BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE – AGENDA ITEM 6: LIST OF PLANS. DATE: 13 December 2005

PLAN: 16 CASE NUMBER: 05/05454/OUT GRID REF: EAST 425930 NORTH 463520 APPLICATION NO. 6.61.111.B.OUT DATE MADE VALID: 01.11.2005 TARGET DATE: 27.12.2005 WARD: Lower Nidderdale VIEW PLANS AT: http://tinyurl.com/dp6lk

APPLICANT: Mr David Sharp

AGENT: Arch-Tech Design

PROPOSAL: Outline application for the erection of 1 detached dwelling and formation of school car park and childrens play area, with siting and access considered (site area 0.37ha) (Revised Scheme)

LOCATION: Land To The South East Of Colber House Colber Lane Bishop Thornton Harrogate North

REPORT

SITE AND PROPOSAL This proposal follows the withdrawal of an earlier application (for 3 dwellings) and in revised form relates to the outline erection of a single dwelling served from the access to Colber House, and the laying out of a car park and hard play area, and a grassed play area for the adjacent school.

The car park would provide for 21 parking spaces (5 staff and 16 visitors) and is designed to alleviate parking problems associated with the C.E Primary School. It would utilise an existing field access as the land is currently paddock land.

The road outside of the site is to be resurfaced, kerbed and footway provided to allow safe access between the car park and school.

Colber House lies at the western end of the village beyond the development limit.

Siting and access are to be considered at this time.

MAIN ISSUES 1. Policy Matters (Dwelling) 2. Policy Matters (Car Park) 3. Highway Safety 4. Public Right of Way

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY Outline application for 3 dwellings and car park: Withdrawn 28.09.2005

Outline application for dwelling: Refused 25.06.1996. Appeal dismissed 22.04.1997.

CONSULTATIONS/NOTIFICATIONS

Parish Council Bishop Thornton

Housing Department My observations on the above application are as follows: The site exceeds the threshold of 0.1 hectare at which affordable housing is a requirement under Policy H5. The Council's target is 50%, subject to financial viability and the site lying within the development limit. Where one dwelling is proposed on a qualifying site, increasing the density should be considered, in accordance with H13. If this is not possible in planning terms, or if the applicant can demonstrate through submission of a financial appraisal, that it is not viable to deliver an element of affordable housing on the site, then the requirement is waived under Policy H5.

I am advised however that the site lies outside the development limit. If that is the case, then I understand that new housing development is only permissible under policies H7 and H8 and proposals do not appear to meet the required criteria of either policy.

In summary and in affordable housing terms, proposals for housing development make no provision for affordable housing (without any apparent justification in planning or financial terms) and do not accord with policy H5 or policy H8. Proposals do not therefore accord with Policy HX.

The Needs Survey Update 2003 identifies a requirement for 30 additional affordable dwellings in the period 2003-2008 in the sub-area of Bishop Monkton (which includes Bishop Thornton).

NYCC Highway Authority No objection. Advises 5 conditions.

The British Horse Society Awaited

Ramblers Association Awaited

Yorkshire Water Advises 3 conditions

DCS - Recreation Awaited

Policy Dev Unit NYCC Awaited

Environmental Health No objection

H.B.C Land Drainage Applicants should submit detailed surface water proposals prior to consent.

Police Architectural Liaison Officer No comments received

APPLICATION PUBLICITY SITE NOTICE EXPIRY: 02.12.2005 PRESS NOTICE EXPIRY: 09.12.2005

REPRESENTATIONS

BISHOP THORNTON AND PARISH COUNCIL - Accept that during term time there are continuing parking problems associated with Bishop Thornton C of E (VC) School which effect the general free flow of traffic in that area of the village. It may be said that the parking and play areas proposed as part of Planning Application No 6.61.111.B.OUT would alleviate some of the problem and be of singular benefit to the school. However, the Parish Councillors still have major reservations regarding both the suitability of the site for a 'mixed use scheme' and dispute the claim that any such scheme would in reality benefit the wider community. They therefore wish to make the following observations:

The entire development unequivocally lies beyond the curtilage of the village of Bishop Thornton and outside the Harrogate Local Plan even when considered in reference to policy H7 and H8 because:

Despite the applicants assurances there are no 'special justifications' to warrant the housing element of this proposal.

