timber clad with a tiled roof.
The proposed dwelling would have a total length of 40m and a maximum depth of 17m. The dwelling has an overall height of 10.2m. The proposed dwelling would have six bedrooms and associated living accommodation over three floors.
There is an attached annex to the north of the dwelling which would contain a two vehicle car port and storage area, a gym and changing room, a garden store and a two car garage at ground floor level. At first floor level a two room staff quarter is proposed with an ensuite shower room. The annex extends north of the proposed dwelling.
22 of 71
To the rear of the property a raised terrace and sun terrace are proposed and supporting literature also suggests that a swimming pool could be provided, although this does not form part of the application. A tennis court is proposed to the rear of the site. The tennis court would be surfaced and the fencing would be green chain-link fence approximately 2.6m high. An informal path is proposed to lead to the tennis court via a new planted orchard to the rear of the dwelling.
Surrounding the property, access and garden area estate style fencing 0.7m in height is proposed. Beyond this fencing the agricultural land would be changed to paddock use.
The access to the dwelling is proposed via the existing access off Fox's Lane in the north eastern corner of the site. The access would be surfaced and a turning area is proposed to the front of the dwelling. To the north west of the access track, there is a short driveway leading to a parking court adjacent to the garage block and carport. A 0.8m high entrance gate is proposed across the access drive.
To the north of the dwelling a separate private bridleway is proposed and would link the dwelling with a new proposed stable block. The stable block is proposed to be timber clad with a tiled roof. The stable has an overall height of 4.6m, a length of 15m and a depth of 9.5m. The stable building would comprise three loose boxes, a tack room, store and machinery store. A wood store is proposed to be attached to the stable building. A yard is proposed to the front of the stable building and a new access is proposed to serve the stable building off Ecchinswell Road.
Relevant Planning History
BDB 26563 Residential development of 19 houses Refused and bungalows, 25 retirement cottages 31/05/89 and bungalows. Access roads and ancillary facilities on 4.91 HA
BDB 31140 Retention of use of building for tea Withdrawn packing and storage of porcelain 11/10/91
BDB 31141 Retention of use of building for storage Withdrawn and distribution of eggs and storage and 11/10/91 packing of preserves
BDB 32907 Demolition of 5,053sqm of buildings and Refused refurbishment and conversion of existing 03/06/92 redundant poultry buildings to class B1(c) Appeal Dismissed light industrial use 21/09/93
BDB 33643 Demolition of poultry/industrial units and Refused bungalow. Erection of 10 dwellings 07/10/92 including two lost cost dwellings and Appeal Dismissed improvements to access on 1.13 HA 21/09/93
BDB 35910 Alterations to gables and windows. Granted Erection of extensions and conservatory 04/05/94
23 of 71 BDB 57329 Demolition of existing buildings and Refused erection of 24 no. 2, 3, 4 & 5 bedroom 14/05/04 dwellings (incl. live/work units) together Appeal Dismissed with access, car parking open space and 13/12/05 landscaping
Consultations
Kingsclere Parish Council: Comments:
"We are not qualified to speak on the landscape policy issues but would question whether it complies with the exceptions policy. We would also like to request that the road safety improvements in Fox's Lane and Ecchinswell Road should be a condition upon granting permission".
Local Highway Authority: Objection:
Parking: Provision for vehicles, motorcycles and cycles forms part of the application and provision accords with Residential Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document 2008.
Refuse/Waste: Nothing is expressly indicated on the drawings regarding refuse and or waste.
Access: Ecchinswell Road is the Classified C155 and has a national speed limit (60mph) westwards form its junction with Foxs Lane. Fox's Lane is the Classified C57 with a 30mph speed limit. No speed or volume data is included with the application.
Notwithstanding there is an existing access/egress for the site directly off the Fox's Lane junction with the Ecchinswell Road junction, this is not a desirable position for such an access and ideally the Applicant should be seeking to reposition this access along the Fox's Lane frontage to improve highway safety, meet current highway design standards and reduce potential risk. However, it is accepted that the access is existing and therefore it would be difficult to sustain an objection on these grounds.
However, the proposed stable block access is a new proposal and I do object to the creation of this new access onto Ecchinswell Road. Secure access can be readily achieved from within the site via proposed routes; I am not aware that the stable block formed part of the pre-application enquires.
With respect to the Stable Block it has not been demonstrated that: a) adequate visibility splays can be provided along the Ecchinswell Road frontage within the red line boundary - it is noted that there are Tree Preservation Orders, both single and group, in this location; b) ground levels will be compatible to provide appropriate gradients to/from the highway - it is noted that the application drawings indicate poor ground and a pond and the area is significantly lower than the carriageway, this also could affect any on land drainage; c) the stable block will be provided with secure gating and that the gates will be positioned with sufficient clearance from the highway so as not to endanger highway safety; and d) parking and turning for vehicles using the stable block can be achieved for vehicles entering and leaving the site in a forward gear.
24 of 71 Footpath 81: Hampshire County Council's website and the Applicant's drawings differ regarding the route.
Conclusions: With respect to the stable block, the Applicant needs to demonstrate the new access does not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety and until this is achieved I raise a highways objection to the proposed access and the application.
Urban Design: Objection:
The proposal would harm the rural character of the site and is contrary to Policy E1 of the Local Plan, Appendix 7 'Places to Live' of the Design and Sustainability SPD and the Kingsclere Village Design statement.
Landscape: Objection:
The proposals submitted are unacceptable in principle in landscape terms. They are contrary to Policy E6 of the Local Plan and would also have a negative impact on the character of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Conservation: Objection
The proposed dwelling would appear an oversized development on a large site, forming an incongruous and undesirable incursion into the open countryside, in a dominant position on rising ground above the Conservation Area out of character with the general pattern of development to the southern fringes of Kingsclere and affecting the setting and views into or out of the Conservation Area contrary to Policies E1 and E3 of the Local Plan 1996- 2011 and PPG 15.
Trees: No objection subject to conditions and the following comments:
The quality and landscape importance of the existing tree cover on and adjacent to the site:
Tree Preservation Order BDB 255 relates to several trees on the north Ecchinswell Road boundary (predominantly young/maturing sycamores, 1 field maple and 3 over mature ash) and to four sycamore and three limes (one of which ash been removed) at the southern end of the site. The only other vegetation of any note is a hedgerow consisting of predominantly young self set sycamore and hawthorn on the east (Fox's Lane) boundary and a patchy hedgerow on the west boundary (some of which is located outside the site) that includes self set sycamore, blackthorn and wild privet. There are no trees within the middle of the site where the old poultry sheds are located and where it is proposed to site the proposed dwelling.
The impact of the proposed development in physical and relationship terms on the existing tree cover
Proposed dwelling, access and tennis court
The proposed dwelling, tennis court and access will not impact on the existing tree cover.
Proposed stable block
25 of 71
The proposed stable block in the north east corner of the site shows an access onto Ecchinswell Road. From what I can tell from the plan and from my site visit, this will involve the removal of at least one protected sycamore (T5 on the TPO). I can find no reference to the need to remove any vegetation to construct this new access in the submitted plans and documents. The proposed stable block was not shown as part of the pre-application enquiry ENQ/25743 and is a new element. Sycamore T5 is one of several trees present on both sides of Ecchinswell Road and its removal will not have an adverse visual impact and there is plenty of scope to plant a more suitable replacement tree a little further to the east. In principal, I have no objections to the trees removal. There are level implications for the new access because an existing depression will need to be crossed. This should not impact on any of the adjacent trees.
Tree protection measures Given that the proposed house, access and tennis court are sited a long way from the boundary trees, it would be unreasonable to require a full Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Arboricultural Method Statement to be submitted. Tree protection can simply be achieved by securing the site itself with Heras fencing panels following demolition of the poultry sheds. Some additional protection around the existing access and the proposed new access onto the Ecchinswell Road will be required which can be achieved through a Tree Protection Plan.
Opportunities for new tree planting There is great scope for new tree planting on the site. The re-enforcement of the north, east and west boundaries with suitable native species will improve the diversity and screening function. Within the site, the use of more ornamental species would be appropriate and there is the opportunity to use large forest type trees.
Biodiversity: No objection subject to conditions and the following comments:
The Ecological Report (prepared by DLA) highlights the potential for the proposed development works to impact the following protected species:
Bats - The report concludes the farm buildings and bungalow on site have a low potential to support roosting bats but access to the bungalow's loft space was not available to inspect at the time of the survey. Therefore an informative is required to ensure works are stopped in the event bats are found.
It appears the proposed stable block will require access onto the Ecchinswell Road and it is the Tree Officer's belief that this will involve the removal of at least one mature tree (T5 on the TPO). As highlighted in DLA's report, the mature trees on site may have the potential to support roosting bats and, as such, a watching brief is required to ensure no bats are harmed during any proposed tree works.
Badgers - DLA's report highlights the presence of an outlier badger sett along the boundary of the site, however, the location of this is not shown on the map in Figure 3. Although the sett showed no sign of recent activity at the time of the survey, outlier setts are intermittently used. Therefore details on the steps that will be taken to protect badgers during the proposed development works are required if the sett is occupied during the proposed development. 26 of 71 Reptiles - DLA's report recommends mitigation procedures are followed to ensure no reptiles are injured or killed during the proposed development works. Information on the measures that will be taken is required.
Breeding Birds - As mentioned above, it appears trees and hedgerow will need to be removed to construct the proposed access to the stable block. As a result information on the measures that will be taken to protect breeding birds is required.
Habitat Enhancement - Suggestions of suitable habitat/wildlife enhancement proposals for the site are given in Section 5.5 of DLA's Habitat Survey report.
Environmental Health: No objection subject to conditions and the following comments:
Have reviewed the above-mentioned planning application and noted that there are potentially infilled pits in the vicinity of the site. In view of this, recommend that contaminated land conditions are included in any planning permission granted. In addition, due to the close proximity of nearby residents I would also recommend conditions to protect amenity. Due to concerns that the buildings on site may contain some form of asbestos, would like to see a method statement detailing how this will be removed, if present, so it does not pose a risk to current or future occupiers of the site.
Hampshire County Council Rights of Way Officer: No objection
"Thank you for sending us the amended plan, 08 - P491 - 200 C, now showing the correct line of Kingsclere Footpath No 81.
We have no objection to the proposal, but would echo and support the calls for an off-road path along the eastern boundary of the site, running parallel with Fox's Lane. This need was identified through our consultation carried out during the preparation of our Countryside Access Plan (Hampshire's version of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan required under The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000).
As the response from the local Ramblers Association representative suggests, the difference in ground levels should not be an insurmountable problem".
Natural England: Comments:
Natural England welcomes the submission of the Ecological Survey and we strongly recommend that you consult your in-house/retained ecologist with regards to the results of the survey and the appropriateness of the mitigation proposed. We suggest that the findings of the survey require careful consideration owing to the limitations detailed in Section 5.2, page 19 of the Ecological Survey (DLA Ltd., July 2009). This is in line with Natural England's standing advice.
Advice under S82 and S85 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000)
Landscape:
We feel that this proposal, in its current form, has the potential to cause significant impact to the landscape of the North Wessex Downs AONB. We refer you to the advice of the North Wessex Downs AONB office and recommend that advice offered by them is strictly adhered to.
27 of 71
In addition, we would expect the Local Planning Authority to assess and consider the possible impacts resulting from this proposal on the following when determining this application:
Biodiversity enhancements:
This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The Council should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 14 of PPS9. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.
SUDS:
Natural England would also advise that the incorporation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) for example balancing ponds, reed beds, or porous paving are fully assessed in such development proposals.
North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) advisor: Objection:
"The site is located within the North Wessex Downs AOND. The North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan 2009-2014 states at page 63 in respect of development within the AONB, that a key issue that can affect the special qualities are "New large free- standing houses as replacement dwellings in open countryside...."
It is appreciated that there is an opportunity on this site for landscape enhancement through removal of all the existing redundant buildings and accordingly there is scope under the replacement dwelling policy for a new house.
However the scale of the proposed dwelling goes beyond what would normally be expected of a replacement dwelling in respect of comparable height, location and size. The new access to the north and stable block would also result in the site being opened up and new development in a location where there is none at the moment.
The existing use, although not attractive, is obviously a well established agricultural feature in the landscape. A more modest proposal which came closer to the replacement dwelling policy; without the new access; possibly at a lower level; and the stable building relocation within an area of existing development; would start to address the concerns of the North Wessex Downs AONB".
