Planning, Taxi Licensing & Rights of Way Committee

Home , Aberbran, Aberedw, Knighton Rural District, Three Cocks, Welshpool

Public Document Pack

Meeting Venue Council Chamber - County Hall, Llandrindod Wells, Powys

Meeting Date Monday, 29 February 2016 County Hall Llandrindod Wells Meeting Time Powys 11.00 am LD1 5LG

For further information please contact Carol Johnson 19th February, 2016 01597826206 [email protected]

AGENDA

1. APOLOGIES PTLRW19 - 2016

To receive apologies for absence.

Planning

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PTLRW20 - 2016

a) To receive any declarations of interest from Members relating to items to be considered on the agenda. b) To receive Members' requests that a record be made of their membership of town or community councils where discussion has taken place of matters for the consideration of this Committee. c) To receive declarations from Members of the Committee that they will be acting as 'Local Representative' in respect of an individual application being considered by the Committee. d) To note the details of Members of the County Council (who are not Members of the Committee) who will be acting as 'Local Representative' in respect of an individual application being considered by the Committee.

3. PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION PTLRW21 - 2016 BY THE COMMITTEE

To consider the reports of the Head of Regeneration, Property and Commissioning and to make any necessary decisions thereon. 1 (Pages 5 - 6)

3.1. Updates Any Updates will be added to the Agenda, as a Supplementary Pack, wherever possible, prior to the meeting.

3.2. P/2015/1119 Land adjacent Tesco Service Station, Mill Lane, Welshpool, Powys, SY21 7BL (Pages 7 - 36)

3.3. P/2015/0067 Lower Vedwllwyd, Dutlas, Knighton, Powys, LD7 1YD (Pages 37 - 70)

3.4. P/2015/1196 Concrete Batching Plant, Penstrowed Caersws, SY17 5SG (Pages 71 - 78)

3.5. P/2015/1211 Unit 29 Ddole Industrial Estate, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 6DF (Pages 79 - 86)

3.6. DEM/2016/0002 Temple Avenue, Alexandra Road, Llandrindod Wells, LD1 5NR (Pages 87 - 92)

3.7. P/2016/0021 Victoria Memorial Hospital (Westwood Day Centre), Gungrog Road, Welshpool, Powys SY21 7DU (Pages 93 - 98)

4. DECISIONS OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION, PTLRW22 - 2016 PROPERTY AND COMMISSIONING ON DELEGATED APPLICATIONS

To receive for information a list of decisions made by the Head of Regeneration, Property and Commissioning under delegated powers between 20th January, 2016 and 19th February, 2016. (Pages 99 - 114)

5. APPEAL DECISION PTLRW23 - 2016 To receive the Planning Inspector's decisions regarding the following appeals:  Land South West of Tansomalia, Felindre, Knighton, Powys, LD7 1YR [application P/2014/1149]  Mellowcroft, Llandegley, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 5UF [Enforcement Notice E/02/15/ and E/03/15] and Costs Decision  New Street, Welshpool SY21 7SF [application P/2015/0624]  Birchy Bank, Aberhafesp, Newtown SY16 3HH [application P/2014/0966] (Pages 115 - 156) This page is intentionally left blank PTLRW21 - 2016

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee 29th February, 2016

For the purpose of the Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the background papers relating to each individual planning application constitute all the correspondence on the file as numbered in the left hand column.

Applications for consideration by Committee:

Application No: Nature of Development: Community: Location of Development: O.S. Grid Reference: Applicant: Date Received: Recommendation of Head of Planning:

P/2015/1119 Erection of 2 no. retail units (class A1) with ancillary pet grooming and veterinary services, Welshpool delivery area and all associated works

322814.42 307499.3 Land adjacent Tesco Service Station, Mill Lane, Welshpool, Powys, SY21 7BL. 17/11/2015 Mr Bill Sarre

Recommendation – Conditional Consent

P/2015/0067 Full: Installation of 1.no wind turbine (36.6m to hub and 48.4m to blade tip, with rotor diameter Beguildy of 23.5m). Erection of equipment cabinet, hardstanding. Construction of temporary 320838.71 277879.9 access track and all other ancillary works (E:320140, N: 277630) 30/01/2015 Lower Vedwllwyd, Dutlas, Knighton, Powys, LD7 1YD.

Mrs Julie Bevan

Recommendation – Refusal

P/2015/1196 The change of use of land to enable the extension of the concrete batching plant into Mochdre an agricultural field to the north of the existing site. 307052 / 290962 Concrete Batching Plant, Penstrowed 18/12/2015 Caersws, SY17 5SG. Mr Stuart Lawrence

Recommendation - Granted

Page 5 P/2015/1211 Change of use from unit (B2 use) to Powys Modern Records & Archives (sui generis use) Llandrindod Wells including alterations and extensions, erection of bin store and all associated works. 306077.29 262785.96 Unit 29 Ddole Industrial Estate, Llandrindod 05/01/2016 Wells, Powys, LD1 6DF.

Mr Tim Beach

Recommendation - Approval

DEM/2016/0002 Demolition of footbridge over railway

Llandrindod Wells Temple Avenue, Alexandra Road, Llandrindod Wells, LD1 5NR. 305751.78 260693.39 Mrs Helen Hodgson 10/02/2016 Recommendation – No Prior Approval Required

P/2016/0021 Erection of a conservatory.

Welshpool Victoria Memorial Hospital (Westwood Day Centre) Gungrog Road, Welshpool Powys 322721.57 307721.14 SY21 7DU.

06/01/2016 Welshpool Town Council

Recommendation – Conditional Consent

Page 6 PTLRW21 - 20162

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2015/1119 Grid Ref: 322814.42 307499.3

Community Welshpool Valid Date: Officer: Council: 17/11/2015 Kate Bowen

Applicant: Mr Bill Sarre, TJL UK Ltd, 15 Esplanade, C/O Hawkesford, St. Helier, Jersey, Channel Islands, JE1 1RB

Location: Land adjacent Tesco Service Station, Mill Lane, Welshpool, Powys, SY21 7BL

Proposal: Erection of 2 no. retail units (class A1) with ancillary pet grooming and veterinary services, delivery area and all associated works

Application Application for Full Planning Permission Type:

Reason for Committee determination

The proposal is a departure from the development plan because the application site is located on part of a site allocated for housing within the Unitary Development Plan.

Site Location and Description

The application site extends to approximately 0.53 hectares and forms part of the former cattle market in Welshpool. The south east part of the cattle market has been developed with the construction of a supermarket and this application proposes the construction of two retail units in the north eastern part of the cattle market site. The Montgomery branch of the Shropshire Union Canal is located to the west of the application site and the unclassified highway known as Mill Lane travels along the northern boundary of the application site. The south of the site is bounded by the existing car park constructed when the supermarket was developed. The site is currently unoccupied and has been graded as part of previous demolition and construction works to provide a level surface and is secured with hoarding around its perimeter.

The proposed development measures approximately 2,922 square metres gross external area and comprises:

• The erection of two retail units (use class A1), retail unit 1 being a general merchandise store of approximately 2,322 square metres gross internal area and retail unit 2 having a gross internal area of approximately 773 square metres including a ground floor area of approximately 501 square metres and a mezzanine floor with an approximate 272 square metres gross internal area. Unit 1 measures approximately 31.5 metres by a maximum of 22 metres and a maximum height of 10.8 metres. Unit 2 measures approximately 13.5 metres by 9.5 metres with a maximum height of 9.5 metres. The finish of the units would be a continuous brick plinth interrupted by rendered panels at low level with dark grey metal cladding panels above and partly cladded by timber fascia. The roof would be a light grey single ply.

1 Page 7 • Extended shared concrete service yard area; • Demolition of existing retaining brick wall along Mill Lane and erection of a new brick wall (of varying heights but up to a maximum of 3 metres) with high level timber infill along the boundaries with Mill Lane and along the boundary of the service yard with the canal; • Cycle stands; • Pedestrian links either in tarmac or paviours; and • Landscaping measures.

Consultee Response

Welshpool Town Council

The Council supports this application.

PCC Highway Authority

First response:

I note within the Transport statement on page 7 that there is reference to condition 10 of the original planning consent for application number M2006/0354 which states:-

“ Prior to the commencement of any buildings details of a scheme of car park management to control the operation of the proposed car park as a short stay shoppers car park at the site shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA. The car park thereafter shall be managed in accordance with the approved scheme unless subsequently amended in writing by the LPA”

Was the above ever actioned as this is a fundamental part of this application. If it has not can be re-iterate this condition for this planning application.

With regard to pedestrian access to facilitate the requirements under the Active Travel Plan legislation I am still a bit confused as to how pedestrians will reach the main access way to the buildings from Mill Lane. Perhaps you could enlighten me on this aspect.

Second response:

1, After speaking to several of my colleagues on the parking scenario we feel that a 2 hour maximum stay would be more appropriate and would be in line with other supermarkets in the town. As it stands these units have no parking spaces stipulated within their application so I cannot approve until I have something in writing off Tesco that these new measures will be implented prior to the opening of the new stores. We need to have a condition attached to this application and this may be via a Section 106 agreement with Tesco and the County Council. Perhaps Colin Edwards can advise on this.

2, Pedestrian links- I appreciate the comments that have been submitted but as far as I am aware there are no drawings detailing the ramp from the canal footpath and along the west of the new stores which connect back into the Tesco car-park. Please request this information for us to consider further the inclusive mobility of the application.

Until the above information is satisfactory resolved we are unable to support the application.

2 Page 8 Third response:

Can you please condition ramp details then together with a management company. This is nothing to do with Highways but I suspect the Canal and Rivers Trust would want to be involved as they would not want a wall toppling over onto the canal tow path. Have we looked for a commuted sum on this aspect?

With regard to parking then that appears to be sorting itself out then would it be worth the Council writing to Tesco to just reinforce the Councils desire with there’s to get the parking restrictions up and running.

Highway conditions can’t really see what I can impose just that the service yard access is constructed as per the approved plans prior to the opening of any of the units.

PCC Building Control

Building Regulations application required.

Wales & West Utilities

No response received.

PCC Environmental Health

I have no objection to the application provided the suggested condition in section 5.11 of the acoustic report by Sharps Redmore is attached to the application.

I would also suggest a condition of no collection and deliveries to the units between 21.00 and 07.00 hours which is the same as the Tesco store.

PCC Contaminated Land Officer

In respect of Planning Application P/2015/1119 the following advice is provided for the consideration of Development Control.