No guarantees have been given that the provision of a 'dedicated' play area for the school would result in the facilities being made available to the rest of community during out of school hours.

An alternative proposal to address the parking problem by way of a lay-by is being pursued by the Parish Council under the County Councils Village Road Safety Scheme.

The Parish Council is concerned that the siting of the new house, together with the proposed location of the play area and parking spaces would have a substantial and detrimental effect on the landscape and would not as claimed in section 4.6 of the applicants previously submitted statement form a logical extension of the existing built up area. Colber House and The Gables are not ' grouped', they are stand alone properties in substantial grounds and the Parish Council see no obvious or 'special justification' for changing the status quo.

The Parish Council is not aware of a 'groundswell' in village support for this development and there is an evident level of discontent with the plan as a whole.

The development would set a precedent for further applications specifically designed to encroach on the existing curtilage of the village.

Despite assurances from the applicant Councillors are still concerned that further development would severely overload the capacity of the existing Colber Lane sewer. Residents have been informed that this facility is already at capacity. The shallowness of the existing sewer combined with the ground fall from the proposed site may cause problems in the long term for the rest of the village.

The bottle-neck caused by cars turning into or out of the entrance of the proposed car park could in fact present a different and comparable traffic problem to the one that the proposed development is intended to solve.

OTHER REPRESENTATIONS - 3 letters of objection from local residents state the following:-

1. No justification for building on Greenfield site outside of development limits. 2. Safety concerns can be addressed by other means. 3. Applicant should not be allowed to profit due to schools perceived need for a car park. 4. Offer of facilities (which are unnecessary) is just an inducement to obtain permission for a dwelling. 5. Prominent site. 6. Will generate more traffic. 7. Stain on water/sewage services. 8. Residents have not been consulted by school over this issue as claimed. 9. There are other alternatives to a car park - Parish Council are pursuing option of a lay-by with NYCC Highways. 10. 'Problems' with parking only occur for 20 minutes, twice a day, 5 days/week in term-time. Could be improved with traffic management measures or 20mph zone. Problems did not occur during walk to school week. 11. Another landowner has also applied for a dwelling/car park opposite, on a more suitable site, which is brownfield and within development limits. 12. Staff/parents have on special occasions been invited to park in our field/drive. 13. Owner of Church Cottage parks a camper van/other vehicles on widest part of road, which exacerbates situation as teachers previously parked there. 14. Vehicles waiting to turn into car park would be bottle-neck and danger. 15. There is no guarantee that parents will use car park. 16. We have allowed school to use our field for 12 years (it is on their web site) and a previous owner before us also. Green area is unnecessary. 17. Nature site is not needed in open countryside site near Nidderdale AONB. 18. Trustees of school sold off previous open area. 19. What happens to car park/grass area if school closes? will lead to more housing? Lay-by solution would benefit all village even if school closes. 20. Who will maintain, insure and police the car park area. Any fences would be an eyesore. 21. If applicant wants to benefit the school - why not sell them the land for a more modest profit? without the need for housing. 22. Not sustainable development for such a small village. 23. Will encourage commuter traffic. 24. School are not prepared to consider other solutions to safety problem if it inconveniences teachers or parents - encouraging 'park and stride' would solve problem. 25. School did not even apply for travel grants to encourage other types of transport. 26. Existing school field has barely been used this year - indicates lack of need for facility. 27. No actual benefit to the community - just a ploy to get housing. 28. Will affect access to our dwelling. 29. Access not acceptable to serve development proposed and increase in traffic.