Ramblers Association: Objection:
"The Ramblers Association has as its key charitable objectives the promotion of walking, protection of Rights of Way, campaigning for increased access opportunities, and the protection of the countryside. This planning application is of interest to us as the site lies
28 of 71 within the North Wessex Downs AONB, an attractive area well used for walking. The proposal also affects Right of Way Kingsclere Footpath 81.
There is a discrepancy in how the route of the Right of Way is shown on the various plans and diagrams submitted with the application. The plan labelled 'Existing Site Analyses' shows the route of Footpath 81 with reasonable accuracy. The location plan and site layout plan incorrectly show the route of the Right of Way. The landscaping proposals refer to new tree planting along the footpath but the correctly shown line of the footpath passes through an area proposed to be used as 'paddocks'. Revised plans require to be submitted so that the impact of the proposals on the footpath can be properly assessed and comments submitted accordingly.
Mention is made of a public consultation exercise undertaken as part of pre-application discussions which identified a local requirement for a footpath to be created within the application site along Fox's Lane. We would support such a proposal as it would increase pedestrian safety along Fox's Lane and encourage more people to walk rather than use their cars. The difference in ground levels raised by the applicant as a reason not to provide such a path need not be a insurmountable problem as the path could run in the field behind the hedge at a higher level than the road.
The application site lies out with the settlement boundary of Kingsclere. The settlement boundary has been drawn to protect the character of Kingsclere, its Conservation Area and the landscape and character of the North Wessex Downs. We consider that an active agricultural economy is essential to the protection of the character of the North Wessex Downs and we would not wish to see this land taken out of agricultural use unnecessarily. Although the photographs provided with the application appear to show the agricultural buildings currently unused and in some cases to be in a ruinous condition the information supplied in the Design and Access statement indicates that these buildings are not redundant. The owner has apparently received approaches from companies who would be interested in using the buildings for agricultural use, including approaches from a large agricultural feed supplier. We consider that in such circumstance the land should remain in agricultural use".
Public Observations
Four letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:
Site can be seen from high points around village. Proposed house as high as agricultural buildings. Materials should blend with rural landscape. Design should respect the area. Overlooking. Increased light pollution. Intrusive. Inconsistent with rural nature of site. Proposal fails Policy E1 as does not respect amenities of neighbouring occupiers. Land is outside village settlement and is classed for agricultural use. If this is granted, the whole question of the redevelopment of Fox's Lane is again raised. The chicken farm is an eyesore, but the development now proposed should not be used as an excuse to overcome that problem.
29 of 71 Twelve letters of support have been received raising the following comments:
Site is dangerous. Site is unattractive. Development is in keeping with the type of dwellings in the area. The village can easily support the occupants of this house. This application suits the location. Site could be developed for an agribusiness which would be less appropriate for location. Highly regarded developer. Significant property but includes significant screening. Appearance of village greatly improved. A covenant against further development of the site should be included. Best development of the site. Demolition of the farm buildings would significantly enhance the area overall. Need to resolve uncertainty over Fox's Farm. No additional traffic generated. No loss of amenity to walkers. No strain on Kingsclere's water supply or sewers. Demand for sizeable properties in this location. Chicken sheds are unsightly and unsafe. Blot on landscape. If this is refused, a feed depot will be developed. Not dominant. Well designed. Will fit in with landscape. Existing buildings a safety hazard. Proposal shows sensitivity to the location.
Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) have provided the following comments:
"CPRE does from time to time submit objections to planning applications but on this occasion we wish to support the application.
Fox's Farm is at present an eyesore with its derelict farm buildings and will benefit from sympathetic redevelopment. Earlier proposals have not been appropriate for various reasons, but the current one is quite suitable.
The large house with its various outbuildings and tennis court will occupy much of the site but, we understand, will be below the crest of the hill and will therefore not be too conspicuous. We are also told that the developer proposes to plant a number of trees which, when they grow up, will hide the buildings to a considerable extent.
We are told that the present owner will, if the current application is refused, negotiate with a grain merchant who would establish a depot with silos and a lorry park. That would lead to numerous HGV movements and be detrimental to the area.
The current application is much preferred and we strongly support it".
The Open Spaces Society have provided the following comments:
30 of 71 "We would object to any proposal to divert this path along the line suggested. It does not need to be moved to allow the proposed development to be carried out. Although the view is slightly increased from the 'picnic area', similar views are obtainable from many other paths in the area. Introducing this dog-leg is an unnecessary deviation and causes the path to hug the northern boundary of the adjacent property. This is not an attractive prospect. Nor would it be popular with the residents, I expect".
Planning Policy and Material Considerations
Policy Considerations
The site is located outside any identified Settlement Policy Boundary and is within the countryside. The site is within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and is also adjacent to the Kingsclere Conservation Area. The proposal needs to be assessed against relevant national planning policy guidance, the policies of the Development Plan and any relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents.
National Planning Guidance
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) recognises (at paragraph 17) that “The Government is committed to protecting and enhancing the quality of the natural and historic environment…Planning policies should seek to protect and enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the countryside”. At paragraph 19 it states that planning decisions should be based on the potential impacts, positive as well as negative, on the environment of development proposals and recognition of the limits of the environment to accept further development without irreversible damage. Paragraph 19 goes on to recognise that: “Planning Authorities should seek to enhance the environment as part of development proposals. Significant adverse impacts on the environment should be avoided and alternative options which might eliminate those impacts pursued”.
Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7) states at paragraph 1(iv) that "New building development in the open countryside away from existing settlements...should be strictly controlled; the Government's overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all". Paragraph (vi) goes on to state that "All development in rural areas should be well designed and inclusive, in keeping and scale with its location, and sensitive to the character of the countryside and local distinctiveness".
Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment (PPG15) is also relevant given the sites location adjacent to a Conservation Area. The Development Plan The Development Plan comprises The South East Plan - Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England May 2009 (SEP). This forms a part of the Development Plan alongside the saved Policies of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011 (BDBLP).
Policy C3 of the SEP states that "High priority will be given to conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in the region's Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and planning decisions should have regard to their setting. Proposals for development should be considered in that context." In considering proposals for development, there is an emphasis in the SEP on small-scale proposals that are sustainable located and designed.
31 of 71 Policy BE6 of the SEP sets out guidance on managing the historic environment and states that proposals should protect, conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment and the contribution it makes to local distinctiveness and a sense of place.
Policy D6 of the BDBLP refers to the provision of new residential accommodation in the countryside and states that the one-for-one replacement of an existing dwelling which has been continuously occupied, and is not derelict, will be permitted. Paragraph 1.53 of the Local Plan provides the supporting text to Policy D6 and states that "Replacement dwellings should not significantly change the siting, scale, setting and character of the existing dwelling in order to protect the rural character of the area and to ensure that there remains a variety of dwelling sizes in the countryside to provide for a range of housing needs".
Policy E1 of the BDBLP is a general development control policy which expects new development to be of a high standard of design, make efficient use of land, respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety. Criterion (i) requires proposals to respond to the local context in terms of design, siting, density and spacing, and states that proposals should reinforce attractive qualities of local distinctiveness. Criterion (ii) requires proposals to provide a comprehensive landscaping scheme, where appropriate, enabling development to successfully integrate with the landscape and surrounds. Criterion (iii) states that proposals should not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety.
Policy E3 of the BDBLP is relevant and states that proposals should preserve or enhance the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. Proposals on sites which are adjacent to a Conservation Area are required to respect the setting of Conservation Area and should protect important views into the area.
Policy E6 of the BDBLP refers to development in countryside locations and states that planning permission will only be granted where it is demonstrated that the proposals will be sympathetic to the landscape character of the area concerned. Development proposals should contribute to the regeneration, restoration, repair or conservation of any landscape likely to be affected. In particular, criterion (ii) requires proposals to respect the visual amenity and scenic quality of an area. Criterion (iv) requires proposals to respect the local character of buildings and settlements, including important open areas. Whilst criteria (v) states that proposals should respect and improve trees, hedgerows and other landscape elements. Policy E6 also requires consideration to be given to the impact of the development on the sense of place, sense of remoteness or tranquillity, and the quiet enjoyment of the landscape from public rights of way. Policy E6 also recognises that the designation of the North Wessex Downs AONB reflects the national importance of that landscape.
Policy E7 of the BDBLP sets out the Council's policy on Biodiversity and Nature Conservation. The Policy states that proposals for development will be permitted where it will not have an adverse effect on protected species or on the conservation status of priority species, or lead to a loss or deterioration of a key habitat type or harm the integrity of linkages between such sites and habitats. The Policy goes on to state that applications for development must include adequate information to enable a proper assessment of the implications for biodiversity.
Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents
32 of 71 The Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2008 is a material planning consideration and Appendix 13 sets out guidance on Replacement Dwellings. It is stated that “Small dwellings in the countryside can have little visual impact on the surrounding rural character of the area. Conversely, their replacement with larger grandiose properties can have a significant impact on the area. Proposals for new dwellings that are significantly larger than the dwellings that they are replacing will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where the development can be appropriately justified”.
Appendix 14 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2008 sets out the Countryside Design Summary (CDS) which is also a material planning consideration and relevant to the assessment of this application. The guidance advocates a locally-based approach to design and planning, and expects all planning applications to respond to the guidance. It states: "The local distinctiveness of the landscape is fundamental to creating a ‘sense of place’ and it makes an important contribution to the quality of life enjoyed by the Borough's residents and visitors. However, these qualities are under threat – not from change itself, but from standardisation. There has been an erosion of local character, in recent years, through standardised building design that has failed to respond to local traditions. This suggests that the Borough Council needs to be more explicit in setting out the components of the high design standards that we seek".
Appendix 4 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2008 contains adopted guidance on development proposals in Conservation Areas. This document, entitled "The Historic Environment: Conservation Areas" is a material planning consideration given that the site is adjacent to a Conservation Area.
Whilst the CDS emphasises good design in terms of traditional building forms, the LPA does not wish to inhibit good modern design or limit progress on sustainability issues, such as improved energy efficiency. Modern design that reflects local style and is responsive to local character is to be welcomed, and on some sites innovative contrasts can be an appropriate and acceptable response to the specific location.
The CDS states that the siting of new built development should reflect the way in which the existing settlements relate to the surrounding landscape. New development should reflect the form, scale and proportions of existing vernacular buildings in the area and pick up on the traditional building styles, materials, colours and textures. The CDS states that narrow country lanes should be protected from urbanisation and recognises that the LPA strongly support the concept that new development in the countryside can, and should, contribute to a sense of local identity and diversity.
The site is within the Clere Scarp Landscape Character Area as defined by the Basingstoke and Deane Landscape Assessment 2001. This has been adopted by the LPA as Supplementary Planning Guidance. The Clere Scarp Landscape Character Area is characterised by the following features:
A dramatic steep chalk scarp face, forming an impressive backdrop to the lowland landscapes to the north, and affording long views from points such as Beacon Hill Predominantly open pasture with small areas of encroaching scrub and occasional woodland blocks on the steep scarp slopes, with arable fields present on more shallow slopes Lies within North Wessex Downs AONB, generally possessing an unspoilt character. Landform restricts extent of built form or roads. Low settlement density with only a small scattering of farm buildings. Roads are
33 of 71 relatively straight and direct Generally large, open parliamentary arable fields below the scarp Generally high intervisibility within and outside the area, particularly from the top of the scarp and the open arable fields to the north
Proposals should preserve the landscape character area of which they are part and proposals will be assessed against the guidelines within the Borough Landscape Assessment.
The Kingsclere Village Design Statement (VDS) was adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance in July 2002. This document provides a historical background to Kingsclere village and the surrounding area and provides guidelines for new development that are considered to be important locally. The following guidelines are considered to be applicable to residential development at this site:
Any new development should respect the character of the countryside as described in the Borough Rural Landscape Assessment. Any future development should respect the character and natural limits of the village. Any planning proposals for the area should respect the quality of the landscape so that the function as a resource for informal, quiet recreation can continue. Other designations designed to protect special characteristics in the parish should be observed. Land uses which have a suburbanising effect on the landscape are not appropriate. Neither new developments nor extensions should detrimentally affect existing publicly accessible views into or out of the settlement or harm views from local rights of way. Potential impacts of development on distant views (eg prominent roofs on the skyline, isolated buildings within fields, large windows which reflect the light) should be avoided. When developing outside the settlement policy boundary, care must be taken to minimise the effect on the landscape of suburbanising influences such as standardised accesses, footways, kerbs, lighting and building forms. Visually significant trees, hedgerows and wooded areas in public spaces should be cared for, conserved and, in due course, suitably replaced. Where visually significant trees or hedgerows are on private land, owners should be encouraged to care for them appropriately. The removal of hedgerows should be resisted.