Advice 1. Historic records identify that the Eastern portion of the proposed development site was occupied by Smithfield cattle market.

Furthermore, the proposed development site currently adjoins a Service Station and formed part of a wider development completed under Planning Approval P/2009/1027, which included the standard land contamination planning conditions (identified as Condition 12, Condition 13 and Condition 14 on the Decision Notice). The development site was investigated, assessed and remediated under the requirements of the conditions attached to Planning Approval P/2009/1027.

2. Given the historic use of the proposed development site and the location of the adjoining service station it is recommended that the following Informant is attached to any permission granted for Planning Application P/2015/1119:

3 Page 9 Potential Contamination Informant Due to the potential for contamination issues as a result of the historical land use, should any made ground and/or contamination be identified during the works it would be prudent to investigate the potential for such contamination and inform the Council’s Contaminated Land Officers immediately.

PCC Ecologist

Ecological Topic Observations The proposal involves the development of 0.53ha of land for retail units that was previously approved for development in 2009 EIA Screening (P/2009/0357). It is understood that an EIA Screening Opinion was Not applicable Requirement received previously and an ES was completed for the development of the wider site, but has not been provided with this application.

The Ecological Report by Aspect Ecology dated November 2015 concludes that there is some minor potential for adverse effects on bat foraging and/or commuting routes, especially along the canal ☒ corridor e.g. via light spill. Recommended mitigation measures European Species include:  Ensuring that any new external lighting is minimised and directed to avoid light‐spill towards the western boundary.

The Ecological Report by Aspect Ecology dated November 2015 concludes that Badgers have been recorded in the local area, but not within the site. There is also potential for birds to use the establishing vegetation within the site as nesting habitat. Protected Recommended mitigation measures include: Species &  Any clearance or management work affecting nesting birds UK Species ☒ Habitats1 should be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season (March to August inclusive). If this is not possible areas to be worked on should be checked by a suitably‐qualified ecologist in order to confirm the absence of active nests prior to removal.

The Ecological Report by Aspect Ecology dated November 2015 Sect. 42 Species & ☒ concludes that Brown Hare and Hedgehog have been recorded in Habitat the local area, but not within the site.

See comments above. LBAP Species & ☒ Habitat

The site is adjacent to the Montgomery Canal SAC. A Test of Likely ☒ Protected International Sites Significant Effects has concluded that there would not be any Sites (within 2km)2 adverse effects on the SAC.

1 Species records within 1km (minimum). Change distance dependant on project type, scale, etc. 2 Identify International designated site within 2km of the proposals. Consider International sites within 15km of proposals with bats as qualifying features, and 10km with otters as qualifying features if the proposal is likely to affect these features. 4 Page 10 The site is adjacent to the Montgomery Canal SSSI. National Sites Bron y Buckley Wood and Gungrog Flash SSSIs are located within ☒ (within 500m)3 2km of the site but separated by established development within Welshpool. None within 500m of the development. Local Sites (within ☐ 500m)

Invasive Non‐ Click here to enter text. Native No Species Click here to enter text. Cumulative No Effect

A Test of Likely Significant Effects on the adjacent Montgomery Canal SAC has concluded that there is not likely to be a significant effect on this European site (Aspect Ecology, November 2015). Subject to the scheme drainage still being proposed as referred to in paragraph 7.5.13 of Section 7 of the Aspect Ecology ecological Summary of recommendations / further report (dated November 2015) I would agree with this conclusion on assessment or work behalf of the Competent Authority. I recommend that the views of NRW are obtained regarding the potential impacts on the SAC to ensure that they are in agreement with the conclusion of the Test of Likely Significant Effects.

1) The recommendations identified for the Montgomery Canal corridor, general construction safeguards, bats and nesting birds in Section 6 of the Ecological Report by Aspect Ecology dated November 2015 shall be adhered to and implemented in full unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA.

Reason: To comply with Powys County Council’s UDP Policies SP3, ENV2 and ENV7 in relation to The Natural Environment and to meet the requirements of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 7, July 2014), TAN 5: Nature Conservation and Planning and the NERC Act 2006.

2) Prior to commencement of development, a Biodiversity Recommended Conditions Enhancement Plan to include details of the enhancement measures recommended for new wildlife planting, habitat enhancement, birds and bats in Sections 6.7 to 6.9 of the Ecological Report by Aspect Ecology dated November 2015 shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and implemented as approved and maintained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA.

Reason: To comply with Powys County Council’s UDP Policies SP3, ENV2, ENV3 and ENV7 in relation to The Natural Environment and to meet the requirements of TAN 5: Nature Conservation and Planning, Welsh government strategies, and the NERC Act 2006.

3) Prior to commencement of development, a Species List for the

3 Any designated sites within 500m of the proposal, extending to 2km dependant on features of interest i.e. wetlands (Powys LDP) 5 Page 11 Landscape Planting shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and implemented as approved and maintained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA.

Reason: To comply with Powys County Council’s UDP Policies SP3 and ENV3 in relation to The Natural Environment and to meet the requirements of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 7, July 2014), TAN 5: Nature Conservation and Planning and the NERC Act 2006.

4) A lighting design scheme to take into consideration any impacts on nocturnal/crepuscular wildlife along the Montgomery Canal riparian corridor to the west of the site boundary shall be submitted for written LPA approval.

Reason: To comply with Powys County Council’s UDP Policies SP3, ENV3, ENV4 and ENV5 in relation to The Natural Environment and to meet the requirements of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 7, July 2014), TAN 5: Nature Conservation and Planning and the NERC Act 2006.

5) A site drainage plan to take into consideration any impacts on the Montgomery Canal SAC/SSSI shall be submitted for written LPA approval.

6) Prior to the first use of the site, an ecological consultant shall visit the site to check that all of the ecology mitigation and enhancements have been implemented and are fit for purpose and a written report shall be submitted to the LPA confirming that this the case.

Reason: To ensure that all species are protected having regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and to comply with Powys County Council’s UDP Policies SP3, ENV3 and ENV7 in relation to The Natural Environment and to meet the requirements of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 7, July 2014), TAN 5: Nature Conservation and Planning and the NERC Act 2006.

Informatives

Birds ‐ Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) All nesting birds, their nests, eggs and young are protected by law

6 Page 12 and it is an offence to:  intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird  intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst it is in use or being built  intentionally take or destroy the egg of any wild bird  intentionally (or recklessly in England and Wales) disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule1 while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird. The maximum penalty that can be imposed ‐ in respect of a single bird, nest or egg ‐ is a fine of up to 5,000 pounds, six months imprisonment or both.

UDP SP 3 ‐ Natural, Historic And Built Heritage Policy Env 2 ‐ Safeguarding the Landscape Policy Env 3 ‐ Safeguarding Biodiversity and Natural Habitats Relevant UDP Policies Policy Env 4 ‐ Internationally Important Sites Policy Env 5 ‐ Nationally Important Sites Policy Env 7 ‐ Protected Species

Click here to enter text. Comments on Additional Information

PCC Land Drainage

No response received

Natural Resources Wales (NRW)

First response

Thank you for referring the above application.

Natural Resources Wales brings together the work of the Countryside Council for Wales, Environment Agency Wales and Forestry Commission Wales, as well as some functions of Welsh Government. Our purpose is to ensure that the natural resources of Wales are sustainably maintained, used and enhanced, now and in the future.

7 Page 13 Natural Resources Wales do not object to the proposal provided that the applicant provides assurances that no buildings are constructed over the culverted Lledan Brook (IDD watercourse) and that appropriate pollution prevention measures are incorporated within the scheme.

Flood Risk The application is for less vulnerable development, primarily in DAM A and partly C2. Whilst the principle of the development is acknowledged, the applicant may wish to liaise with the Lead Local Flood Authority for progress on the Powys County Council flood alleviation scheme and any proposals they may have for challenging our flood map. Until such time as the flood map is changed, there may be insurance related issues for owners of the unit. In any event, best practice in terms of raised floor levels and sensible infrastructure design is advised for the units.

The Lledan Brook (IDD watercourse) is known to pass in culvert beneath the Tesco car park. The culvert may also pass under part of the application site, or at least influence construction techniques in the south eastern corner of the site. As this has not been considered within the submitted FCA we advise that the applicant consults the Powysland IDD representative Mr James West – NRW Technical Senior Advisor, Tel:03000 655295, [email protected] for further information on the alignment of the culverted section. Environment Agency legacy culverting policy resists any development over a culverted watercourse and assurances are required that this will not be the case.

It is proposed to utilise existing surface water drainage arrangements. Whilst the Lead Local Flood Authority should be consulted with regards to surface water control, NRW emphasises that TAN15 promotes the use of sustainable drainage techniques and betterment in terms of run-off control, wherever possible. For any units such as the proposed, we would expect rainwater harvesting, at the minimum, to be adopted as best practice.

Pollution Prevention of Montgomery Canal SSSI / SAC Natural Resources Wales have considered the Ecological Appraisal by Aspect Ecology – Land Adjacent to Tesco Service Station, Smithfield Road, Welshpool. November 2015 (ECO1707.ESR.vf) and we welcome the habitat enhancement recommendations.

Due to the proximity of the SAC the applicant should incorporate pollution prevention measures to protect ground and surface waters during the construction process and from accidental discharge of fuel or run off from car parking areas during operation.

NRW recommend the advice given in Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPG) note 5 – ‘Works and Maintenance in or Near Water’ as good environmental practice to inform a Pollution Prevention Plan. The guidance can be found at the following link http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/business/topics/pollution/39083.aspx

Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) the LPA will need to carry out a test of likely significant effect.

Should your authority be minded to grant planning permission, Natural Resources Wales do not object to the proposal, subject to all avoidance measures described in section 6.3 of the

8 Page 14 ecological report being set out in a method statement and secured through the inclusion of suitable planning conditions and/or a Section 106 agreement.

The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006)

Please note that we have not considered possible effects on all species and habitats listed in section 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, or on the Local Biodiversity Action Plan or other local natural heritage interests. To comply with your authority's duty under section 40 of the NERC Act, to have regard to conserving biodiversity, your decision should take account of possible adverse effects on such interests. We recommend that you seek further advice from your authority's internal ecological adviser and/or nature conservation organisations such as the local Wildlife Trust, RSPB, etc. The Wales Biodiversity Partnership's web site has guidance for assessing proposals that have implications for section 42 habitats and species (www.biodiversitywales.org.uk).