5 letters of support indicate the following points:-

1. Application will benefit children attending the school. 2. Ending chaos that arises when children are dropped off/collected must be a good thing - if parents use the car park. 3. Number of children attending the school is growing but congested space is a danger - milk trailers, tractors, delivery vehicles and speeding cars - needs resolving. 4. Section 106 Agreement could control transfer of car park/play area to the school. 5. Governing body of school welcomes proposal and benefits arising. 6. School is at end of narrow lane with parking problems and recreation space is limited. School relies on use of neighbours field. 7. School needs enhanced facilities. 8. Safety of children is paramount as there are no footpaths and road becomes single track due to parked vehicles. 9. Ofsted have praised school despite cramped conditions but recommend extending play area outdoors. 10. Young children (4 year old starters) have little road sense but have to negotiate difficult situation - a lay-by would not resolve problems. 11. Local people and farm traffic are currently inconvenienced and this application would resolve this for benefit of village. 12. Imaginative and generous proposal.

VOLUNTARY NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION - None.

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY PPS1 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Communities PPG3 Planning Policy Guidance 3: Housing PPS7 Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas LPHX Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy HX: Managed Housing Site Release LPH05 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy H5: Affordable Housing LPH06 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy H6: Housing developments in the main settlements and villages LPH07 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy H7: Housing development in the countryside LPH08 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy H8: Rural Affordable Housing LPR04 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy R4: Open Space Requirements for New Residential Development LPC15 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy C15: Conservation of Rural Areas not in Green Belt LPCF09 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy CF9: Other New Community Facilities SPH5 North Yorkshire County Structure Plan Policy H5 LPNC06 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy NC6: Species Protected by Law

ASSESSMENT OF MAIN ISSUES 1. POLICY MATTERS (DWELLING) - The site is a Greenfield one to the front of the applicants dwelling and outside of the development limits of the village and therefore contrary to Policies H7 and C15.

The proposal is not for affordable housing as a rural exception site and the release would be contrary to Policies HX and H8.

The application is a mixed one for housing and school facilities and whilst not specifically quoted by the applicant, it is understood that the dedication of the car park and open play area is offered as "planning gain" to offset the harm caused by a new dwelling in the countryside.

A similar application for a dwelling (within the development limits) and car park is also under considered on the opposite side of the road (ref 05/05652/OUT) and that application is likely to be considered at the Planning Committee of 5 January 2006.

Whilst the facilities for the school are understandably a benefit, it is not considered that this would outweigh the harm caused by the dwelling, and there are other methods by which the car park could be facilitated.

Policy R4 (Open Space - Commuted Sum) has not been complied with to date.

There is a semi-dry pond close to the site and potential for great crested newts to be present at some periods of the year. The applicant has failed to address this potential or suggest mitigating measures.

2. POLICY MATTERS (CAR-PARK) - Whilst the application fails to indicate who would provide the proposed car park/play area or fund its maintenance, it is assumed that this would be offered by the applicant to the school as a benefit to justify the proposed dwelling.

Facilities of this nature, if linked to the school, would be classed as a community facility and which can in exceptional circumstances be allowed by Policy CF9, on sites adjacent to settlements. Such facilities should normally be provided within the development limits, but clearly, such sites are very limited and provision needs to be close to the school.

The proposal raises no particular issues in respect of the car park and play area in policy terms.

3. HIGHWAY SAFETY - The removal of vehicles that are currently parked on the highway and verges is a benefit and no objection has been received from the Highway Authority.

4. PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY - Whilst a right of way passes the boundary of the site, it would not be obstructed by the proposal and is not an issue in this instance.

CONCLUSION - Whilst the provision of school facilities is appropriate, in this instance, such provision is being advanced as a means to justify a new dwelling in the countryside contrary to policy. The harm caused to the countryside is not outweighed by the proposed facilities.

CASE OFFICER: Mr R Forrester

RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED. Reason(s) for refusal:-

1 The proposed dwelling would be situated in the countryside outside the development limits of the village and would be harmful to the appearance of the locality. The proposal conflicts with Policy H5 of the North Yorkshire County Structure Plan and Policies HX, H7 and C15 of the adopted Harrogate District Local Plan. It is not considered that the harm caused to the countryside would be outweighed by the benefits derived from the proposed car park and play area.