Proposals should:
reflect both the size and scale of existing buildings and their position within the building plot. generally be single or two storey and the roof line should not be higher than that of surrounding buildings. continue the tradition of incorporating interesting and sympathetic details in new development. include components (such as doors, windows, height, pitch and ridges of roofs) which have regard to those already present in the locality. maintain existing mature trees, hedges and, where possible, shrub planting. New planting adjacent to open country and public spaces should be of indigenous species. incorporate plot boundaries of natural features (weathered brick and hedging rather than timber fencing). continue the tradition of incorporating interesting and sympathetic details in new development.
34 of 71 The Residential Parking Standards 2008 are adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance and set out the parking requirements for residential developments. In rural localities such as this, a dwelling with four or more bedrooms is expected to provide three parking spaces.
Site History
The site has an agricultural use and in 1974 planning permission was granted under BDC 667 for the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling on the site. This building took the form of a bungalow to the north of the site. This bungalow was subject to an agricultural occupancy condition, however a Certificate of Lawfulness was granted in December 2007 under BDB 67400 as the dwelling had not been occupied by an agricultural worker since at least 1990.
Between the late 1980's and 2005 numerous planning applications have been submitted for the redevelopment of the site for various residential and commercial schemes. All applications submitted have either been withdrawn or refused. The most recent application of note is application BDB 57329 which proposed the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of 24 no. 2, 3, 4 & 5 bedroom dwellings (incl. live/work units) together with access, car parking open space and landscaping. This application was refused by Officers in 2004 under delegated powers and the Council's decision was upheld at appeal by an Inspector. There were a total of nine reasons for refusing BDB 57329, however the key concerns can be summarised as follows:
The sites location outside the Settlement Policy Boundary within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Visually intrusive to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Insufficient agricultural justification for units of residential accommodation on this land in the countryside Undesirable intensification of sporadic development in the countryside. Out of keeping with the established character, pattern and generally prevailing density of development in the locality. Site cannot be considered as `previously developed` land and as such is considered to be a Greenfield site. Traffic concerns. Sustainability concerns. Detrimental to the Kingsclere Conservation Area. Lack of suitable contributions towards open space and community infrastructure.
The applicant undertook pre-application discussions with the Council in February 2009 and comments were provided on the proposals submitted. The following concerns were raised by Officers during the pre-application discussions:
Impact on the character of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Urban use and built form in a rural location. Impact on the Conservation Area. Highway Safety.
This application has been submitted following this pre-application response and seeks to address the concerns Officers raised.
35 of 71 Principle of replacing and re-siting the existing dwelling
Policy D6 accepts that a one-for-one replacement dwelling can be permitted in the countryside. One requirement is that the dwelling being replaced should have been continuously occupied and should not be derelict. In this regard, the existing dwelling appears to be occupied at present and as such, it is considered that the principle of replacing the existing dwelling is acceptable. the existing dwelling is also of no architectural merit and therefore there is no objection in principle to its replacement. Any proposal for a replacement dwelling also needs to be assessed against Paragraph 1.53 of Policy D6 which states that a replacement dwelling will be permitted providing it does not significantly change the siting, scale, setting and character of the existing dwelling in order to protect the rural character of the area.
The proposed dwelling would be sited some 20m to the southwest of the existing dwelling and would be on higher ground than the existing dwelling. As such, it is considered that the proposed replacement dwelling would significantly change the siting of the existing dwelling. Such a change can only be accepted where some positive environmental benefit is achieved and subject to compliance with all other relevant national and local planning policy.
The applicant contends that the proposal complies with Policy D6 and states "the new proposed dwelling is re-sited to a more acceptable location, and with the significant benefit of removal of the existing large agricultural buildings and hardstanding".
There is no explanation as to why the present location of the dwelling is unacceptable, and therefore the sole consideration in assessing the re-siting of the dwelling is whether the removal of the existing poultry buildings would be of a sufficient benefit to comply with Paragraph 1.53 of Policy D6.
There are seven poultry buildings on site in various conditions. There are also two small brick built utility buildings within the centre of the site. The poultry buildings are utilitarian in appearance and some are showing signs of collapse. There does not appear to have been any investment to maintain the buildings other than the erection of security fencing around the site presumably for security and safety purposes. The buildings have vegetation growing against and within them and this is contributing to the decay of the buildings.
It is noted at Paragraph 26 of the Inspector's appeal decision into BDB 57329 that "The Inspector who dealt with the 1993 appeal on the site found that they [the poultry buildings] were out of keeping with the landscape and the houses nearby ... Accordingly, there would be some benefit to achieving their removal". However at Paragraph 27 the Inspector went on to state that "The appeal Inspector in 1993 found that it was questionable whether the buildings would achieve a life expectancy of five or ten years, which led him to conclude that the benefit of removing the buildings would be of a limited duration". Clearly in 2005, some 12 years later, the buildings were still present on site and in this regard, at Paragraph 28 of the decision the Inspector states "I was told for the appellants that there were no specific plans to maintain the buildings, and no investment had taken place since 1993 other than site clearance and fencing. Nothing had been done to prevent the roof collapses ... or to secure other roofs. I accept that some parts of the buildings will be more resilient to decay than others. However, in the absence of substantive evidence of attempts to stem the dereliction of the buildings, I also take the view that their long term retention is not guaranteed. I therefore attach little importance to the value of their early removal".
36 of 71 The applicant has not provided any further justification with this application to support their proposal to re-site the existing dwelling to the location of the poultry buildings. Officers concur with the view that the existing poultry buildings have a limited life expectancy, as identified by both Inspectors in the 1993 and 2005 appeals. Furthermore, Officers are also mindful of the fact that, if the Local Planning Authority considers the amenity of any part of its area is adversely affected by the condition of any land or building, it may serve the owner/occupier a notice under S.215 of the Act which would require the owner/occupier to take action to remedy the situation.
Therefore, whilst acknowledging that there would be some benefit to the wider area through the removal of the buildings from the site, it is considered that the buildings have a limited life expectancy in their current condition and therefore Officers attach very limited weight to their early removal through this application. Furthermore, the sites appearance could be improved through other means not involving the substantial redevelopment of the site proposed though this application. It is therefore considered that the removal of the poultry buildings does not provide the positive environmental benefit sought under Policy D6 to justify the resiting of a dwelling.
Impact of the proposal on the landscape character of the area
The application site is located within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This designation is described within PPS7 as one of the highest levels of protection in relation to landscape. The conservation of the natural beauty and character of the landscape is therefore key.
The landscape character of the area is defined in the "policy" section above and it is considered that the application site relates well to this overall character. The site comprises agricultural land situated to the east of an arrangement of generally large scale fields, at the western edge of Kingsclere. The site is bordered by linear roads on two sides, and a linear pattern of residential land use borders the opposite side of the road east of the site. The scarp, which dominates this area, is to the south.
Having reviewed the proposals and visited the site and its context, it is considered that the application proposals will have an adverse impact on the landscape character described above. The character of the site would be altered significantly from what is currently distinctively agricultural, to something dominated by domesticity of a grand and formal nature. This would in principle be negative in landscape terms, and would be contrary to Policy E6 of the Local Plan.
The proposed dwelling would be significantly larger and of a greater bulk than the existing dwelling, and of a more grand appearance that would not relate positively to either the subtle rural and agricultural character of the site, or the smaller scale more urban context of Kingsclere. Referring to the Countryside Design Summary and Village Design Statement for Kingsclere, the scale and character of the proposals would be contrary to both of these planning guidance documents.
The proposed siting of the house on the site does not relate to the linear type of residential arrangement in the surrounding area, and with regard to the access drive proposed, with its turning area and treed avenue, this would contribute to a striking and grand appearance for the site, which would add to that of the dwelling and associated features, and contribute to the adverse impact on the agricultural character of the site. Other proposed features of the residential proposals such as the metal entrance gates and estate railings are also overtly grand and non-agricultural, being more indicative of a large urban residence. The
37 of 71 overall arrangement of the proposals on the site and the relationship of the residential curtilage to the remaining paddocks appears uncomfortable and would not be characteristic of the local area.
The proposed stable building would involve a new access being created from Ecchinswell Road, which at the point shown has the character of a sunken lane, the vegetated lane verges rising up at each side. The works required to create this access could involve the removal of large amounts of vegetation, as well as require significant earthwork's, and if so this would have an adverse impact on the character of this rural lane.
With regard to the visual impact of the proposals, being on elevated land, and due to the size and scale of the dwelling and other associated features, the proposed development would be visually prominent within the immediate area, and from points along Fox's Lane and Ecchinswell Road. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on views from these vantage points. From the Public Right of Way to the west, clear views of the house and other buildings would be possible within views across the site, and this presence would have a negative impact on the visual amenity of the area.
The proposed boundary treatments of ornamental estate railings and entrance gates would contribute to the adverse impact on visual amenity. It is noted that within the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment submitted by the applicant's that reference is made to tall hazel hurdle fencing being used whilst the proposed hedgerow establishes, for privacy reasons. This highlights the visibility of the site, and also is of concern due to the visual impact that domestic fencing of this type would have in a countryside location such as this. The opening up of an additional access from Ecchinswell Road for the stables would open up views in to the site at this point, which would add to the wider adverse visual impact of the overall proposals. In itself the new access would have an adverse visual impact on this rural lane due to the likely removal of vegetation and earthwork's.
As such, and although it is acknowledged that additional landscaping is proposed around the replacement dwelling and the site in general, it is considered that the dwelling would be more prominent within the landscape due to its siting and elevated positioning in comparison to the existing. It is therefore concluded that the proposal would have a more apparent and adverse impact on visual amenity and upon the landscape character of the area. The proposal would therefore be harmful to the North Wessex Downs AONB by adversely affecting its character and setting at this point. The proposal also conflicts with the guidance for new development set out within the Kingsclere Village Design Statement in terms of its impact on the landscape character of the area and also due to its siting away from the existing developed boundaries of the village. The proposal also fails to be consistent with adopted supplementary planning guidance in the form of the Countryside Design Summary and the Borough landscape Character Assessment. The proposal also clearly conflicts with national guidance in PPS7, with Policy C3 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East and with Policy E6 of the Borough Local Plan.
Impact on the Conservation Area The site is not located within, but lies adjacent to the Kingsclere Conservation Area. PPG 15 advises at Paragraph 4.14 "The desirability of preserving or enhancing the area should also in the Secretary of States view, be a material consideration in the planning authority's handling of development proposals which are outside the conservation area but would affect its setting, or views into or out of the area". A key consideration therefore is the preservation or enhancement of the setting, character or appearance of the conservation area and the preservation of the local architectural/historic interest of any adjacent locally listed building. 38 of 71 The Conservation Officer has noted that the existing poultry buildings are in a poor condition and states their removal would be seen as a positive improvement to the setting of the Conservation Area. However, it has also been noted that the proposed development is for a substantial dwelling on an elevated location which, due to the location on raised ground and the size of the building proposed, the application dwelling could be visible from view points within the Conservation Area and from the Conservation Area, as well as possibly affecting views into Kingsclere. Furthermore, the Conservation Officer has advised that the setting of the proposed dwelling does not integrate into the existing pattern of development.
In terms of conservation issues, in principle the removal of the existing poultry buildings would be welcomed, however there are concerns given the proposed size of the dwelling and its location. The conclusions reached therefore are that this proposal would adversely affect the views in and out of the Conservation Area.
Overall it is therefore considered that the proposal conflicts with Policy E3 of the Local Plan, Appendix 4 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2008 and the guidance within PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment as it fails to preserve the setting of the Conservation Area.
Considerations on design, scale and bulk
The existing dwelling has a gross floor area of approximately 110sqm. The proposed replacement dwelling and attached annexe accommodation would have a gross floor area of approximately 830m² and therefore would significantly increase the floorspace of the existing dwelling by just over 700m², an increase of over 600% over the existing dwelling. This indicates a disproportionate increase in terms of floorspace over the existing dwelling. Officers consider that the proposed increase in floor area will significantly and detrimentally increase the scale of existing development on this rural site. It is considered that the floor area proposed is excessive and, given that this is a sensitive rural area, which should be afforded the highest level of protection given its AONB designation, it is considered that the scale of this development would be damaging to and be entirely out of keeping with the local context.