To conclude, NRW do not object to the proposal provided that the applicant provides assurances that no buildings are constructed over the culverted Lledan Brook (IDD watercourse) and that appropriate pollution prevention measures are incorporated within the scheme.

Second response

Thank you for sending Natural Resources Wales further information with regard to the above planning proposal. We previously responded on 14th January 2016 and said, “Natural Resources Wales do not object to the proposal provided that the applicant provides assurances that no buildings are constructed over the culverted Lledan Brook (IDD watercourse) and that appropriate pollution prevention measures are incorporated within the scheme.”

Having considered further information that NRW received on 27th January 2016 we are satisfied with the applicant’s confirmation that the development will not be constructed over the culvert in the vicinity of the proposals.

With respect to the pollution prevention plan requirement we recommend that Condition No. 15 and Condition 27 of Planning Permission P/2010/1452 are included within any subsequent approval of this planning permission.

The conditions state: 15. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, vessel or the combined capacity of the interconnected tanks or vessels plus 10%. All filling points, associated pipework, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund or have secondary containment. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework shall be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tanks/vessels overflow pipe outlets shall be designed to discharge downwards into the bund. 27. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved ‘Construction

9 Page 15 Pollution Control Plan’ (ref: 08-3273.01), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

To conclude, Natural Resources Wales do not object to the proposal subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions as described above.

Welsh Government Transport

I refer to your consultation of 3 December 2015 regarding the above application and advise that the Welsh Government as highway authority for the A483 trunk road does not issue a direction in respect of this application.

Severn Trent Water

Thank you for the consultation on the above planning application and have the following comments to make.

I can confirm we have no objections to the proposals subject to the inclusion of the following condition. ‘The development hereby permitted should not commence until drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water flows have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use. This is to ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to reduce of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem and to minimise the risk of pollution.’

Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust

Thank you for the consultation relating to this application.

As with the previous applications for this development area we would wish to recommend an archaeological watching brief due to the potential for sub-surface prehistoric and later archaeology. The earlier evaluation trenching in the area for the main Tesco development revealed features under deep soil cover that represented prehistoric activity (flint tools, post holes and gullies) on the edge of a former watercourse along which this activity focussed.

Works to insert deep foundations or services in this area may encounter these deposits and a suitable record should be made of any archaeological features recognised during the early stages of development.

I have provided a suitable condition below which will allow this work to take place:

Suggested planning condition to facilitate an archaeological watching brief

The developer shall ensure that a suitably qualified archaeological contractor is present during the undertaking of any ground works in the development area so that an archaeological watching brief can be conducted. The archaeological watching brief must meet the standards laid down by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists Standard and Guidance for archaeological watching briefs. The Local Planning Authority will be informed in writing, at least two weeks prior to the commencement of the development, of the name of the said archaeological contractor. A copy of the resulting report should be submitted to the

10 Page 16 Local Planning Authority and the Development Control Archaeologist, Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust (41 Broad Street, Welshpool, Powys, SY21 7RR Email: [email protected] Tel: 01938 553670). After approval by the Local Planning Authority, a copy of the report and resulting archive should also be sent to the Historic Environment Record Officer, Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust for inclusion in the regional Historic Environment Record.

Reason: To secure preservation by record of any archaeological remains which may be revealed during ground excavations for the consented development.

Please contact me if you wish to discuss this advice or require further information.

Disability Powys

No response received.

Canal & Rivers Trust

Thank you for your consultation dated 03 December 2015 in respect of the above. The Canal & River Trust is a statutory consultee under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

The Canal & River Trust is a company limited by guarantee and registered as a charity. It is separate from government but still the recipient of a significant amount of government funding.

The Trust has a range of charitable objects including: • To hold in trust or own and to operate and manage inland waterways for public benefit, use and enjoyment; • To protect and conserve objects and buildings of heritage interest; • To further the conservation, protection and improvement of the natural environment of inland waterways; and • To promote sustainable development in the vicinity of any inland waterways for the benefit of the public.

Whilst the Trust does not oppose the principle of retail units in this location and can appreciate the economic benefits to Welshpool of such a development, after initial consideration of the application, the Canal & River Trust is unable to make a substantive response at this time due to the absence of information relating to the treatment of the canal elevation, the treatment of the canal side space and associated pedestrian links and proposals for surface water discharge.

The Council has a recognised commitment to the restoration of the canal and the Powys County Council Unitary Development Plan 2001–2016 seeks to establish the canal as a major tourist attraction and recognises the recreation, economic and employment benefits that enhancing the Waterway could bring.

The Welsh Government Technical Advice Note 12 (TAN12) – Design (July 2014) states that consideration should be given to “how the layout makes the development integrate with its

11 Page 17 surroundings whilst taking into consideration the orientation of the building to maximise energy efficiency and connectivity (the ways in which routes and open spaces within the development are provided, situated and orientated in relation to each other and to buildings and spaces outside the development); how the external area contributes towards the development and is used to make the development a more sustainable development; how is the chosen site the best location and how it links into adjacent uses (p.19).” TAN12 further advises of the need to maximise “safe and clear connections and the potential to cycle, walk and use public transport safely, and reducing the reliance on the car” (p.24).

The requested information is necessary to enable the Trust to consider fully the impact of the proposal against these considerations.

The Trust is also unable to determine from the submitted information whether the applicant intends to discharge surface water into the canal. The Trust would be concerned if surface water from the proposed service yard was to enter the canal which is a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) along its whole length and in Wales is also a Special Area of Conservation (SAC).The submitted application form says that surface water will discharge to an “existing watercourse” whilst the submitted Flood Risk Assessment Section 5 Drainage Proposals states that “it is understood that allowance was made for discharge surface water from the proposed development site to the surface water drainage scheme that was designed and constructed as part of the adjacent Tesco food store development. It was then proposed that all surface water runoff from the proposed development should be discharged to the existing surface water drainage system in accordance with the requirements of the submitted scheme”.

The Trust would therefore request clarification regarding proposals for surface water discharge from the proposed scheme to inform its response.

In accordance with paragraph 45 of ODPM Circular 08/2005, the Canal & River Trust will provide a substantive response within 21 days of the receipt of the information requested above.

The Trust would also advise that from the information submitted it appears that there are further measures which could be taken to enhance the scheme and improve the appearance of the development along the canal frontage and the pedestrian linkage between the site and the waterway. These aspects would not only benefit the Montgomery Canal Corridor but this part of Welshpool generally in line with National and Local Planning Policy. The Trust would be happy to meet with the applicant to discuss an opportunity to work with them on enhancing the appearance of the scheme from the canal and the potential for pedestrian linkage.

Montgomery Waterway Restoration Trust

Writing on behalf of Montgomery Waterway Restoration Trust We can find no evidence that you have consulted Canal and River Trust or Montgomery Waterway Trust or Inland Waterways Association on this proposal. There is no evidence that the impact upon the canal environment has been properly considered or addressed. Given the long standing support that Powys Council have given to the restoration of the canal and the clear UDP/LP policy support for it and the huge economic and environmental benefits to the town, it seems

12 Page 18 extraordinary that the matter has only come to our attention by chance. We request that a proper appraisal of impacts upon the canal is sought before this progresses further.

Inland Waterways Association

I am writing on behalf of the Inland Waterways Association, which campaigns for the conservation, use, maintenance, restoration and sensitive development of Britain's canals and river navigations. Established in 1946, it now has over 15,000 members. We have no objections to the principal of retail units being built on this site, but we are objecting to the application on the grounds that the design is unsatisfactory because it ignores the site’s relationship with the canal. Powys County Council is actively working with partners, one of which is the Inland Waterways Association, to restore the canal as a significant local amenity, tourism attraction, economic generator and environmental haven. Powys County Council’s approved Development Management Policies include: The scale, massing, siting and external appearance of the development should integrate with the general character of the surrounding area and significantly enhance the appearance of the site. ... The development should integrate with the overall character of the area and enhance the visual amenities of the area. Particular attention should be paid to the appearance of the site from surrounding key views and vistas of the site. One of the key views and vistas is that from the canal. The towpath is much used by walkers, both local residents and long-distance walkers. It is symptomatic that in the Evaluation and Design Objectives (Section 4), proximity to the Montgomery Canal is listed as a site constraint not as a site opportunity. On the following page, the first key design principle is stated as the scheme has to respect its position within its local setting and great importance will need to be given to the treatment of the site and its boundaries. This will need to ensure that the proposal sits comfortably within its setting and enhances the existing context. This expresses the requirement very well, but regrettably the proposal does not achieve this.

Representations

Following the display of site notices and publicity in the local press, no public representations have been received.

Planning History

P/2011/0591 - Erection of a retail unit (Replacement of unit 4 granted under under P/2009/1027) for 70% comparison goods floorspace and 30% convenience goods floorspace. Conditional consent 8/8/2011

P/2011/0565 – Display of various advertisement signs. Conditional consent 12/07/2011

P/2011/0436 – Display of a variety of advertisement signs. Conditional consent 08/06/2011

P/2010/1462 - Reserved matters application for the design & external appearance of the petrol filling station. Conditional consent 15/02/2011

P/2010/1452 – Section 73 application to vary conditions 21, 22, 23 & 25 attached to planning permission P2009 1027 to increase the comparison goods floor area within Tesco Store by 71 sqm & reduce the comparison floor area allocated to retail warehousing units by 71 sqm. Conditional consent subject to a section 106 agreement 21/09/2011

13 Page 19

P/2010/0175 - Listed building consent for removal of bridge in order to renovate/upgrade offsite and reinstatement when works complete. Conditional consent 12/07/2010

P/2010/0160 - Reserved matters application for the approval of siting, design, external appearance and landscaping in connection with planning application P2009 1027 for a mixed-use redevelopment including non-food retail (Class A1), foodstore (Class A1) petrol filling station (Class Sui Generis), associated food and drink facility (Class A3) and construction of vehicular access, car parking, servicing and landscaping. Conditional consent 04/05/2010

P/2009/1027 - Section 73 application to vary condition 9 attached to planning permission M2006 0354 to vary the date of construction of the town centre traffic management route. Conditional consent subject to a section 106 agreement 22/2/2010

P/2009/0357 – Details: Mixed use development including non food retail (Class A1) and foodstore (Class A1), Petrol Filling Station (Class sui generis), associated food & drink facilitiy (Class A3) and construction of vehicular access, car parking, servicing & landscaping (amendements showing town centre traffic management scheme). Conditional consent 09/12/2009

M/2006/0354 - Outline application for mixed-use redevelopment including non-food retail (Class A1), foodstore (Class A1) petrol filling station (Class Sui Generis), associated food and drink facility (Class A3) and construction of vehicular access, car parking, servicing and landscaping (Amendments showing town centre traffic management scheme) – Conditional consent subject to a section 106 agreement 28/05/2008

Principal Planning Constraints

 Adjacent to Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) – Montgomery Canal  Adjacent to Special Area of Conservation (SAC) – Montgomery Canal  Located on part of site allocated for housing within the Unitary Development Plan (Site description M198 HA8 – Smithfield South, Mill Lane)  Part of site within C2 Flood Zone and National Flood Zone 2  Smithfield Road and Mill Lane are unclassified highways  Welshpool Conservation Area located to north west and south of application site  Domen Castell Mound and Bailey Castle Scheduled Ancient Monument is located approximately 123 metres to the south east of the application site  Number of listed buildings in vicinity of application site including:  Former Railway Bridge over Montgomeryshire Canal (Grade II)  Lledan Brook Aqueduct and Weir (Grade II)  Former Canal Warehouse (Grade II)  Aqueduct Cottage (Grade II)  Numbers 1 to 4 Clive Place (Grade II); and  Powys County Council Offices (Neuadd Maldwyn) (Grade II).