The existing dwelling is also tucked closely to the northern boundary of the site and although it is a 1970's structure of no architectural merit, given its size and positioning it has a neutral impact on the surrounding landscape. The length of the existing dwelling is 14m and it has a width of 8m. The existing dwelling also runs east - west, following the boundary of the site. The proposed dwelling however is positioned centrally within the site and runs north - south stretching the built form across the site. The proposed dwelling has a length of 40m and a maximum depth of 17m. It is considered that both the length and depth of the dwelling proposed, together with the massing of the development, would result in a visually more solid building mass, significantly increasing the bulk of development over the existing dwelling. It is considered that this bulk would be unacceptable in this rural location, out of keeping with residential development in the vicinity and detrimental to the sites location in the AONB.
The existing bungalow is set on lower ground than the proposed dwelling. The height of the proposed dwelling is 10.2m and given that the dwelling is to be sited on higher ground, it will be far more visible than the existing. Notwithstanding the fact that the proposed dwelling will be lower in height than the western most poultry building, it is considered that the proposed building is of a greater bulk and height than the existing dwelling, and given its proposed new siting, it is considered that it will have an overly prominent relationship
39 of 71 with its surroundings with resulting harm to the rural character of the area. It is evident from the proposed elevation drawings that the new building would occupy a greater proportion of the plot than the existing dwelling and would have a much more bulky appearance and greater scale.
Even though the proposed dwelling will replace seven large poultry buildings on the site, the LPA does not accept the applicant's argument that the removal of these buildings would be of a sufficient benefit to outweigh the harm that would be caused to the landscape character of the area through permitting a development of the scale and bulk proposed. Furthermore, although the poultry buildings have a poor appearance, and despite the fact that they are large and utilitarian in design, they are constructed with simple lines, regular spacing and muted colouring. They do not stand out in the landscape and clearly form part of the rural scene. The proposed development on the other hand will introduce a mixture of render, brick, tile and timber to the site. The proposed dwelling is only one element of the proposal and whilst that in itself is considered to be harmful, added together with the access drive, the tree lined avenue, the parking court, the terraced areas, the tennis court, the bridleways, the stable block and the estate fencing, it is considered that the development would contrast starkly with the appearance of the existing poultry buildings. In Officer's opinion, the proposed development would stand out as an isolated urban development in a rural location, and would, as a result, be wholly out of character with the area detrimentally and irreversibly affecting the setting of the AONB, the Conservation Area and the landscape character of the area.
The proposed development would be visible from vantage points in the area and from the public footpath immediately adjacent to the site. Whilst additional planting has been proposed, and whilst it is acknowledged that in the long term this may assist in providing some screening of the development, in the short to medium term, whilst the planting is established, the development will be visible. Given the prominent urban form of the development, it is considered that landscape planting will have little effect in reducing the harm caused to the rural character of the area, which contributes to the scenic beauty of the AONB. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies, D6, E1, E3 and E6 of the Local Plan and the national, regional and supplementary planning guidance referred to above.
The proposed replacement dwelling would take the form of Georgian design and the proposed dwelling has the appearance of a grandiose structure extended over time. Georgian architecture was prevalent in England in the 18th and early 19th Centuries. It derived from the classical and renaissance forms and consists of often large, grand dwellings, with detailing to the principle elevations. The Planning, Design, Access and Community Involvement Statement asserts that the design is based on a traditional Georgian farmhouse, designed to give the impression that it has been extended over a number of years. The proposed dwelling does respect the proportions of Georgian architecture, maintaining the hierarchy in window sizes and incorporating traditional feature, typical of the period. There is no objection per se to this architectural style being used, and it is noted that Kingsclere itself contains mainly buildings which are from this period. However, the proposed "farmhouse" is too formal in its appearance and this would exacerbate its impact on the quiet rural character of the surrounding area. The style of building leans more toward a country house rather than a farm building typical of this area. It is considered that due to the location of the dwelling and its excessive size, that the proposal would be entirely out of keeping to the more modest local context of buildings. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be alien to this locality and visually invasive to the detriment of the character of the surrounding area.
40 of 71 The proposal as submitted would fail to accord with Policy E1 of the BDBLP, which requires development proposals to "respond to the local context of buildings in terms of design" and to "reinforce attractive qualities of local distinctiveness". The site is located outside of the village boundaries and abuts two narrow country lanes which have a distinctive rural character. It is considered that the grandness of the Georgian design of the proposed building, coupled with the location and scale of the development proposed, that the resultant development would be in stark contrast to this existing subtle character. The imposing appearance of the proposed building would be visually invasive and out of context with existing development. This grand scale of dwelling is not reflected in the local context of buildings and would therefore fail to reinforce or contribute to the sense of local identity. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy E1 of the BDBLP and the guidance contained within Appendix 13 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2008. If the attached annex were detached and substantially reduced in size, and if the dwelling was located closer to the existing built development of Kingsclere, as noted in the VDS, and also reduced in size, then it is considered that Georgian architecture could be accepted in this location.
Whilst it is noted that the materials used will be locally sourced, this does not outweigh the harm that would result by permitting a dwelling of this scale and style in this prominent rural location. It is considered that the proposal would significantly alter the character of the built form on the site from the present simple rural form similar to that found in the immediate vicinity, to a grander and visually more prominent style of dwelling that has no point of reference with its surroundings.
It should also be noted that Officers disagree with the extent of residential curtilage shown by the applicant on the submitted plans for the existing dwelling. This curtilage is not reflective of the actual curtilage on site which extends approximately 20m from the rear of the existing dwelling. The application proposes a lengthy access drive, terraces, garden area, tennis court and stable block. It is considered that the location of the tennis court and stable building would extend the residential curtilage of the proposed dwelling further into the countryside to a harmful extent. The access drive and other domestic features proposed in this application only exacerbate the impact here. It should be noted that there is no objection in principle to there being a tennis court, or a stable building on the site to serve the occupiers of a replacement dwelling, however it is considered that these structures should be positioned closer to the dwelling to minimise the sprawl of residential use into the countryside.
Proposed access, driveway and parking provision
Access to the proposed dwelling is via the existing access off Fox's Lane. Although this access to the site is not considered ideal in highway terms by the Local Highway Authority and would benefit from relocation or, at least, safety improvements, it is accepted that this is an existing situation and therefore the proposal could not be refused on the basis of the unsafe access given that it is maintains the existing situation. The Highway Officer is satisfied that the proposal could provide sufficient parking for the needs of the dwelling as required by the Residential Parking Standards SPD and Policy A1 of the Local Plan.
However, the application proposes a new access off of Ecchinswell Road in the northwestern corner of the site. This access will serve the proposed stable block with a private bridleway linking between the proposed stable block and the dwellinghouse. No details have been submitted with the application to demonstrate how this access would be constructed or the extent of vegetation that would be removed to accommodate the access. Ecchinswell Road is a 60mph limit. Whilst it is narrow and on a slope and
41 of 71 therefore vehicles are perhaps unlikely to be travelling at 60mph, a speed survey has not been submitted to demonstrate the actual speed of vehicles at the point of the proposed access. Manual for Streets recommends a visibility splay of 2.4m x 215m for accesses onto a 60mph road. This splay cannot achieved on site. The actual splay that can be achieved is 15m to the west and 90m to the east.
Vehicles travelling from the west are more likely to be travelling faster given that they are coming from the 60mph area towards the village which has a 30mph area. Bearing in mind that a horse box or car with horse trailer entering or emerging from the proposed access is likely to be doing so at low speeds, it is considered that the proposed access would be extremely dangerous both to its users and to other drivers using Ecchinswell Road due to the poor achievable visibility splay in the western direction. It should also be noted that this access is proposed, 10m from the public footpath which is frequented by pedestrians. It is therefore considered that the proposal would fail to accord with Policy E1(iii) as it would be detrimental to highway safety.
In the easterly direction, a splay of 90m is achievable. A 90m splay is sufficient if the speed of vehicles is within a 30mph limit. Given that vehicles are emerging from a 30mph zone at this point, it is possible that a 90m splay to the east would be sufficient. However no speed survey has been submitted with this application to confirm the speed of vehicles at this point. Therefore, the application would also fail to comply with Policy E1(iii) as above as the applicant has failed to demonstrate that suitable visibility splays can be provided for the proposed access.
Notwithstanding the comments above, in order to achieve a 90m splay in an easterly direction, a substantial section of roadside vegetation would need to be removed including several trees, some of which are covered by Tree Preservation Orders. Whilst the Council's Tree Officer has raised no objection to the proposed access, despite the fact that one tree covered by a TPO will be removed, this view was given on the basis of the information submitted with the application which does not show the visibility splays required to serve the access and does not take account of the amount of vegetation that would need to be removed in order to create safe visibility splays. There is no justification to create a new access for the stable block given that access could easily be provided from the existing access within the site. There is therefore no justification for the significant loss of protected trees or substantial vegetation in this location. It is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy E1(ii), E6(v) and E7 of the Local Plan, in addition, it would conflict with the Council's Tree Policy 2007.
If the vegetation to create a 90m splay was removed, it would also open up this section of the site and the views from Ecchinswell Road, thereby increasing the visual harm of the development from the north.
Additionally, as noted by the Highway Officer, no details of the proposed access have been submitted to demonstrate how it could be constructed. The access would be via a ditch and it is not clear from the information submitted however this access would be formed. The Highway Officer has therefore also objected on this point. Furthermore, no information has been submitted to demonstrate that vehicles using the stable access, which could comprise trailers and horse boxes, could turn adequately within the space proposed to ensure that they enter and exit the site in a forward gear. Therefore, an objection is also raised in this respect.
The Landscape Officer has raised an objection to the provision of the access track passing through the existing field. The proposed access drive runs through the existing field and
42 of 71 would further harm the character of the area. The submitted landscape proposals illustrate an avenue of trees lining the access which is considered to be indicative of how this area could develop into an extension of the residential curtilage in the future. This potential for further domestication of the rural character of the area would be unacceptable and contrary to the aims of Policy E6.
Other Matters
The comments of the objectors in respect of amenity are noted, however the proposed dwelling would be located 50m from those to the north, 125m from those to the east and 120m from those to the south. Whilst there are more windows within the proposed building than within the existing, and whilst the site is likely to be occupied more intensively than at present creating more light pollution and noise than existing, it is not considered that a reason for refusal on overlooking, loss of privacy or noise and disturbance could be substantiated, given the separation distances involved.
In respect of the comments from those in support of the proposal, it seems that these centre largely around who the applicant is, the uncertainty of Fox's Farm and fear of an agribusiness being started on site. Who submits a planning application is immaterial to reaching a decision on an application. It is not disputed that the proposals have been submitted with a great amount of detail, and the quality of the resultant development is likely to be high, however planning applications must be considered on their merits and in this instance, the application is considered to be unacceptable for the reasons set out. The uncertainty over Fox's Farm could be resolved through the serving of a S.215 notice which would address residents concerns regarding the unsightly nature of the buildings. Having discussed this matter with the Compliance and Enforcement Team, it is considered that there may be a case here for a S.215 notice to be served, however it is not for this report to determine whether such action should be taken. The Compliance and Enforcement Team are currently considering this issue. In respect of an agribusiness being established, it is noted in the applicant's supporting statement that "if this proposal fails then he will have little real alternative but to re-use the agricultural buildings for their existing use, and has indeed already received approaches from companies (including a large agricultural feed supplier) who would be interested in using the buildings for that purpose". Officers are mindful of the fears of residents regarding an agribusiness on this site, however the site has an established agricultural use that has been in situ since before a number of the surrounding dwellings were built. The site can lawfully be operated for agricultural purposes. Furthermore, it is accepted that under Part 6, Class B of the GPDO 1995 that works to refurbish the buildings could be carried out without the need for planning permission. However it must be borne in mind that this is an existing situation, the site can be used at any time for its lawful use and this planning application should not be approved solely to prevent an agricultural business operating from the site. The comments made above regarding the harm caused by this development should take precedence over any fear regarding the operation of a lawful agricultural business from the site.
It should also be noted that these proposals are substantially the same as those submitted in a pre-application enquiry under the reference ENQ/25743. Officers from Planning, Urban Design, Landscape and Conservation raised concerns at that stage regarding the proposals. Whilst it is noted that additional supporting information has been submitted with the application, it is considered that the proposal remains unacceptable.
The comments in respect of the position of Footpath No.81 have been noted and in this regard the footpath was shown differently on the proposed plans than on the existing plans
43 of 71 and definitive footpath maps. The applicant acknowledged that the footpath was shown in correctly and amended plans were submitted to reflect the correct position of the path. These plans were forwarded to the Rights of Way Officer at Hampshire County Council who withdrew their objection to the application. Comments have been raised regarding the provision of a footpath along Fox's Lane utilising land owned by Fox's Farm. These comments are noted, however it is not considered reasonable to require these works to take place through this application, since these works are not necessary in respect of this development. However an informative can be added to the Decision Notice to advise the applicant of the comments from The Ramblers Association and the Rights of Way Officer at Hampshire County Council.
It should also be noted that the applicant has indicated that the land not given over for residential use will become paddock land. There is no objection in principle for the site to be used for the keeping, grazing and exercising of horses, provided that this was on a private residential basis.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is RECOMMENDED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The proposed replacement dwelling and attached annex would, as a result of the design, bulk and scale of the development, be visually harmful to the character and appearance of this area of the countryside and would appear alien in this local context. The proposal would fail to respect the setting of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and would fail to preserve the setting of the Kingsclere Conservation Area. The proposed development is excessive for the locality and entirely out of keeping with the local context. As such the proposal would be contrary to the policy requirements and guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development; Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas; Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment; Policies C3 and BE6 of the South East Plan May 2009; Policies E1, E3, E6 and D6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011; and the guidance contained within Appendix 4: The historic Environment - Conservation Areas of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2008; Appendix 13: Replacement Dwellings of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2008; Appendix 14: The Countryside Design Summary of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2008 and The Borough Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Guidance 2001.
2. The proposed residential curtilage is substantial and would extend a domestic use into an area of agricultural land that is currently reflective of its agricultural surroundings. The domestification of this land, together with the proposed residential access drive, gates, fencing, avenue planting, terraces, tennis court and stable building, is considered to be inappropriate to the rural context of the area, out of keeping with the character of its surroundings. The proposal is considered to further erode the character of the area to the detriment of its visual amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to the guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke & Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, the Basingstoke & Deane Landscape Assessment Supplementary Planning Guidance 2001 and the Kingsclere Village Design Statement 2002. 44 of 71 3. The proposed new access onto Ecchinswell Road would result in the loss of native hedgerow and Protected Trees which would be visually unsatisfactory and detrimental to the amenities and scenic quality of the rural area, contrary to the guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7), Policies E1(i) (ii), E6(ii) (v) and E7 of the Basingstoke & Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, and the provisions set out in the Kingsclere Village Design Statement 2002, the Basingstoke and Deane Landscape Assessment Supplementary Planning Guidance 2001 and the Council's adopted Tree Policy 2007.
4. Ecchinswell Road is a classified road and has a national speed limit of 60mph westwards form its junction with Fox's Lane. It has not been demonstrated that: a) adequate visibility splays can be provided along the Ecchinswell Road frontage within the red line boundary; b) ground levels will be compatible to provide appropriate gradients to/from the highway; and d) parking and turning for vehicles using the stable block can be achieved for vehicles entering and leaving the site in a forward gear. As such, and in the absence of information to demonstrate otherwise, it is considered that the proposal would fail to accord with Policy E1(iii) of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 as it would result in the provision of a new access, the use of which would conflict with highway safety.
45 of 71 Minor and Other Application
Cttee: 13/01/2010 Item No. 04
Application no: BDB/71408 For Details and Plans Click here
Site Address 7 The Baredown, Nately Scures, Hook, RG27 9JT Proposal Construction of a first floor with dormer windows and roof lights in the front and rear elevations. Erection of single storey front extensions forming car port and front porch
Registered: 26/10/2009 Expiry Date: 21/12/2009 Type of Householder Case Officer: Claire Cook Application: Permission 01256 845444 Applicant: Mr R Bass Agent: Lawrence Nardi Ltd Ward: Basing Ward Member(s): Cllr Ms O V Cubitt Cllr S Godesen* Cllr S T Marks*
Parish: Newnham OS Grid Reference: 470581,153078
Recommendation: Approve
General Comments
This application is brought to the Development Control Committee in line with the scheme of delegation as more than four letters of objection have been received from neighbouring residential properties and the application is recommended for approval.
Description of Site
The host dwelling is a detached brick and tile bungalow with gabled roof. The property has an attached double garage which projects forward of the front elevation. The property is set down at a significantly lower ground level than the road to the north and the gradient of the land also declines from the east to the west of the site. As such, the neighbouring property to the east No.6 The Baredown (which is a chalet bungalow) is at a higher ground level than the application site and the neighbouring property to the west No.8 The Baredown (which is a two storey dwelling) is at a lower ground level. The property is enclosed along the boundaries by a mixture of hedging and fencing. There is woodland to the rear (south) of the application site and to the front the trees within the front garden of the dwelling and No.8 The Baredown have a Tree Protection Order (TPO) placed upon them. There are further neighbouring properties opposite the dwelling house to the north.
Proposal
The applicant seeks permission for the construction of a first floor with dormer windows and roof lights in the front and rear roof slopes.
Two dormers and a gable feature are proposed to the front elevation and French doors with gable canopy above and two dormer windows are proposed in the rear roof slope. 46 of 71 The eastern end of the property has been set approximately 0.8m down from the proposed main ridge of the dwelling and a roof light is proposed in each of the front and rear roof slopes. The proposed development would increase the number of bedrooms in the property from four to five (four at first floor and one at ground floor).
The proposal also seeks permission for the erection of single storey front extensions forming a car port (with roof light in the eastern roof slope) and front porch. Half of the existing double garage would be converted into living accommodation to provide an enlarged kitchen and utility room and two roof lights would be inserted in the eastern roof slope.
A bat survey was submitted during the course of the planning application.
Relevant Planning History
None.
Consultations
Parish Council: No objection to amended plans:
"Although a very large extension, it is our opinion that the development is not out of keeping with its environment".
Local Highway Authority: No highway implications.
Biodiversity: No objection subject to condition:
"I am satisfied that there is no satisfactory alternative in terms of meeting the applicant’s objectives for increased living space. Therefore I would accept that Reg 44(3)(a) of the Habitat Regulations has now been satisfied. I am also of the view that the proposed development will maintain the favourable conservation status of the species concerned if the mitigation proposals given in the bat survey are conditioned. Finally, the benefits of the proposed works would appear to satisfy the overriding public interest Reg 44(2)(e) of the Habitat Regulations in my opinion". Trees: No objection:
"The quality and landscape importance of the existing tree cover on and adjacent to the site Tree Preservation Order BDB297 relates to three trees on the site, a horse chestnut (T5 on the TPO) in the rear garden and a maturing rowan (T6) and whitebeam (T7) in the front garden adjacent to the road. The rowan and whitebeam are small trees which add to the character of The Baredown without being outstanding specimens. TPO/BDB296 also relates to a maturing horse chestnut located in the front garden of No.8 The Baredown adjacent to the existing garage. There are no other trees on or adjacent to the site. A well maintained cherry laurel hedge is located between the rowan, whitebeam and the garage.
47 of 71 The impact of the proposed development in physical and relationship terms on the existing tree cover The proposed construction of a first floor and the front porch will not impact on any of the protected trees. The proposed car port may involve some cutting into the bank (the site slopes down from the road). This will not impact on either the rowan or whitebeam. There may be some encroachment into the root area of the cherry laurel hedge but the impact will be negligible. Similarly, there may be some minor encroachment into the root area of the horse chestnut in the garden of No.8 but the impact will again be negligible.
Opportunities for new tree planting Very limited".
Public Observations:
Eight letters of objection received (6 prior to amended plans from two households and two following amended plans from one household).
Following amended plans
Reduction in light to No.8 would be mitigated if the development had a half hipped roof on the western aspect rather than being gabled Loss of privacy Overshadowing
Prior to amended plans
Concern with regards to the reduction of light to east aspect, particularly the kitchen of No.8 The Baredown First floor would block sun to the back and patio area of No.6 The Baredown Loss of privacy Overshadowing
Planning Policy and Material Considerations
The application site is located outside any recognised Settlement Policy Boundary and is therefore in a countryside location, wherein the principle of development is acceptable providing that the proposal would meet the building design, biodiversity, countryside, tree and amenity policies contained within government guidance, the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and relevant Supplementary Planning Documents.
Government Guidance
Planning Policy Statement 7, 'Sustainable Development in Rural Areas' (PPS7) relates to development in the Countryside. This guidance states that the 'Government's overall aim is to protect the Countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all'. The document goes on to state that development should 'contribute to a sense of local identity and regional diversity and be of an appropriate design and scale for its location'.
48 of 71 Planning Policy Statement 9: 'Biodiversity and Geological Conservation' (PPS9) is also relevant. The broad aim of the statement is that planning, construction, development and regeneration should have a minimal impact on biodiversity and where possible enhance it.
Local Plan
Policy E1 (Development Control) states that proposals for new development will be permitted provided that they are of a high standard of design, make efficient use of the land, respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, and do not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety.
Criteria (i) states that proposals should respond to the local context of buildings in terms of design, siting, density and spacing, reinforce attractive qualities of local distinctiveness and enhance areas of poor design; extensions should respect their host dwelling.
Criteria (ii) states that a comprehensive landscaping scheme should be provided, where appropriate, enabling development to successfully integrate with the landscape and surrounds, and not result in the loss of or have a potentially adverse impact on protected trees.
Policy E6 (Landscape Character) states that planning permission will only be granted where it is demonstrated that the proposals will be sympathetic to the landscape character and quality of the area concerned. In particular proposals should look to respect and improve upon:
(ii) the visual amenity and scenic quality of the area.
Policy E7 states that development will be permitted where is will not have an adverse effect on protected species or the conservation status of the protected species. Furthermore, proposals will be expected to conserve and, where possible, enhance the biodiversity of the receiving environment, taking into account the aims and targets of the UK and Local Biodiversity Action Plans.
Policy A1 (Car Parking) of the Local Plan states that development proposals will be flexibly assessed, dependent on individual circumstances, using as a basis the car and other parking standards set out within the Council's Parking Strategy and Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents.
Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs)
Appendix 13 of the Council's 'Design and Sustainability' Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 'Extending your Home and Replacement Dwellings' contains advice to ensure a high standard of design stating that the basic form and size of extensions should be subservient to the original dwelling. The document states that the size and scale (width, depth and height) of an extension is critical in determining whether the development will remain in proportion to the building. Extensions which are overly large in size and scale and are disproportionate in relation to the original dwelling will not be favoured by the Local Planning Authority. The guidance also states that dormer windows can present very prominent features and it is important that their size is kept to a minimum and their position as low as possible on the slope of the roof.
49 of 71 The Landscape and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) states that adequate information on landscape and biodiversity must be provided to inform planning stages. Significant landscape and biodiversity impacts must be avoided, wherever possible, through careful design. Mitigation measures must only be used where avoidance through design is not achievable.
Also of relevance is the Council's Residential Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document. This outlines the parking provision required for residential purposes and recommended minimum sizes for garages and parking bays.
Application amendments
During the course of the planning application amendments have been made to the application. These included the reduction of the bulk and height of the first floor accommodation on the eastern end of the property with the inclusion of roof lights, the removal of the windows on the first floor side elevations, the change in the roof design from a half-hipped to a gable and the reposition of the dormer windows on the front elevation.
The application will therefore be assessed based on the amended plans.
Impact on the character of the area/design
The host dwelling is currently a detached bungalow of simple design with gabled roof and front projecting gable element. The proposed development would raise the roof of the dwellinghouse to incorporate a first floor. The main body of the dwellinghouse would be increased from 4.9m in height to 7m in height, an increase of 2.1m in height. The eastern end element of the dwellinghouse would be set down in height by 0.8m. The principal of a first floor is considered to be acceptable given the topography of the land and that the neighbouring properties are a chalet bungalow and two storey dwelling. A street scene has been provided with the application and although only indicative, this shows the proposed dwelling would not exceed the height of the neighbouring properties and therefore would not appear unduly prominent within the street scene in this respect.
During the course of the application the proposed roof was amended from a half-hip to a gable. The half-hipped roof previously proposed was considered to fail to respond to the character of the area as other properties within The Baredown are predominately hipped or gabled. In addition, the existing property is gabled and thus the inclusion of a gabled roof within the design helps to retain the original character of the property. It is noted that the neighbouring properties either side are hipped, however, the retention of a gabled roof is not considered to cause harm to the street scene given the varied character of the area. The set down and use of roof lights on the eastern end of the proposed development is considered to help reduce the overall bulk of the development and it appears subservient to the main part of the host dwelling reducing the elongated form of the development. It is also considered that the proposed dormer windows are of an appropriate size in relation to the host dwelling and do not dominate the roof slopes.