14 Page 20 Principal Planning Policies

National Planning Policy

Planning Policy Wales (Edition 8, January 2016)

TAN 4 – Retailing and Town Centres (1996) TAN 5 – Nature Conservation and Planning (2009) TAN 11 – Noise (1997) TAN 12 – Design (2014) TAN 15 – Development and Flood Risk (2004) TAN 18 - Transport (2007) TAN 23 – Economic Development (2014)

Welsh Government Circular 016/2014 – The Use of Conditions for Development Management Welsh Office Circular 11/99 – Environmental Impact Assessment Welsh Office Circular: 60/96 – Planning and the Historic Environment: Archaeology Welsh Office Circular 61/96 – Planning and Historic Environment: Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas Welsh Office Circular: 22/86 – Development of Contaminated Land

Local Planning Policy

Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010)

UDP SP3 - Natural, Historic and Built Heritage UDP SP7 – Retail Developments, Leisure and other Town Centre Uses UDP SP14 - Development In Flood Risk Areas UDP ENV 2 – Safeguarding the Landscape UDP ENV 3 - Safeguarding Biodiversity & Natural Habitats UDP ENV 4 - Internationally Important Sites UDP ENV 5 - Nationally Important Sites UDP ENV 7 - Protected Species UDP ENV11 - Development in Conservation Areas UDP ENV 14 – Listed Buildings UDP ENV17 – Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites UDP ENV18 – Development Proposals Affecting Archaeological Sites UDP RP1 – Retail Centre Hierarchy UDP RP2 – Attractive Town Centres UDP RP6 – Large Retail Developments UDP RP7 – Bulky (Non-Food) Goods UDP GP1 – Development Control UDP GP3 – Design and Energy Conservation UDP GP4 – Highway and Parking Requirements UDP EC1 – Business, Industrial and Commercial Developments UDP T2 – Traffic Management UDP T3 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans UDP T4 – Transport User Hierarchy UDP T6 – Walking and Cycling

15 Page 21 UDP TR2 – Tourist Attractions and Development Areas UDP DC1 – Access by Disabled Persons UDP DC9 – Protection of Water Resources UDP DC10 – Mains Sewage Treatment UDP DC13 – Surface Water Drainage UDP DC15 – Development on Unstable or Contaminated Land

RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

Officer Appraisal

Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Members are advised to consider this application in accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that, if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 and Test of Likely Significant Effects

No statutory Environmental Impact Assessment has been requested as whilst the proposed development falls within Schedule 2 of the above Regulations and exceeds the applicable thresholds and criteria specified in the Regulations it has been considered against the Selection Criteria detailed in Schedule 3 of the Regulations and the advice in Welsh Office Circular 11/99 and in the opinion of the local planning authority the proposed development is not likely to have a significant effect on the environment.

A Test of Likely Significant Effects on the adjacent Montgomery Canal SAC carried out by Aspect Ecology on behalf of the applicant has concluded that there is not likely to be a significant effect on this European site. Subject to the scheme drainage still being proposed as referred to in paragraph 7.5.13 of Section 7 of the Aspect Ecology ecological report (dated November 2015), the response issued on behalf of the Council’s Ecologist confirms that they agree with this conclusion on behalf of the Competent Authority. NRW have also been consulted on the application and have not raised concern over this aspect.

Principle and Policy

Welshpool is identified as an Area Retail Centre in the UDP and consequently is seen as strategically important in terms of retail and service provision. Although the application is a departure from the development plan because the application does not propose residential housing development, the principle of retail units at the site has been accepted under the various permissions relating to the site. In addition, the site is classified as a brownfield site, having been previously developed.

The proposal would result in a reduction of the retail units permitted from 4 to 2 and a reduction in the total amount of consented retail floorspace. The extant permissions have accepted the need for up to 3,970 square metres gross of additional retail warehouse.

16 Page 22

There is an extant permission granted under reference P/2010/1452 which was a Section 73 application to vary conditions 21, 22, 23 & 25 attached to planning permission P/2009/1027 to increase the comparison goods floor area within Tesco Store by 71sqm and to reduce the comparison floor area allocated to retail warehousing units by 71sqm. In addition, a further extant permission (P/2011/0591) exists for the erection of a retail unit (Replacement of unit 4 granted under P/2009/1027) for 70% comparison goods floorspace and 30% convenience goods floorspace.

P/2010/1452 was granted in September 2011 subject to a number of conditions with the following conditions relating to the retail units:

 Condition 21 – The gross floorspace of the comparison goods retail warehousing hereby permitted shall not exceed 3,970.00 sq m.

 Condition 22 – No more than 1,953 sq m of the comparison goods retail warehousing floorspace shall be used for the sale of goods other than DIY goods, carpets and floor coverings; tiles; furniture and soft furnishings; motor vehicle accessories; pets and pet supplies; garden products; and major electrical appliances.

 Condition 23 – The comparison goods retail units hereby permitted shall have minimum floor space of 500 sq m.

 Condition 24 – None of the retail stores (convenience or comparison) shall be subsequently subdivided without the prior written consent of the local planning authority. For the avoidance of doubt, no additional mezzanine floorspace shall be constructed that would otherwise exceed the retail floorspace hereby permitted, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

The reason for these conditions was to protect the attractiveness, viability and vitality of the town centre as a shopping centre in accordance with Policy RP6 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan.

Planning permission P/2011/0591 for the single retail unit was granted subject to a condition which states ‘the permission hereby permitted shall be included in the calculation of the floorspace for the purposes of conditions 22 and 23 of planning permission P/2009/1027 and conditions 21 and 22 of planning permission P/2010/1452 and any variation of those conditions’.

TAN 4 states that all applications for retail developments over 2,500 square metres gross floor space should be supported by an impact assessment. In this instance, given the extant permissions and that there would be a reduction in the total amount of retail warehousing, no impact assessment has been submitted. However, given that the application site is not located within the town centre, a Supporting Retail Assessment has been submitted which considers the ‘sequential test’ (whether there are more centrally located or closer sites to the town centre available for retail use) set out within national and local planning policy. The principle issue is whether there are any suitable sites within in the town centre that are available now and can meet the same market and locational requirements to provide floorspace which accords with the operational needs of retailers. It is proposed that B&M Retail Ltd will occupy the larger unit; however no retailer has been identified for the smaller

17 Page 23 unit. The B&M store would comprise 2,322 square metres of gross internal area (GIA). B&M are generally regarded as a retailer which sells bulky and comparison goods in a DIY format. Such goods include indoor and outdoor furniture, greening products, home textiles, household goods, flooring, furnishings, housewares, seasonal items, paint, wallpaper and DIY products. These DIY and Home Improvement product categories account for approximately 70% of the floor space and sales with the average B&M store. The remaining 30% of the floorspace are used for the retail sale of other comparison and convenience goods. All of these items are permitted under the terms of the existing permissions. The market and locational requirements of B&M are:

 At least 1,500 square metres floor space;  A car park adjacent to the store;  An area to store trolleys; and  The provision of the majority of the main sales area on a single, ground floor level.

At the time of submission, the Co-Operative store was vacant; however the building is now occupied by a retailer. Otherwise there are no allocated sites for retail development within the UDP and Development Management is not aware of any other units or sites with planning permission that would suit the market and locational requirements of the retailer.

The submission states that the proposal would require 28 full-time employees and 42 part- time employees and taking into account TAN 23, considerable weight should be given to the economic benefits of the proposal. Taking into account the economic benefits of the proposal, the fall-back position in terms of the extant permissions, the evidence which addresses the sequential test, subject to the use of appropriate conditions similar to that applied on the extant permissions in terms of floorspace, it is considered that the proposal complies with UDP Policies RP6 and RP7, TAN 4 and Planning Policy Wales.

Impact upon character and appearance of settlement and surrounding area

The concerns raised by the canal bodies in respect of the appearance of the proposed development and its relationship to the canal are noted. Firstly, it is clarified that Development Management’s records indicate that the Canal & River Trust, Montgomery Waterway Restoration Trust and Inland Waterways Association were all consulted on the application.

The site is currently unoccupied and has been graded as part of previous demolition and construction works to provide a level surface and is secured with hoarding around its perimeter. It is therefore recognised that the area would benefit from development, however consideration must still be given to the appropriateness of the proposed design.

As discussed above, the fall-back position of the extant planning permissions can be relied upon. These permissions granted consent for four units in the format of two pairs. The layout of the proposed development would utilise a similar footprint to the approved layout, however, the units would have a layout in the format of two joined units. In addition, the turning circle for the service yard would be located in the north western corner of the development yard, to the rear of unit two. Therefore, the smaller unit would be sited adjacent to the canal with the larger unit set back. The proposal has retained the majority of the public realm area between the canal and the units, although in comparison to the extant permissions, the area also includes some additional soft landscape planting. It is noted that

18 Page 24 the original approved plans included a café fronting onto the canal which was agreed to be omitted informally by Development Management. The original intention of the café and piazza area was to provide a public frontage onto the canal which would be somewhat lost within the proposed development because the service yard and western elevation of unit 2 would be located adjacent to the canal, however it is acknowledged that Development Management previously agreed to the removal of the café.