The proposed materials (brick, tile hanging and tile) are considered to be acceptable in principle. Although it can be conditioned that the bricks and roof tiles match the existing property it is considered that a condition should be attached for a sample of the tile hanging to be submitted prior to the commencement of development due to the amount of tile hanging proposed and that it will be visible within the street scene.
50 of 71 The proposed car port is also considered to be acceptable. The garage currently projects forward of the front elevation of the property and although the car port would further extend this element by 4m, given that the development is single storey, the front element would be open in nature and it would not be visible from the street scene, it is considered that this extension would not cause significant harm to the appearance of the host dwelling to warrant the refusal of the application.
The proposed development therefore complies with Policy E1 and Appendix 13 of the Council's Design and Sustainability SPD.
Impact on neighbouring properties
The host dwelling is located approximately 7m away from the neighbouring property to the east No.6 The Baredown when measured from side wall to side wall, and is separated by a wall with fence above. In addition No.6 is set at a higher gradient than the host dwelling. It is recognised that the proposed development would have a greater impact on this neighbouring property than the existing property, however, due to the distance between properties, the gradient of the land and the set down nature of the eastern end of the proposed development, it is considered that no overbearing or overshadowing would occur to this neighbouring property. As part of the amendments to the application the first floor eastern side windows were removed as such no overlooking would now be caused. Should the application be otherwise acceptable a condition will be attached to ensure that no windows are inserted at first floor in this side elevation to protect the future privacy of this neighbouring property.
With reference to the neighbouring property to the west, No.8 The Baredown, it is recognised that the properties are positioned at obscure angles to each other as such there is a minimum of 6.5m and maximum of 14.5m between the host dwelling and this neighbouring property. Although it is recognised that the proposed development would have a greater impact on this neighbouring property due to the increase in height of the host dwelling, it is considered that the proposal would only be likely to result in a minimal decrease in loss of light to the property in the early morning which would not be significant enough to warrant refusal of the planning application. As such no objection is raised in this respect. Likewise with the window in the eastern side elevation, the windows proposed at first floor in the west elevation have been removed from the proposal and should the application be approved a condition will be attached to ensure no further window are inserted without an application for that purpose.
The proposed first floor windows in the rear elevation of the host dwelling would enable oblique overlooking to the rear garden of both neighbouring properties. However, given the relationship between properties at the current time with the neighbouring dwellings overlooking the application site it is considered that although overlooking may increase this would not be of significant harm to warrant the refusal of the planning application.
The proposed development would have no impact on the adjacent neighbours to the north No.s 13 and 14 The Baredown, as there is over 40m between the host dwelling and these neighbouring properties.
The proposed development therefore complies with Policy E1 and Appendix 13 of the Council's Design and Sustainability SPD.
51 of 71 Trees
Within the application site there are three trees protected by a TPO, these include a horse chestnut in the rear garden and a maturing rowan and whitebeam in the front garden between the applicants front laurel hedge and the road. There is also a maturing horse chestnut in the garden of the neighbouring property No. 8 The Baredown which is protected by a TPO. The Tree Officer states that the proposed first floor extension and the front porch would have no impact on any of the protected trees. The construction of the proposed car port would involve cutting in to the bank which slopes down from the road, however, the Tree Officer notes that this would have no affect on any protected trees and any impact on the cherry laurel hedge and the neighbours horse chestnut tree would be negligible.
The proposed development therefore complies with Policies E1(ii) and E6(ii) of the Local Plan.
Biodiversity
During the course of the planning application a bat survey was requested as the proposed development involves significant modifications to the roof and loft space of the building and the site is located within 200m of ancient woodland. A bat survey was submitted with the application which found evidence of European Protected Bats droppings within the loft space.
The species protection provision of the Habitats Directive, as implemented by the Conservation (Natural Habitats Etc.) Regulations 1994, contain three "derogation tests" which must be applied by Natural England when deciding whether to grant a license to a person carrying out an activity which would harm an European Protected Species. Within a recent high court judgement (R (on the application of Simon Woolley) v Cheshire East Borough Council) it was stated that notwithstanding the licensing regime the Local Planning Authority must also address the three tests considered by Natural England. These three tests are:
1. The activity to be licensed must be for imperative reasons of overriding public interest or for public health and safety 2. There must be no satisfactory alternative 3. Favourable conservation status of the species must be maintained.
The above three tests will now be considered.
1. The activity to be licensed must be for imperative reasons of overriding public interest or for public health and safety
The proposed development is not for preserving public health or public safety and is not of primary importance for the environment. As such, this leaves "other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature".
Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that everyone is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, and Article 8 of this convention states that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life and his home. The Humans Rights Act 1998 forbids public authorities to act in a way that is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Convention allows the rights to be overridden in the public interest so obviously allows for planning authorities to refuse
52 of 71 planning permission where it is in the public interest to do so. However, the Human Rights Act requires that, so far as it is possible to do so, primary and subordinate legalisation should be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the Convention. Therefore, if it is excepted that the applicant's proposal is covered by these rights, then to my mind this would imply that there is an imperative reason of public interest to allow permission, unless there is a good material reason not to ie. the purpose of the Habitats Directive and UK Habitats Regulations would be compromised because there will be a "detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range".
The Biodiversity Officer states that the benefits of the development would appear to satisfy an over riding public interest and as such the proposal complies with test one.
2. There must be no satisfactory alternative The applicant was asked to provide a statement which outlined why there was no satisfactory alternative to the proposed scheme. The following was submitted:
'Careful consideration was given to the design of the proposed extension and many alternatives provided. As you are aware, 7 The Baredown comprises a single storey dwelling set down from the road and at varying levels in relation to it's adjoining neighbours. No.6 to the east is a single storey dwelling with flat roof dormers providing first floor accommodation all situated at a higher level. No.8 to the west is a two storey house. It was considered beneficial to utilise the existing main footprint running east-west whilst retaining the single storey front extension element (albeit extended with a car port). Removal of the complete roof was deemed essential to provide the desired additional accommodation. An additional footprint equivalent to the proposal at ground floor level would have resulted in a convoluted design and unwanted usage of amenity space around the host dwelling out of context with the surrounding properties. Careful redesign has resulted in a more amenable solution and less impact on neighbouring properties. Due to these considerations we consider that there is overriding public interest to grant permission'.
The Biodiversity Officer has accepted that in terms of meeting the applicant's objectives for increased living space and in terms of mitigating the impact on the bat population, that there is no satisfactory alternative. As such it is considered that the application complies with test two. 3. Favourable conservation status of the species must be maintained The applicant submitted a bat survey with the application which outlines mitigation measures to be implemented. The Biodiversity Officer is satisfied with the bat survey and that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the protected bat species. Test three is therefore also considered to have been met. As such, the proposed development is considered to comply with Policy E7 of the Local Plan and PPS9 subject to conditions to ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented and an informative to state that a license will need to be retained for Natural England. 53 of 71 Parking
The application site is classified as 'rural' within the Council's residential parking standards. The property is currently a four bedroom property, requiring three parking spaces, and would increase to a five bedroom property following the development, also requiring three parking spaces. The required number of parking spaces therefore does not change as a result of the development. Although half of the existing garage is proposed to be converted, this does not require planning permission and can be carried out under permitted development rights. In addition, a car port is proposed which would provide an additional parking space. It is therefore considered that three parking spaces can be provided within the application site and as such the proposal complies with Policy A1 of the Local Plan and the Council's residential parking standards.
Reasons for Approval
(1) The proposed development would be of an appropriate design and relates to surrounding development in a sympathetic manner and as such complies with PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development and Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
(2) The proposed development neither dominates or competes with the original dwelling and as such complies with PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development and Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
(3) The proposed development preserves the landscape character and scenic quality of the area and as such is considered to accord with Policy E6 of the Basingstoke & Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
(4) The proposed development would not result in an undue loss of privacy or cause undue overlooking, overbearing or overshadowing and as such complies with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
(5) The proposed development would have no adverse impact on the biodiversity of the area and therefore complies with Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan and Planning Policy Statement 9 'Biodiversity and Geological Conservation'.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is RECOMMENDED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority: OS Location Plan @ 1:1250 received 8th October 2009 Drawing No.2568.01 received 3rd December 2009 OS Block Plan @ 1:500 received 7th December 2009 Bat Survey received 7th December 2009 REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
54 of 71
2. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this planning permission. REASON: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.
3. No development shall commence on site until details of the type and colour of tile hanging to be used, together with a sample, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
4. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match, in type, colour and texture those on the existing building unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification) no additional openings shall be inserted in the first floor eastern or western elevations of the building without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority on an application made for the purpose. REASON: To protect the amenity and privacy of the occupiers of adjoining properties in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
6. All Bat protection and mitigation measures shall be carried out in accordance with Section 5 of John Wenman Ecological Consultancy’s Bat Survey report dated December 2009. The development shall be carried out in complete accordance with mitigation proposals given in section 5 of the approved report, including the installation of access points for bats in the new roof of the building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: Bats are known to use the building subject to the proposed developments. All species of bats are European Protected Species and are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. They are a material consideration under Policy E7.
Notes to the Applicant:
1. 1.1 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.
1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs.
55 of 71 This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre- commencement conditions have been met.
1.3 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £85 per request or £25 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.
2. The applicant is advised that a European Protected Species Licence must be obtained from Natural England prior to the commencement of development works on site that may affect the species concerned. Advice should be sought from the ecologist who undertook the survey of the site. The grant of planning permission does not absolve the applicant from complying with the relevant law, including obtaining and complying with the terms and conditions of any licences required as described in Part IV B of the Circular.
3. In relation to Condition 6 it is understood that a License will need to be gained from Natural England. Should the mitigation measures change during this process they should be submitted, once finalised, for consideration by the Local Planning Authority.
56 of 71 Minor and Other Application
Cttee: 13/01/2010 Item No. 05
Application no: BDB/71492 For Details and Plans Click here
Site Address The Old Forge, The Green, North Waltham, Basingstoke, RG25 7EA Proposal Conversion of redundant storage unit to live/work unit involving the erection of a single storey side extension and insertion of roof lights
Registered: 27/10/2009 Expiry Date: 22/12/2009 Type of Full planning Case Officer: Gemma Page Application: permission 01256 845314 Applicant: Jarroms Agent: Mathewson Waters Management Architects Services Ltd Ward: Oakley and North Ward Member(s): Cllr A J Finney Waltham Cllr Mrs C Morrison Cllr Mrs D Taylor* Parish: North Waltham OS Grid Reference: 456179,146269
Recommendation: Approve subject to Legal Agreement
General Comments
This application has been brought to Development Control Committee in accordance with the scheme of delegation due to the number of objections and the recommendation for approval.
Description of Site
The site comprises of a former forge, located within the Village Green of North Waltham. The existing building is single storey and simple in form, with gabled ends and painted exterior brickwork and plain tiled roof. The site is bounded to the north/north east and along the south/south west by the existing highway. To the south east of the site lies the existing Village Green. There are neighbouring properties sited to the north, north east, and south east of the site.
Proposal
Conversion of redundant storage unit (B8 Use) to live/work unit for office/studio (B1 Use), involving the construction of a first floor, the insertion of 4.no roof lights and the erection of a single storey side extension forming a porch.
Parking for the site would be provided through unallocated spaces on the existing highway (Church Road).
57 of 71 Relevant Planning History
BDB 70738 Conversion of redundant storage unit to Withdrawn live/work unit involving the erection of a 14/10/09 single storey side extension and insertion of 2 no. roof lights in the side elevation
Consultations Parish Council: Objection 'Section 16 of the planning application form states that a tree survey should be included if there are any trees or hedges on land adjacent to the proposed development site that could influence the development or might be important as part of the local landscape character. No tree survey has been included, although there is a large oak tree approximately 5m from the building which certainly could affect the foundations and drainage and is an important part of the local landscape. This objection was raised in the applicant’s previous application BDB 70738 but no action has been taken by the applicant, or the Borough Council to rectify this matter'.
If the Borough Council are minded to approve this application, the Parish Council would like to include the following conditions:
Unallocated parking on the adjacent highway is not suitable. If two parking spaces are required they should be off the highway and included within the curtilage as parking is already a problem in the area. The Parish Council recognises the improvements to the design of the porch, but it also takes up space which could be used for parking. The Parish Council would question whether there is space for this parking with the inclusion of the proposed porch.
No work on the development either above or below ground should take place adjacent to the tree on the boundary of the property until expert advice has been taken concerning the tree as any damage to or felling of the tree would have a severe impact on the visual amenity of the area.
That a tree preservation order should be placed on the adjacent oak tree.
As the proposed development is at a higher level than its immediate neighbour, Thatchings, a condition should be included that the lower floor windows remain opaque in order to avoid any loss of privacy to the neighbouring properties.
An appropriate restriction on noise should be included to reduce the impact of the business on neighbours.
There is concern over the condition of any foundations and the building itself and its proximity to the large soakaway located beneath the village green. Any work carried out, including any investigation work, should be carefully monitored to ensure that there are no adverse effects on either the building or the surroundings.
It has been noted that the local water authority, Southern Water, have not been consulted. Communication should be established with Southern Water to check that the current sewerage system is able to cope with any additional requirements as a result of this development. It should further be noted that there have been problems in residences in this area of the village in the past. 58 of 71 Other comments:
The Highways Agency has not been consulted as part of the planning application and in view of the parking problems already in existence in this area the agency should be consulted.
The planning application includes reference to PPG3; however this is incorrect as it has been replaced by SPD3.
Point 16 of the application for planning permission has been incorrectly completed as there is a 25 year old oak tree on land immediately adjacent to the proposed development site which is likely to be affected by this development.
The Parish Council has been concerned over deterioration of the building so is keen that the walls, doors and window frames are renovated. However it is concerned over the impact of the proposed change of colour of the walls from white to “a warmer cream tone”. It is felt the colour should remain white lime washed, as described in the Conservation Area Appraisal document.
During building work all building materials should be stored within the curtilage and not on the Village Green or on adjoining roads.
Forward Planning: No Objection
'In terms of supporting information, the applicant has not provided the necessary information in respect of Policy EC4. However, I note that this particular proposal involves the conversion of the building to a live / work unit, and that there is an argument to suggest that the ‘work’ element of this will help to address the loss of the employment use, which is generally resisted under Policy EC4.
Having looked at the proposals in more detail, it is noted that the floorplans show that the work element would include a separate entrance and WC and that the floor area has been increased in size from the previous application.
Taking into account the above considerations and the level of employment floorspace which would be lost through these proposals (noting that an element of employment floorspace will remain), no policy objection is raised to this proposal under Policy EC4.
In respect of the requirements of Policy EC2, it is considered that, given the site’s location in a village with a number of basic services (including a primary school, shop, public house and a limited bus service) and the small-scale loss of employment floorspace concerned, it is considered to be acceptable.
Finally, should the local planning authority resolve to grant planning permission for this scheme, appropriate conditions should be attached, as referred to in Policy EC5'.
Conservation: No Objection, subject to conditions
'The Old Forge Building holds an important visual location on the green to the centre of North Waltham and the Conservation Area. It has listed buildings either side, Thatching and Blake Cottage, the setting of which needs also to be considered.
The reuse of the Old Forge building for a live work unit is in principal a good use for this building - my only concerns are around the porch feature – as this looks over domestic in 59 of 71 appearance on what is a small industrial building. The existing opening has a timber sliding door and I would prefer to see this retained with a glazed door inside. Although this means that you come straight into the studio /office it would retain the character and feel of the building in context of the Conservation Area and improve the readability of the Forge Building as a former workshop building.
The other issue relates to the importance of the area around the forge building – the existing tree to the site is a visually important feature in the Conservation Area and needs to be retained and protected during construction and during the use of the building to retain the character of the Conservation Area. There also does not appear to be any detail of the hard standing area to the front of the building other than a note to indicate that the site boundary will be delineated with flush granite setts – the extent and finish of any hard standing needs details preferably prior to any decision'.
Tree Officer: No Objection
‘Subject to the relief of the requirement to provide parking, I have no objections to this application for planning permission. Temporary fencing and ground protection will be required to protect the nearby tree during construction’
County Archaeologist: No Objection
Highways: Objection
'I understand the public highway boundary is the kerb line around the green and Church Road is a classified road C12. The applicant says there is one existing parking place and the existing kerbing returns into the site where the surface is level with the carriageway; therefore the parking is within the curtilage of the property and is not unallocated.
Allocated parking for a one bedroom dwelling in a rural location 1.25 (= 2 spaces); parking for the office accommodation @ 1:30m² = 1 space, total three spaces.
Although parking spaces are not shown on the drawings, by inspection two spaces can be achieved by parking at 90 degrees to the carriageway and under the canopy of the tree; it may be possible to park a third in tandem but the Applicant should demonstrate their proposed parking layout for the LPA to consider. There is no provision shown for either long or short term cycle parking places and no provision is shown for refuse/waste disposal. The Applicant will also require a road opening licence for the proposed new foul sewer connection'.
23 November 2009
To clarify the parking required for this proposal: a one bedroom dwelling in a rural location 1.25 (= 2 spaces); if the live/work arrangements are covered by a Section 106 Agreement the one space for the office could be subsumed into the requirement for the residential component, resulting in a 2 vehicle space requirement, which as has been demonstrated by the photographs already exists within the curtilage of the development site.
Not providing the two parking places within the curtilage will compound existing difficulties with on-street parking associated with other properties in the immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, without the curtilage parking I raise a highways objection to the application for ‘Insufficient Car Parking ZTE’
60 of 71 Public Observations
9 letters of objection:
Overlooking, Overshadowing, Loss of Privacy of neighbouring properties. The traffic generation and parking required in connection with the business would cause congestion and add to an existing parking problem in the area. Noise and disturbance caused by the business. Unallocated on road parking would cause further congestion. Impact of the proposal on the existing tree. Impact of the proposal on the existing sewer system. Proposal does not accord with the Parish Council stipulating that the site can only be used for light business use under the terms of sale. Rooflight materials would not be in keeping with the slate roof. Inadequate means of enclosing the site would affect the privacy of Blake Cottage. Ambiance of village would be spoiled by the proposal. No proposed vehicular access to the site. Proposed porch will cast a shadow on Blake Cottage. Resurfacing on site would spoil the look of the village/building. Consideration must be given as to how further impacts on parking are managed.
Planning Policy and Material Considerations
Principle
The property is located within North Waltham Settlement Policy Boundary and North Waltham Conservation Area wherein the principle of development is acceptable providing that the proposal would meet the building design, conservation and amenity Policies contained within the adopted Local Plan.
National Planning Policy and Circulars
Planning Policy Statement 1: ‘Delivering Sustainable Development' (2005) (PPS1) sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system and advocates the importance of good design. Specifically the document states in paragraphs 33 and 34 that “good design ensures attractive, usable, durable and adaptable places and is a key element in achieving sustainable development…Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted.”
Planning Policy Statement 3: 'Housing' (PPS3) (2006) sets out the Government’s housing policy objectives, including high quality housing that is well-designed and built to a high standard; a mix of both market and affordable housing; and locating housing development in suitable locations which offer a good range of community facilities with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. It states that good design is fundamental to the development of high quality new housing which contributes to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities.
A further key objective is to make effective and efficient use of land recommending an indicative density threshold of 30 dwelling per hectare (dph) subject to the character and context of the area concerned.
61 of 71
Planning Policy Guidance 15: 'Planning and the Historic Environment' (PPG15) is relevant to the consideration of this application. Paragraph 4.14 of PPG15 states: 'Section 72 of the Act requires that special attention shall be paid in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. This requirement extends to all powers under the Planning Acts, not only those which relate directly to historic buildings. Paragraph 4.19 emphasis's the importance of the objective of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. It states that: 'If any proposed development would conflict with that objective, there will be a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission'.
The Government ‘Circular 11/95: Use of conditions in planning permission’, and 'Circular 05/05 - Planning Obligations' are also relevant to this application. Circular 11/95 provides guidance on the use of planning conditions. In particular, it states that conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and relevant to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects.
South East Plan
The South East Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy and the adopted Local Plan now form part of the Development Plan for the Borough. The following Policy of the regional spatial strategy are considered to be relevant to this application.
Policy BE6 seeks to encourage Local Planning Authorities to develop policies and support proposals that protect, conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment and the contribution it makes to local and regional distinctiveness and sense of place.
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011
Policy E1 states that all proposals for new development will be permitted provided that they are of a high standard of design, make efficient use of the land and respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
Policy E2 states that development will not be permitted if it harms a building or feature of local historic or architectural interest or adversely affects its setting.
Policy E3 states that development within a Conservation Area will be permitted provided that the proposals preserve or enhance their special character or appearance.
Policy EC2 refers to the impact of development on the local economy, impacts on neighbouring employment uses, impacts on commuting levels and the proximity to services and facilities. In regards to residential proposals, it will be necessary to demonstrate that
the site is easily accessible to employment, educational, retail, community and other facilities by a choice o attractive means of transport other than the private car; and
opportunities to include a mix of uses, including employment on the site have been fully explored
Policy EC4 allows for the loss of employment uses where it can be demonstrated that one of the following tests can be satisfied:
62 of 71 a marketing exercise over 12 months concludes that there is no realistic demand; or
an appropriate level of alternative provision exists elsewhere in the settlement
Policy EC5 relates to live work units and the need to locate them suitably within the Borough adjacent or within designated employment sites or residential areas.
Policy D5 states that residential development which contributes to the social, economic and environmental well being will be permitted within Settlement Policy Boundaries, subject to the proposal complying with all other relevant Development Plan policies.
Policy A1 states that parking for new development proposals will be flexibly assessed, dependant on individual circumstances, using as a basis the car and other parking standards set out in the Council's Parking Strategy.
Policy C1 seeks through the use of planning obligations to ensure that infrastructure and facilities are provided to meet the needs arising from the proposed development.
Supplementary Planning Guidance and Documents
Appendix 7 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document – ‘Places to Live’ (Urban Design Guidance) provides guidance on matters regarding the design and layout for development proposals.
Appendix 4 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document - 'The Historic Environment - Conservation Areas' states that any development proposals in a Conservation Area will be judged on their effect on the character and appearance of the area as identified in the Conservation Area Appraisal.
Also taken into consideration is the Supplementary Planning Document - Residential Parking Standards and the Non-Residential Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Guidance, which sets maximum vehicle parking standards and minimum cycle standards for residential and commercial developments.
Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Section 106 Planning Obligations & Community Infrastructure' provides the necessary guidance and support for the proposed type and level of contributions that will be sought through planning obligations in support of development proposals
Conservation Area Appraisal
The Conservation Area Appraisal for North Waltham is also relevant to this application and a material consideration. The maps that accompany the Conservation Area Appraisal indicate that the site is a notable building within the North Waltham Conservation Area.
Previous Site History
Planning application BDB 70738 for the conversion of a redundant storage unit to a live/work unit, involving the erection of a single storey side extension and insertion of 2 no. roof lights in the side elevation, was withdrawn on the 14 October 2009. During the course of the application, concerns from the Local Planning Authority were raised to the amount of B1 floor space proposed as part of the application, the visual intrusiveness of domestic paraphernalia that would be associated with the proposed live work unit within the existing
63 of 71 Conservation Area and the design of the proposed flat roof porch. The flat roof porch was considered to be an unfavourable design element, especially within a Conservation Area, and was considered to appear as an incongruous feature when viewed in context with the original unit and therefore would appear prominent and out of character within the existing street scene.
The current application for determination is a re-submission following the previously withdrawn scheme.
Principle of Conversion of Building for Commercial/Residential Purposes
The current use of the building has been for storage purposes. As such, this use would fall under Class B8 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (amended 2005). The building is an important historic building within the North Waltham Conservation Area and has been vacant for a long period of time, subsequently resulting in the deterioration of its condition.
Policy EC4 of the Local Plan requires evidence, by way of a 12 month marketing exercise, to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in the loss of local employment opportunities. The Policy Officer has noted that whilst the applicant has not provided the necessary information in respect of Policy EC4, the 'work' element of the proposal would help to mitigate any loss of employment use. Taking into consideration the above and noting the level of employment space that would be lost through the development (although an element of floor space would remain) there is no policy objection to the proposal in regards to Policy EC4 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 1996 - 2011.
The Policy Officer has commented that, given the location of the site within a village that contains a number of basic services (including a primary school, shop, public house and a limited bus service) and by virtue of the small-scale loss of employment floor space concerned, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of complying with Policy EC2. As such, there is no objection to the proposal in this regard.
Policy EC5 permits live work units on suitable sites in the Borough. These will be most appropriately located on existing employment sites that are situated outside of the designated employment areas; or on employment sites that adjoin residential areas; or on sites that adjoin employment or in residential areas. In this respect, the site complies with Policy EC5 as the site has an existing employment use and falls within a residential area. Policy EC5 also requires that the work area must be suitable for a full range of B1 uses and requires that suitable conditions will be applied to ensure that the work areas are retained for employment uses in perpetuity.