The submitted drawings indicate that the design of the units would reflect the foodstore building and although the proposed development would be constructed as a single building with the loss of the ‘gap’ between the previously approved units and a change in the roof line, the design of the units themselves is considered acceptable. Whilst the concerns from the canal bodies are accepted, it is not considered that given the informal change agreed by Development Management, the design is inappropriate such that would warrant refusal of the application.

The Highway Authority has queried whether a commuted sum is required for the proposed pedestrian access ramp. The proposal includes the construction of the ramp and as such it is considered that a commuted sum is not required for these works. In addition, the section 106 agreement relating to the extant permissions do not include such a requirement. In order to ensure that the ramp is constructed prior to the units being operational, it is recommended that a condition should be attached to any consent granted.

Overall, it is considered that the impact of the proposal on the appearance and character of the surrounding area is acceptable subject to the use of conditions relating to the approval and implementation of soft landscaping and a management scheme for the public realm area.

Impact upon canal as an established tourist attraction

As advised by the canal bodies, the canal is a tourist attraction in Welshpool with barges using the canal as well as the towpaths and wharf providing access for members of the public. In addition, it is agreed that the canal area will accommodate one of the key views of the proposed development. It is also recognised that the canal bodies and Powys County Council are actively seeking to enhance the canal.

As discussed above, the proposal has sought to retain the public realm element of the approved scheme and it is not considered that refusal would be warranted in respect of the approved design. Subject to conditions relating to proposed landscaping and a management scheme for the public realm, it is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the environmental setting of the established tourist attraction in accordance with UDP Policy TR2.

Impact upon heritage features

Archaeology

CPAT has recommended that as with the previous applications for this development area an archaeological watching brief shall be carried out. There is the potential for sub-surface prehistoric and later archaeology. The earlier evaluation trenching in the area for the main Tesco development revealed features under deep soil cover that represented prehistoric

19 Page 25 activity (flint tools, post holes and gullies) on the edge of a former watercourse along which this activity focussed. Works to insert deep foundations or services in this area may encounter these deposits and a suitable record should be made of any archaeological features recognised during the early stages of development. Therefore, CPAT have recommended that a condition requiring a watching brief is attached to any consent granted. Taking into account the comments from CPAT and UDP Policies ENV17 and ENV18, it is considered reasonable that such a condition should be attached to any consent granted to ensure that any archaeology at the site is recorded.

Conservation area

The Welshpool conservation area is located approximately 65 metres to the north east of the application site, across the Mill Lane bridge and canal and 70 metres to the south across the existing car park. Members are advised that special attention must be given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) 1990.

Although the proposed development will be visible from parts of the conservation area and would affect views into the conservation area from the supermarket development area, these views would be at some distance. In addition, built form intercepts these views. Taking into account these factors along with the previously approved scheme, it is considered that proposal would not significantly detract from the character or appearance of the conservation area in accordance with UDP Policy ENV11.

Listed buildings

The old railway bridge over the canal, the canal warehouse building and a number of residential properties accessed off Severn Road together with the Council Offices at Neuadd Maldwyn are listed buildings. The closest listed building (the old railway bridge) is located approximately 58 metres to the south west across the existing car park. Members are advised that special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings is required under sections 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The development will be visible from these listed buildings, however taking into account their settings, within an urban area and the distances involved, it is not considered that the proposal would unacceptably adversely affect the settings of the identified listed buildings in accordance with UDP Policy ENV14.

Scheduled Ancient Monument

Domen Castell Mound and Bailey Castle Scheduled Ancient Monument is located approximately 123 metres to the south east of the application site. There is a presumption in favour of safeguarding Scheduled Ancient Monuments and their settings.

Given the distance involved and that the existing supermarket building intercepts the scheduled ancient monument and the proposed development, it is considered that the setting of the identified scheduled ancient monument will not be unacceptably affected by the proposal in accordance with UDP Policy ENV17.

20 Page 26 Highway access, parking, pedestrian and cycling provision

The application is accompanied by a Transport Statement and a Travel Plan. Members will be aware that the overall development of the site was subject to a significant highways scheme. Access to the shared car park would remain as existing, via the access to the supermarket off Mill Lane. The retail units would be accessed by members of the public from the southern elevations facing onto the existing car park (to be shared with the existing supermarket). The access to the service yard is located to the north west corner of the retail units jointed with the separate exit route for the petrol tanker onto Mill Lane. Cycle stands for approximately 10 bicycles would be provided along the west elevation facing the canal and pedestrian access from the canal would be provided via a ramp to a public realm area which would provide access to the main entrances of the units.

The Highway Authority initially raised concern over the lack of car parking provision with the proposal. The car parking provision for the entire site, including the supermarket development has been already been provided and it is proposed to share the car parking as per the planning permission for the entire site. A car park management scheme restricting car parking to a maximum of 3 hours was approved under a condition of the previous consent. However this scheme has not been implemented and it is appreciated that the car park is well used at present. Although the Highway Authority’s concerns are appreciated, the proposal does not propose additional floor space that would warrant additional dedicated car parking provision and if necessary, the condition attached to the overall site consent could be enforced by the planning authority to assist in ensuring there is adequate parking provision for the entire site.

The Council’s Highway Authority and the Canal & River Trust have raised concern over the absence of information relating the treatment of the canal side space and associated pedestrian links. Additional information has been submitted which has addressed the Highway Authority’s concerns, although it is recommended that conditions requiring details of the ramp (construction method) and timing of its construction together with management of the public realm area are attached to any consent granted.

Overall, subject to the use of conditions, it is considered that the proposal provides adequate provision for access, parking, cycles and pedestrians in accordance with UDP Policies GP1, GP4, T4 and T6.

Ecology and pollution prevention

The submission includes an Ecological Appraisal which recommends safeguards (both construction and operational) with regard to the canal corridor, general construction safeguards and protective measures, safeguards/timing considerations in respect of birds during clearance/construction works, provision and management of new areas of native planting to be incorporated where possible, particularly associated with the offsite canal corridor and consideration given to the potential for provision of bird boxes. Natural Resources Wales and the response on behalf of the Council’s Ecologist have welcomed the recommendations subject to the use of conditions.

NRW have also advised that due to the proximity of the Montgomery Canal SAC, the development should incorporate pollution prevention measures to protect ground and surface waters during construction and operation. In addition, the Ecologist has recommended that a

21 Page 27 drainage plan is conditioned. The Canal & River Trust have also raised concern regarding this aspect. Additional information has been submitted which states that these measures are already in place as part of the overall drainage system implemented when the supermarket was constructed. In respect of this additional information, NRW has advised that they recommend that conditions 15 and 27 of planning permission P/2010/1452 are included within any subsequent approval of this planning permission. On the basis of this advice, it is considered reasonable that these conditions should be attached to any consent granted.

In consideration of the submitted ecological assessment and the advice received from NRW and on behalf of the Council’s Ecologist, it is concluded that the proposal would comply with the relevant local and national planning policies and guidance in respect of ecology subject to the use of conditions.

Impact upon amenities enjoyed by occupiers of neighbouring properties

The nearest residential properties (Clerk’s Court) are located to the north west of the application site, at a distance of approximately 26 metres. Otherwise there are residential properties located to the south of the application site, across the car park and to the north across Mill Lane and the partly undeveloped old sheep pens site (incorporating the Smithfield Bell public house). The proposal has the potential to affect the amenities enjoyed by occupiers of residential properties by noise and the submission includes a noise assessment.

The Council’s Environmental Health officer has advised that there is no objection to the application provided the suggested condition in section 5.11 of the noise assessment is attached. This condition requires the submission, approval and implementation of details of the fixed plant and machinery. The Environmental Health officer has also suggested a condition of no collection and deliveries to the units between 21.00 and 07.00 hours which is the same as the condition relating to the supermarket development.

Taking into account the information within the noise assessment and the comments from the Environmental Health officer, it is considered that the proposal accords with UDP Policy GP1 and TAN11 subject to the use of the suggested conditions.

Flood risk and surface water drainage

The application site is located primarily in DAM A and partly Zone C2 (north east corner). The proposed development is classed as less vulnerable development within TAN 15 and as such justification for the location is not required. The submission includes a Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA).

It is proposed to connect into the existing overall drainage system that was implemented when the supermarket was constructed with the connection having been capped off for the previously approved four units. The Council’s Land Drainage Engineer has not commented on the proposal and although NRW have advised that best practice surface water drainage principles are adopted, it is difficult to conclude that connection into the existing and approved drainage scheme for the whole site would not be an adequate means of surface water disposal.

The Lledan Brook which is culverted passes beneath the existing car park and NRW advise that the culvert may also pass underneath part of the application site or at least influence

22 Page 28 construction techniques in the south eastern corner of the site. This has not been considered within the FCA and NRW have requested assurances that the no buildings are proposed over the culverted brook. Additional information has been submitted which confirms that the culvert is 27m away from the culvert and that the only point where the culvert will be potentially crossed by vehicles involved in construction will be limited to the roundabout on Smithfield Road. NRW has been reconsulted on this additional information, and has advised that they are satisfied with the applicant’s confirmation that the development will not be constructed over the culvert in the vicinity of the proposals..

Foul drainage

The submission indicates that the foul sewage would be disposed of via mains sewer. This is the preferred method of disposal as advised by national and local planning policy. Severn Trent Water has advised that they have no objections to the proposal subject to a condition requiring the details of surface water and foul drainage. It is not clear what additional details are required in respect of foul drainage and as such it recommended that such a condition would be unreasonable.

Contaminated Land

The eastern portion of the proposed development site was occupied by the cattle market and the site currently adjoins a service station. The previous planning consents relating to the wider development included the standard land contamination planning conditions and as a result of those conditions, the development site was investigated, assessed and remediated. Therefore, the proposal does not raise any concerns in respect of contaminated land, however, the informant recommended by the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer should be attached to any consent granted for information purposes.

Access by Disabled Persons

UDP Policy DC1 requires new buildings to provide suitable access and amenity facilities for disabled persons. The submission indicates that provision for access for all would be provided by such measures as access via shallow gradients and tactile paving, by the provision of a pedestrian layout which is simple, logical and has minimal kerbs and internal doors to be fully compliant with Part M of the Building Regulations. Taking into account these proposed measures and others, along with the requirement for Building Regulations approval, it is considered that the proposal would make adequate provision for disabled access in accordance with UDP Policy DC1.