The layout of the proposed employment floorspace is flexible and would provide for a full range of B1 uses and would therefore accord with Policy EC5 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011.
In light of the above, there is no policy objection to the principle of a live/work unit within this location, subject to the proposal complying with all other relevant Development Plan policies. In accordance with Policy EC5, a condition is recommended to ensure the employment use is retained.
64 of 71 Design/Character of the Area The site is located within an area of land that is enclosed at all boundaries by existing vehicular highways. The existing building on site is of simplistic form and nature, with lime washed brick and flint and a gabled tiled roof. The site is currently open, without any form of boundary enclosure, resulting in prominent and open views of the existing building.
The proposal would involve an element of residential use of the existing building. The submitted site location plan outlines an area of residential curtilage that would serve the occupants of the building. Whilst it would be reasonable for the Local Planning Authority to expect that the applicant would wish to protect the private amenities of the occupier of the building by way of a boundary fence, it is considered that in this case, the erection of a boundary fence or of any other typical domestic paraphernalia in this highly prominent area would represent a visual intrusion into the existing street scene that would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding Conservation Area.
The applicant has therefore indicated that the boundary treatment proposed would consist of granite setts markers that would lie flush at ground level. Although the applicant has not submitted any details to show the location or scale of these granite setts markers, these details can be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of any development on site through a condition. Furthermore, a legal agreement is also recommended to ensure that no domestic paraphernalia, such as hard surfacing, boundary treatments, washing lines etc. are installed within the site without permission in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
It should be noted that the unit has a current B8 use which would allow for relevant commercial paraphernalia, such as bin storage. Given that the existing use on site would require bin storage, it would be unreasonable for the Local Planning Authority to restrict the placing of bins within the residential curtilage. Although the Local Planning Authority acknowledge that bins can be located on the site under the existing use, this planning application provides an opportunity to ensure the visual character of the surrounding area is preserved and to this extent, the Local Planning Authority have requested that further details of the proposed bin storage be submitted in support of this application. Further comments shall be reported in the update following the receipt of the requested information.
The proposal also involves the erection of a single storey front porch to the original building. The design and scale of the porch is considered to be acceptable and in keeping with the existing building and surrounding residential character of the area. Furthermore, the proposed porch would neither dominate nor compete with the original building and would not result in an overdevelopment of the site. The porch roof would be pitched and therefore addresses the concerns raised under planning application BDB 70738 in this respect.
It is considered that due to its single storey nature, the proposed porch would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area or appear unduly prominent within the street scene. The proposal would be subservient and would respect the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding Conservation Area in accordance with Policies E1 and E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. Whilst it is acknowledged that the Conservation Officer has concerns regarding the overly domesticated appearance of the existing building as a result of the proposed porch, the Local Planning Authority consider that given that the proposal would result in the re-use of the existing building and considering the minor size and scale of the proposed porch, on balance, the Local Planning Authority raise no objection to the proposal in this regard. 65 of 71 The Conservation Officer has requested that further details regarding the windows and proposed roof lights are submitted for approval before any works commence on site. This, along with a condition requesting samples of all exterior materials, including a sample of the proposed exterior paint, is recommended to ensure that the development is in keeping with the design and appearance of the existing building and would preserve the character of the surrounding Conservation Area in accordance with Policies E1 and E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011.
Given the prominent location of the site within the North Waltham Conservation Area, it is considered reasonable to remove permitted development rights from the unit. This will ensure that the development preserves the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Policy E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011.
Neighbouring Amenities
The proposal would involve the insertion of two roof lights into the north east roof slope and two roof lights into the south west roof slope of the existing building. The roof lights would serve the proposed bedroom/sitting room. This room would also be served by an existing window sited at first floor level on the south east elevation of the original building. To the south west of the site lies the neighbouring property known as Thatchings, an 18th Century Listed Building. This property is sited approximately 10 metres from the original building. It is considered, by virtue of their orientation within the existing roof slope that the proposed roof lights on the south west roof slope would allow direct views into the first floor private amenity area of Thatchings, to the detriment of the private amenities of the occupiers of this property. Whilst the Local Planning Authority would not recommend obscure glazing to an area of primary living accommodation, given that the proposed living accommodation would be served by a further two roof lights and a window on the south east elevation of the building, it is considered reasonable in this instance to restrict the two roof lights on the southwest roof slope to be obscurely glazed and non - opening, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The condition will require the submission of the details regarding the obscure glazing to ensure its suitability.
The neighbouring property to the north east of the site is known as Blakes Cottage and also forms an 18th Century Listed Building. This property is located approximately 13m from the original building. Although the proposal involves the insertion of two roof lights into the north east slope of the original roof and although it is acknowledged that the distance between the original building and Blakes Cottage is short, given the orientation and relationship between the site and Blakes Cottage it is considered that the proposal would not allow for any light source or direct views into the private amenity space of Blakes Cottage, to a degree that warrants a restriction on the proposed roof lights in terms of non opening or restricted glazing.
To ensure that no further windows are provided at first floor level without the benefit of assessment by the Local Planning Authority on the impact future windows may have on the amenities of the neighbouring properties, it is considered reasonable to recommend a restriction to further openings on the existing roof slope, unless approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
An element of overlooking would be achievable from the ground floor windows of the original building, however, it is considered that this is an existing situation and would be achievable if the building was to be re-used. This level of overlooking would not be to a significant degree to warrant a refusal of the application.
66 of 71 In terms on noise and disturbance, whilst it is acknowledged that the Local Planning Authority have no control over the type of B1 business use that would use the building, B1 uses are considered to be acceptable for a residential area. The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 states that a B1 use, by definition, must be capable of being undertaken "in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit". Given the overall size of the existing building, it is unlikely that any B1 business utilising the building will be capable of generating and noise or disturbance levels to a degree that would cause significant detriment to the amenities of the surrounding area. It should also be noted that any use outside of a B1 use would require a planning application.
As such, it is considered that the proposal would accord with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011.
Highways The site currently has a B8 use which requires the provision of 1 vehicle parking space, which is currently provided through on street parking (parking outside of the curtilage of the site). The proposed live/work unit would require the provision of two spaces. The applicant proposes to provide these spaces through on street parking provision.
Whilst the Local Planning Authority note that the Highways Officer has confirmed that there is sufficient space within the front curtilage of the site for the parking of two vehicles, in accordance with the Residential Parking SPD and the Commercial Parking SPG, concerns are raised in regards to the parking of vehicles within the curtilage of the site, which would result in a visual domestic intrusion that would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding Conservation Area.
Whilst the Local Planning Authority would not normally encourage on street parking as a result of a development, each application must be assessed on their own merits. The Local Planning Authority must achieve a balance as to the weight attached to each issue. The issues present in this case are the impacts of a further vehicle parking space on the existing highway and the visual character and appearance of the surrounding Conservation Area.
In this particular case, weight must be given to the fact that the proposal would provide long term re-use of a notable building within the Conservation Area and its subsequent repairs and up-keep, which would enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding Conservation Area.
It should also be noted that on street parking is a feature of the area and is currently utilised by the residential properties in the surrounding area.
Furthermore, it should also be taken into consideration that the site can currently change use from B8 to B1 use without the benefit of planning permission, a use which would also require the provision of two parking spaces. The Local Planning Authority would not be able to control parking should a change of use occur as a planning application would not be necessary.
In conclusion and on balance, it is considered that the increase of a further vehicle parking on the existing highway in this area would not significantly harm the character and appearance of the surrounding Conservation Area, nor would it have a detrimental impact on the existing parking situation. As such, there is no objection to the proposal in this regard. 67 of 71 The Local Planning Authority has no control over visitor parking, as visitors may visit the site and park off site under both the current use. It should be noted that this is the current situation for visitors to the existing residential properties around the site.
Trees
The Tree Officer has raised no objections to the proposed scheme subject to conditions regarding temporary fencing and ground protection that will be required to protect the nearby tree during construction. As such, no objection is raised against the proposal in this regard.
Section 106 Contributions
In line with the adopted Supplementary Planning Document on `S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure` and guidance contained in Circular 05/05, the application has been scoped and it has been confirmed that contributions towards BEST, community facilities, open space and playing fields are required. A legal agreement to secure these necessary contributions to local infrastructure has been submitted and is currently being considered by the legal services team. The legal agreement will also contain a clause restricting the use of any domestic paraphernalia associated with a residential property within the curtilage as defined within the red line. As such, the application is recommended for approval subject to the completion of this legal agreement.
Other Matters
It is considered that the concerns raised by the Parish Council in regards to the existing tree on site and the proposed vehicular parking have been addressed in the above report. In regards to the proposed conditions set out by the Parish Council in the case of an approval, the condition requesting that the existing tree on site be subject to a tree preservation order is not necessary as the tree already has protection status by virtue of the its location within a Conservation Area. Further
In regards to the Parish Council's other comments, the Highways Agency would not be involved in a matter that does not involve either a trunk road or a motorway. Whilst it is acknowledged that there have been some incorrect statements stated within the planning application submission, the site has been viewed by the Planning Officer and the relevant SPD's and SPG's have been consulted when assessing this application. The Local Planning Authority note the concerns of the Parish Council regarding the proposed change of colour of the exterior of the existing building and have recommended a condition to ensure that all materials used are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before works commence on site.
In relation to the issue surrounding the impact of the proposal in regards to the existing main sewerage, the applicant has confirmed that foul water will be discharged into a new drainage system which is connected to the main sewers. The Local Planning Authority considers these measures to be acceptable and no objection is raised to the proposals in this regard.
Recommendation
In light of the above, this application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions and a completed Legal Agreement, securing the necessary infrastructure contributions and controlling the use of domestic paraphernalia within the residential curtilage.
68 of 71 RECOMMENDATION:
It is RECOMMENDED that The applicant be invited to enter into a planning obligation/legal agreement (in accordance with Department of the Environment Circular 05/05 and Policy IMP1 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996- 2011(Review), Policy IMP1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan and Policy C1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan Review 1996-2011(as proposed by modifications)) with the Borough council to secure
Contributions towards BEST, community facilities, open space and playing fields; Restrictions concerning the use of any domestic paraphernalia associated with a residential property within the curtilage as defined within the red line.
Should the requirements set out above not be satisfactorily secured, then the Head of Planning and Transport be delegated to REFUSE permission for appropriate reasons.
On completion of the legal agreement(s) the Head of Planning and Transport be delegated to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority: 7022.01C, 7022-08A, 7022-06A and 7022-07A REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this planning permission. REASON: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.
3. The ground floor office/studio floorspace hereby approved as shown on drawing number 7022-07A shall be used for the sole purposes of B1 use only (in accordance with the details in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (amended 2005) and subsequent amendments) and shall be used in conjunction with the residential unit hereby approved and shall not be sold off, sub-let or used as a separate business unit. The approved office/studio floorspace shall not be converted into any ancillary residential accommodation. REASON: The proposed residential conversion is in a location where new residential units would not normally be allowed and in accordance with Policy EC5 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011.
4. No development shall commence on site until details of the types and colours of external materials to be used, together with samples, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
69 of 71 5. No development shall take place on site until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the position, design and materials of the boundary markers to be erected. The approved boundary markers shall be erected before the use of the building hereby approved commences and shall subsequently be maintained. REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
6. The roof lights on the south west roof slope shall be non opening and glazed with obscured glass. Once installed the windows shall be permanently maintained in that condition, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the privacy of the adjoining property and to prevent overlooking, in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
7. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification) no additional openings shall be inserted in the roof slope of the building without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority on an application made for the purpose. REASON: To protect the amenity and privacy of the occupiers of adjoining property in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
8. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or the use commence, whichever is the sooner, until details of a refuse collection point has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The collection point for refuse shall be not more than 15m carry distance from the highway which is a carriageway. The approved details shall be implemented before occupation and shall be thereafter maintained. REASON: To ensure convenience of arrangements for refuse collection in the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
9. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification) no building, structure or other alteration permitted by Class A, B and C of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Order shall be erected on the application site without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose. REASON: To prevent the overdevelopment of the site in the interests of the amenity of the area and to safeguard the amenities of the adjoining properties, in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
Notes to the Applicant:
1. 1.1 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.
70 of 71 1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre- commencement conditions have been met.
1.3 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £85 per request or £25 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.
2. This Decision Notice must be read in conjunction with a Planning Obligation completed under the terms of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). You are advised to satisfy yourself that you have all the relevant documentation.
71 of 71