Conclusion

The extant permissions on the site for retail units together with the economic benefits of the proposal carry significant weight for approving the development. In addition, it is considered that the proposed design is not inappropriate. Otherwise, the other matters raised by consultees can be conditioned accordingly. Overall, it is considered that the proposal complies with national and local planning policy and subject to the use of conditions, it is recommended that consent is granted.

23 Page 29 Recommendation

Conditional Consent

1. The development to which this permission relates shall be begun no later than the expiration of five years from the date of this permission. 2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans and documents stamped as approved on xxxx (drawing no's: AP00A, AP05D, AP07A, AP06B, AP08A, AP09C, AP10B, AP16, 1979/601 Rev 1, 82608/200 Revision J, documents: Design and Access Statement Revision A, Transport Statement 15-00427/TS/01, Travel Plan 15- 00427/TP/01, Flood Consequences Assessment Revision 01, Noise Assessment dated 26th October 2015, Supporting Retail Assessment dated October 2015, Ecological Appraisal ECO1707.ESR.vf). 3. Prior to commencement of development, a Biodiversity Enhancement Plan to include details of the enhancement measures recommended for new wildlife planting, habitat enhancement, birds and bats in Sections 6.7 to 6.9 of the Ecological Report by Aspect Ecology dated November 2015 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and implemented as approved and maintained thereafter. 4. Prior to the commencement of development, the avoidance measures set out within section 6.3 of the Ecological Appraisal ECO1707.ESR.vf dated November 2015 shall be incorporated in a method statement and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The method statement shall be implemented in full. 5. Within one month of the implementation of this permission a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted design shall include drawings at a scale of 1:200 or 1:500 and a written specification clearly describing the species, sizes, densities and planting numbers. Drawings must include accurate details of all existing trees and hedgerows with their location, species, size, condition, any proposed tree surgery and an indication of which are to be retained and which are to be removed. 6. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. If any plants fail more than once they shall continue to be replaced on an annual basis until the end of the 5 year defects period. 7. A lighting design scheme to take into consideration any impacts on nocturnal/crepuscular wildlife along the Montgomery Canal riparian corridor to the west of the site boundary shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full. 8. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved ‘Construction Pollution Control Plan’ (ref: 08-3273.01). 9. The developer shall ensure that a suitably qualified archaeological contractor is present during the undertaking of any ground works in the development area so that an archaeological watching brief can be conducted. The archaeological watching brief must meet the standards laid down by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists Standard and Guidance for archaeological watching briefs. The Local Planning Authority will be informed in writing, at least two weeks prior to the commencement of the development, of the name of

24 Page 30 the said archaeological contractor. A copy of the resulting report should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 10. The cycle provision shall be implemented in accordance with drawing number AP05D prior to the first occupation of the application site by members of the public and shall be retained in perpetuity, 11. The gross floorspace of the comparison goods retail warehousing hereby permitted shall not exceed 3,970.00 sq m. 12. No more than 1,953 sq m of the comparison goods retail warehousing floorspace shall be used for the sale of goods other than DIY goods; carpets and floor coverings; tiles; furniture and soft furnishings; motor vehicle accessories; pets and pet supplies; garden products; and major electrical appliances. 13. The comparison goods retail units hereby permitted shall have minimum floorspace of 500 sq m. 14. Neither of the retail stores shall be subsequently subdivided without the prior written consent of the local planning authority. For the avoidance of doubt, no additional mezzanine floorspace shall be constructed that would otherwise exceed the retail floorspace hereby permitted. 15. Within one month of the implementation of this permission, details including cross sections of the ramp identified on drawing number: AP05D shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 16. Prior to the first occupation of the application site by members of the public the ramp identified on drawing number AP05D and subsequently approved pursuant to condition 15 shall be constructed and available for use. The ramp shall be retained in perpetuity. 17. Prior to the first occupation of the units by members of the public/customers the service yard identified on drawing number AP05D shall be constructed. The service yard shall be retained in perpetuity. 18. No fixed plant and/or machinery shall come into operation until details of the fixed plant and machinery serving the development hereby permitted, and any mitigation measures to achieve this condition, are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The rating level of the sound emitted from the site shall not exceed 45dBA between 0700 and 2300 hours and 35dBA at all other times. The sound levels shall be determined by measurement or calculation at the nearest noise sensitive premises. The measurements and assessment shall be made according to BS4142:2014. 19. Collection and deliveries to the units shall be between the hours of 0700 hours and 2100 hours. 20. Prior to first occupation of the retail units by members of the public/customers, a management scheme for the public realm area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved and retained in perpetuity. 21. The proposed development shall be implemented in full accordance with the surface water regulation scheme approved as part of the reserved matters permission for the whole site (Ref: P/2010/0160) and also referred to within condition 10 attached to subsequent approval (Ref: P/2010/1452). 22. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, vessel or the combined capacity of the interconnected tanks or vessels plus 10%. All filling points,

25 Page 31 associated pipework, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund or have secondary containment. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata.

Reasons 1. Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. To ensure adherence to the plans stamped as approved in the interests of clarity and a satisfactory development. 3. To comply with Policies SP3, ENV2, ENV3 and ENV7 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010) in relation to The Natural Environment and to meet the requirements of TAN 5: Nature Conservation and Planning, Welsh government strategies, and the NERC Act 2006. 4. To comply with Policies SP3, ENV2 and ENV7 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010) in relation to The Natural Environment and to meet the requirements of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 8, January 2016), TAN 5: Nature Conservation and Planning and the NERC Act 2006. 5. To ensure a satisfactory and well planned development and to preserve and enhance the quality of the environment, for biodiversity enhancement and visual amenity in accordance with Policies GP1, ENV2, ENV3, SP3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010), Planning Policy Wales (Edition 8, 2016) and TAN5: Nature Conservation and Planning (2009). 6. To ensure a satisfactory and well planned development and to preserve and enhance the quality of the environment, for biodiversity enhancement and visual amenity in accordance with Policies GP1, ENV2, ENV3, SP3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010), Planning Policy Wales (Edition 8, 2016) and TAN5: Nature Conservation and Planning (2009). 7. To comply with Policies SP3, ENV3, ENV4 and ENV5 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010) in relation to The Natural Environment and to meet the requirements of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 8, January 2016), TAN 5: Nature Conservation and Planning and the NERC Act 2006. 8. To comply with Policies SP3, ENV3, ENV4 and ENV5 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010) in relation to The Natural Environment and to meet the requirements of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 8, January 2016), TAN 5: Nature Conservation and Planning and the NERC Act 2006. 9. To secure preservation by record of any archaeological remains which may be revealed during ground excavations for the consented development in accordance with Policy ENV18 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010). 10. To promote cycle usage in accordance with Policies GP1, GP4 and T6 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010), Planning Policy Wales (Edition 8, January 2016) and Technical Advice Note 18: Transport. 11. To protect the attractiveness, vitality and viability of the town centre of Welshpool in accordance with Policies RP8 and RP6 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010). 12. To protect the attractiveness, viability and vitality of the town centre of Welshpool in accordance with Policies RP8 and RP6 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010). 13. To ensure future control of the retail development commensurate with the needs of Welshpool in accordance with Policy RP6 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010). 14. To ensure future control of the retail development commensurate with the needs of Welshpool in accordance with Policy RP6 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010).

26 Page 32 15. To ensure adequate walking provision in accordance with Policies GP1, GP4 and T6 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan, Planning Policy Wales (Edition 8, January 2016) and Technical Advice Note 18: Transport. 16. To promote walking provision in accordance with Policies GP1, GP4 and T6 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan, Planning Policy Wales (Edition 8, January 2016) and Technical Advice Note 18: Transport. 17. In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with the provisions of Powys UDP Policy GP1 and GP4. 18. In order to protect the amenities of the residential properties within the area, in accordance with Technical Advice Note 11: Noise (1997) and policy GP1 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010) 19. In order to protect the amenities of the residential properties within the area, in accordance with Technical Advice Note 11: Noise (1997) and policy GP1 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010). 20. To ensure that the frontage to the canal is adequately maintained in terms of visual amenity and to ensure pedestrian access in accordance with Policies GP1 and ENV2 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010) and Technical Advice Note 12: Design (2014). 21. To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the application site and in order to safeguard the integrity of the Montgomery Canal Special Area of Conservation, in accordance with Policies GP1 and DC9 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Wales (Edition 8, January 2016). 22. To ensure that risk from contamination is managed to an acceptable level in accordance with Planning Policy Wales (Edition 8, January 2016) and Policies GP1 and DC15 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010).

Notes

Birds - Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) All nesting birds, their nests, eggs and young are protected by law and it is an offence to: "" intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird "" intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst it is in use or being built "" intentionally take or destroy the egg of any wild bird "" intentionally (or recklessly in England and Wales) disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule1 while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird. The maximum penalty that can be imposed - in respect of a single bird, nest or egg - is a fine of up to 5,000 pounds, six months imprisonment or both.

The applicant is therefore reminded that it is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to remove or work on any hedge, tree or building where that work involves the taking, damaging or destruction of any nest of any wild bird while the nest is in use or being built (usually between late February and late August or late September in the case of swifts, swallows or house martins). If a nest is discovered while work is being undertaken, all work must stop and advice sought from Natural Resources Wales and the Council's Ecologist. The culvert may also pass under part of the application site, or at least influence construction techniques in the south eastern corner of the site. As this has not been considered within the submitted FCA we advise that the applicant consults the Powysland IDD representative Mr James West - NRW Technical Senior Advisor, Tel:03000 655295,

27 Page 33 [email protected] for further information on the alignment of the culverted section. Environment Agency legacy culverting policy resists any development over a culverted watercourse and assurances are required that this will not be the case. Natural Resources Wales recommend the advice given in Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPG) note 5 - 'Works and Maintenance in or Near Water' as good environmental practice to inform a Pollution Prevention Plan. The guidance can be found at the following link http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/business/topics/pollution/39083.aspx Due to the potential for contamination issues as a result of the historical land use, should any made ground and/or contamination be identified during the works it would be prudent to investigate the potential for such contamination and inform Powys County Council's Contaminated Land Officers immediately.

______Case Officer: Kate Bowen- Planning Officer Tel: 01938 551268 E-mail:[email protected]

28 Page 34 Page 35 This page is intentionally left blank PTLRW21 - 20163

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2015/0067 Grid Ref: 320838.71 277879.9

Community Beguildy Valid Date: Officer: Council: 30/01/2015 Eddie Hrustanovic

Applicant: Mrs Julie Bevan, Lower Vedwllwyd, Dutlas, Knighton, Powys, LD7 1YD.

Location: Lower Vedwllwyd, Dutlas, Knighton, Powys, LD7 1YD.

Proposal: Full: Installation of 1.no wind turbine (36.6m to hub and 48.4m to blade tip, with rotor diameter of 23.5m). Erection of equipment cabinet, hardstanding. Construction of temporary access track and all other ancillary works (E:320140, N: 277630)

Application Application for Full Planning Permission Type:

The reason for Committee determination

The proposed wind turbine exceeds 24 metres in height and therefore is required to be determined by Members of the Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee.

Site Location and Description

The application site is located within the Community Council area of Beguildy. Lower Vedwllwyd is located south of the B4355 which runs between Knighton and Newtown, some 400 metres from the Welsh/English Border. The site subject to this application is located on agricultural land approximately 850 metres to the south west of the existing agricultural complex.

Consent is sought in full for the erection of a single wind turbine measuring approximately 48.4 metres to blade tip, 36.6 metres to hub with a blade diameter of 23.5 metres. The estimated energy output is 85kW. The colours of the proposed turbine are traffic white (RAL9016) for the tower and signal white (RAL9003) for the blades and nacelle. The associated control panel cabinet will be pine green (RAL6028 or similar). The turbine will be connected into the existing 3 phase grid supply nearby.

Access to the proposed turbine will be provided via an existing farm track together with the provision of a temporary access track.

Consultee Response

Beguildy community Council

No objection

Kerry Community Council

1 Page 37

Do not wish to comment on this application

Llanfair Waterdine Parish Council (Shropshire)

Llanfairwaterdine Parish Council would like to raise its objection to the proposed wind turbine;

1. Whilst the proposed wind turbine is not within our parish it would be highly visible from our parish which is within the Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and visible from Offa's Dyke Path National Trail, also within our parish. Tourism forms an important part of the local economy which could be damaged by this proposal.

2. We fear that one such installation would inevitably give precedent to more such applications being successful and spoiling the nature of our rural asset.

Highway Authority

As with so many of the single and not particularly sizable wind turbine applications the agents assume the term “standard” is sufficient when describing the scale of vehicles required for construction. I would appreciate a little more detail regarding the size of the loaded lorries delivering the largest turbine parts and the crane required so that I can be sure that there will be no issues for highway safety.

Ramblers Association

I note that the turbine appears to be about 50 metres from 2 bridleways. I trust that guidelines about closeness to bridleways will be observed. I would object strongly if either of these bridleways is obstructed during or after construction.

MOD

No response received at the time of writing this report.

Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust

Thank you for the consultation on this application. Based on the information and conclusions set out in the archaeological assessment report accompanying the application we would have no objections to the proposed single turbine on cultural heritage grounds.

The ZTVs in the LVIA report indicate that the primary direction of visual influence is north and north east between the 1 - 5km radii and this extends across the Shropshire Hills AONB where the uplands and valley slopes receive a large degree of visual influence on their westernmost slopes. Consideration should therefore be given to the visual impact upon the AONB and Shropshire County Council should be consulted on this aspect of the scheme.

Environmental Health

The application has shown that they can comply with the simplified methodology so if members be minded to grant this application then I would recommend the following conditions be attached.

2 Page 38

ETSU-R-97 provides a method for determining operational noise limits for wind farm developments. For single turbines or developments where there are large separation distances between turbines and sensitive receptors, a simplified method can be adopted whereby, if operational noise is limited to LA90, 10 min of 35 dB(A) at the closest receptors in wind speeds up to 10 ms at 10m height.

This limit may be increased to 45 dB where the occupier of a property has a financial involvement in the application.

1. The wind turbine noise level measured shall be in accordance with the guidance contained within the Department of Trade and Industry Report ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU-R-97) and, as such, shall not exceed an absolute noise level of 35 dB expressed as L A90 10min at any existing dwelling with a non-financial involvement, up to on-site wind speeds of 10m/s measured at a height of 10m. Lower Vedwllwyd can be afforded a higher noise level of 45 dB expressed as L A90 10 min.

2. The level of noise emitted by the wind turbine shall be demonstrated at the request of the Local Planning Authority. Should the wind turbine be identified as operating at an absolute noise level that exceeds 35 dB expressed as L A90 10min at any existing dwelling that is not financially involved, and 45 dB at Lower Vedwllwyd up to on-site wind speeds of 10m/s measured at a height of 10m, the turbine shall be taken out of use until such time as maintenance or repair is undertaken sufficient to reduce the absolute noise level of the operating turbine to within the parameters specified in condition 1.

Reason: In order to maintain and protect the amenity of nearby residents by the reduction of ambient noise levels to an acceptable level in accordance with the requirements of Section 13.13 (Reducing Noise and Light Pollution) of Planning Policy Wales, Edition 4 (February 2011); Technical Advice Note (Wales) 11 (October 1997) and; Policy SP12 (Energy Conservation and Generation) of the Powys Unitary Development Plan, adopted 1st March 2010.

Welsh Government – Transport

 Correspondence received 20th February 2015

I refer to your consultation of 6 February 2015 regarding the above application and advise that the Welsh Government as highway authority for the trunk road network directs that permission be withheld until further notice while additional information is sought from the applicant and/or information provided by the applicant is analysed to enable appropriate highway observations to be made;

1. The applicant must confirm the route the turbines will be delivered to site along.

2. In addition, the applicant must confirm the exact dimensions of the each turbine component (Width, Length and Height).

 Correspondence received 29th April 2015

3 Page 39 I refer to your consultation regarding the above application and advise that the Welsh Government as highway authority for the A44 trunk road does not issue a direction in respect of this application.

CADW

 Correspondence received 5th March 2015

Cadw’s role in the planning process is not to oppose or support planning applications but to provide the local planning authority with an assessment concerned with the likely impact that the proposal will have on scheduled ancient monuments or Registered Historic Parks and Gardens. It is a matter for the local planning authority to then weigh Cadw’s assessment against all the other material considerations in determining whether to approve planning permission.

The advice set out below relates only to those aspects of the proposal, which fall within Cadw’s remit as a statutory consultee. Our comments do not address any potential impact on the setting of any listed building, which is properly a matter for your authority. These views are provided without prejudice to the Welsh Government’s consideration of the matter, should it come before it formally for determination.

Applications for planning permission are considered in light of the Welsh Government’s land use planning policy and guidance contained in Planning Policy Wales (PPW), technical advice notes and circular guidance. PPW explains that the desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in determining a planning application whether that monument is scheduled or not. Furthermore, it explains that where nationally archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings are likely to be affected by proposed development, there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation in situ. Paragraph 17 of Circular 60/96, Planning and the Historic Environment: Archaeology, elaborates by explaining that this means a presumption against proposals which would involve significant alteration or cause damage, or which would have a significant impact on the setting of visible remains. PPW also explains that local authorities should protect parks and gardens and their settings included in the first part of the Register of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales.

The proposed development is located in the vicinity of the following scheduled ancient monument known as:

RD088 Round Barrows S of Meagram’s Corner RD090 Round Barrow near Pennant Pound

The proposed turbine will be visible from the above scheduled monuments the closest of which RD088 is situated just over 1km to the north east of the proposal. The barrow at Meagram’s Corner (RD088) is a prehistoric funerary monument dating to the Bronze Age which is situated on the banks of the River Teme. This unusual topographic position is shared by a number of other barrows in this locality, including the Barrow near Pennant Pound (RD090). Although the monuments are situated adjacent to the road their settings are otherwise predominantly rural and agricultural in context.

4 Page 40 No photomontage of the view from the Round Barrow at Meagram’s Corner has been included within Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment accompanying the application, however given the surrounding topography it is likely that the turbine will feature as a prominent, man-made, moving object which breaks the skyline in views from the site towards Beacon Hill to the south west. Beacon Hill retains a number of round barrows which are located on the west side of the summit of Beacons Hill. Although these barrows are not intervisible with the lowland barrows there is potentially some significance to this relationship.

The setting of the Meagram’s Corner Barrow will be affected by the introduction of this turbine. Planning Policy Wales 2014 Chapter 6 highlights the importance of the protection and enhancement of sites of archaeological interest and their settings and states (6.5.1) that the desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in determining a planning application. The extent to which the setting of this monument will be affected cannot be determined without the inclusion of relevant photomontage in the application.

 Correspondence received 28th April 2015

Cadw can confirm that the Senior Planning Inspector had not made a site visit in this case nor had received a copy of the archaeological assessment prior to making his comments as it was marked as additional information on the website, which did not make it clear. However, although Cadw would agree that the setting of the Meagram's Corner Barrow is heavily compromised by the road it is unclear the extent to which the introduction of a wind turbine on the higher ground will have an additional negative visual effect on this monument. In order for Cadw to consider whether they are correct in their assessment of the impact as being a 'very low, indirect, visual impact' we would need to get some idea of the extent to which this turbine will be visible from the valley floor and more specifically from the SAM RD088 i.e. through photomontage.

 Correspondence received 7th October 2015

Thank you for your email of 5 October 2015 regarding our request for photomontages to be produced for the above named planning application.

Cadw’s role in the planning process is to provide the local planning authority with an assessment concerned with the likely impact that the proposal will have on scheduled monuments or registered historic parks and gardens. It is a matter for the local planning authority to then weigh Cadw’s assessment against all the other material considerations in determining whether to approve planning permission, including issues concerned with listed buildings and conservation areas.

In our letter of 5 March 2015, the Historic Environment Service (Cadw) concluded that the setting of the scheduled monument Round Barrows S of Meagram’s Corner (RD088) is likely to be affected and that we could not properly assess this impact without the inclusion of relevant photomontages. Having carefully considered the information provided with the planning application, we are still of the view that the proposed turbine will have some adverse effect on the setting of RD088 and that the degree of this impact cannot be assessed properly without the aid of a photomontage.

Natural Resources Wales

5 Page 41

Natural Resources Wales does not object to the proposal for the following reasons:

We do not consider likely effects to be significant neither on landscapes of national value nor European Protected Species (EPS).

European Protected Species

The site has been subject to ecological survey and assessment in respect of statutory protected species. Natural Resources Wales considers that the submitted surveys and assessments have been carried out to a satisfactory standard. We therefore concur with the conclusions of the report. This includes consideration of bats and potential impacts of incidental injury and killing.

Based on the information supplied in the report, we consider that the proposal will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the favourable conservation status of any populations or colonies of European or British protected species.

Landscape

NRW’s landscape remit is concerned with the effects of development upon landscape of national value within Wales – in this case the potential effects of the development upon the geological resource which LANDMAP evaluates to be Outstanding value.

The geological value relates to the major upland landform of Beacon Hill with potential GCR site/SSSI and at least two potential geological SINCs at Knucklas castle and Nant Rhyty- Fedw. The turbine would be located on the mid slopes of Beacon Hill and construction work would entail foundation for the turbine and access track improvements.

Due to the small scale localised effect of construction operations we do not consider likely effects to be significant and therefore do not object to the proposal.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006)

Please note that we have not considered possible effects on all local or regional interests, including those relating to the upkeep, management and creation of habitat for wild birds. Therefore, you should not rule out the possibility of adverse effects on such interests, which would be relevant to your Authority’s general duty to have regard to conserving biodiversity, as set out in section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006). This advice includes any consideration of the planned provision of “linear” and “stepping stone” habitats.

To comply with your authority's duty under section 40 of the NERC Act, to have regard to conserving biodiversity, your decision should take account of possible adverse effects on such interests. We recommend that you seek further advice from your authority's internal

6 Page 42 ecological adviser and/or third sector nature conservation organisations such as the local wildlife trust, RSPB, etc. The Wales Biodiversity Partnership's web site has guidance for assessing proposals that have implications for section 42 habitats and species (www.biodiversitywales.org.uk).

In summary, Natural Resources Wales does not object to the proposal.

Countryside Services

 Correspondence received 13th April 2015

I am writing to express Countryside Services’ views on the proposed development. Countryside Services recommend that turbines are kept at least tip height from footpaths and 200m from public rights of way of bridleway status or higher. The proposed turbine would be 60m from bridleway BG843, 126m from bridleway BG846 and 127m from bridleway BG848. Therefore, this turbine fails to meet our recommended distance from a number of bridleways.

The Design & Access Statement 6.1 acknowledges a moderate-major effect upon views of users of bridleways within 1km of the turbine and states “there is some potential to mitigate this effect on the nearest bridleway with management of boundary vegetation to the northwest of the proposed turbine.” Even though this has been highlighted, I can see no reference elsewhere in the application to any mitigation for the negative impact on bridleway users.

As the turbine fails to meet our recommended distance from bridleways and no mitigation has been offered, Countryside Services object to this application.

Please could the applicant be made aware that at no time should any public right of way be obstructed during the development process and that no materials are to be placed or stored on the line of any public right of way. Any damage caused to the surface of any public right of way must be made good to at least its current condition or better.

 Correspondence received 25th August 2015

I am writing following a site visit on 26th June and the receipt of additional information on 21st August 2015.

As stated in my previous response, Countryside Services recommend that turbines are kept at least tip height from footpaths and 200m from public rights of way of bridleway status or higher. The proposed turbine would be 60m from bridleway BG843, 126m from bridleway BG846 and 127m from bridleway BG848. Therefore, this turbine fails to meet our recommended distance from a number of bridleways.

The Design & Access Statement 6.1 acknowledges a moderate-major effect upon views of users of bridleways within 1km of the turbine and states “there is some potential to mitigate this effect on the nearest bridleway with management of boundary vegetation to the northwest of the proposed turbine.” At the site visit it was clear that existing vegetation did not mitigate the visual impact and no reference was made to any management of such being put in place.

7 Page 43 Parts of bridleways BG843, BG846 and BG848 closest to the proposed turbine, cross Crown Common land. Therefore, horse riders are able to ride freely across the area (subject to vegetation and natural features) and can choose to stay further from the turbine if they wish. However, to access the bridleways off the common will mean coming within the recommended 200m distance. Therefore, an alternative route has been offered allowing riders the opportunity to maintain the 200m recommended distance if required. The proposed route is of a good, acceptable standard for a permissive alternative route, once signage, improved gates and a gate onto the common are provided.

It was identified at the site visit that currently there are obstructing signs located at the end of the farm lane, where BG843 meets the county road. The gate where BG843 enters the common was also in poor repair with barbed wire wrapped around it. The signs at roadside must be removed and the gate onto the common improved as a priority, regardless of any granting of planning permission. Please could Countryside Services be informed in writing when this work has been completed?

Taking into consideration the adjacent common land and offer of an alternative permissive route, Countryside Services would remove their objection to this proposal if the following criteria are satisfied and agreed in writing:-

 The permissive route is implemented prior to the installation of the turbine and is freely available for walkers, cyclists and horse-riders for the life of the wind turbine.  The permissive route is signed, gates improved and a bridleway gate installed in the boundary with the common, prior to the installation of the turbine.  The obstructing signs at the end of the lane are removed immediately.  The gate onto the common is improved and all wire removed immediately.  No micro-siting is allowed to take the proposed turbine closer to any public right of way or within 200m of the permissive alternative route.

If the above criteria can be agreed in writing and conditioned appropriately, Countryside Services can withdraw its objection.

Please could the applicant also be made aware that at no time should any public right of way be obstructed during the development process and that no materials are to be placed or stored on the line of any public right of way. Any damage caused to the surface of any public right of way must be made good to at least its current condition or better.

Built Heritage Officer

Thank you for consulting me on the above application. My comments are solely related to a consideration of the impact of the proposal on the heritage aspects of the landscape only (and not the ecological aspects). However I acknowledge that the landscape cannot be treated in distinct categories as geology, archaeology, ecology and history usually are intertwined in the landscape, with one being the reason for the presence of another.

I would refer to Cadw guidance “caring for Historic Landscapes” ISBN 1 85760 164 5.

The first page sets out guidance for consideration of historic landscapes:

8 Page 44 “Imagine that you have just one piece of paper of which to write everything. You have to reuse it time and time again, rubbing out some words each time in order to add new information. Eventually you end up with a mixture of lines relating to different times and uses; some of the writing will make sense, but some will be fragmentary. Our present landscape is like that. It is a single landscape but, because it has continually undergone change for around 10,000 years and bears the traces of past use and re-use it is also historic”

The Powys Unitary Development Plan describes the Powys landscape as:

“Apart from the broad river valleys of the Severn, Wye and Usk and their tributaries, Powys is an area of upland mountain and moorland, well suited to grazing livestock, outdoor pursuits and forestry, but with limited scope for other forms of economic development. However, these characteristics also combine to provide a high quality landscape throughout the area, one which is attractive to tourists and day visitors as much for its remoteness and rugged natural beauty as for its distinctive market towns and remote villages. Statutory designations may receive individual protection but the UDP starts out with the premise that all of the landscape and environment of Powys is of high quality, worthy of conservation, careful management and enhancement”.

National Guidelines from Cadw reiterate that statement

“The entire rural and urban landscape of Wales is an historic asset. However, it is also possible to define individual components of the historic environment, small or large, and including those under the ground or under water, that can be identified as specific historic assets. Historic assets, or combinations of historic assets, of any size, including historic buildings, archaeological sites, historic areas or landscapes, need to be understood and managed at different levels for different purposes. Every historic asset also occupies a site which will have natural environmental values as well as heritage values.

The historic environment is constantly changing, but each significant part of it represents a finite resource. If it is not sustained, its heritage values will be eroded or lost. In addition, its potential to give distinctiveness, meaning and quality to the places in which people live, and provide people with a sense of continuity and a source of identity will be diminished. The historic environment is a social and economic asset and a cultural resource for learning and enjoyment.”

The historic landscape as opposed to the natural landscape, (although the both are often so interlinked to be impossible to differentiate between them) is characterised by mans impact on the landscape throughout millennium. These range through Bronze age hill forts on hill tops, to fortified dwellings, to historic farmhouses of more recent construction religious buildings, illustrating pre-reformation, post reformation and non-conformism, and mans impact on the landscape by means of evidence of cultivation, ploughing, enclosure of land, etc.

The application site sits within a landscape that contains many heritage assets both in England and Wales and it would appear that within the 1 km area there are;

Listed Buildings – 1 grade 1

Bryndraenog grade l Cadw ID 8792

9 Page 45

Scheduled Ancient Monuments 1

The round barrow of Meagrams Corner Cadw ID RD088 appears to be on the 1Km radius. Cadw ID RD088

Within the 1-2 Km area there are

Listed Buildings 1 grade ll* 7 grade ll

Upper Tyn y Cefn Cadw ID 23986 Lawn Farm – Grade ll* Cadw ID 8798 Barn at Lawn Farm Cadw ID 83073 Upper Cwm-yr-Ingel Cadw ID 83084 Old House at Rhoshay Cadw ID 83082 Coed yr Hendre Historic England Barn 10m to NW of Coed-Yr Hendre Historic England Cow House and Cartshed 10m N of Coed Yr Hendre – Historic England

Scheduled Ancient Monuments 1

Round Barrow near Pennant pound – Cadw ID RD090

Within the 2-5 Km area there are

Listed Buildings 2 grade ll* 29 grade ll

Beguildy village Church of Michael and All Angels grade ll * Cadw ID 8791 Church House farm – Cadw ID 83078 Barn and stable at Church House Farm Cadw ID 83071 Lower Goytre Farm – Cadw ID 83085 Barn at Lower Goytre Farm Cadw ID 83086 Upper Hall Cadw ID 80817 Church of St David – Cadw ID 8800 Pentrusco Farmhouse and attached agricultural range – Cadw ID 18056 Barn at Pentrusco Cadw ID 83075 Knucklas Railway Viaduct – grade ll* Cadw ID 9345 Lower Dolwilkin – Cadw ID 83080 The Moat Farmhouse – Historic England Farmbuildings 40m to W of The Moat Farmhouse Historic England Former House 10SW of Lower Redgate Historic England Church of St Mary – grade ll* Historic England Jones memorial 3 M to s of Church of St Mary Historic England Moor Hall - Historic England Rhyd-y-Cwm Farmhouse Historic England Llantroft Farmhouse and adj cowhouse Historic England Barn 15m NE of Llantroft Farmhouse Historic England Black Hall Historic England Barn 25m to SE of Black Hall Historic England

10 Page 46 Barn and cow house 35m S of Black Hall Historic England St Mary’s Church Llanfair Waterdine - Historic England Group of 3 Davies memorials in St Mary’s Church - Historic England Hotchkiss memorial in St Mary’s Church - Historic England Powell memorial in St Mary’s Church - Historic England Price memorial in St Mary’s Church - Historic England Bright memorial in St Mary’s Church - Historic England Lloyd memorial in St Mary’s Church - Historic England Lloyney Bridge – Historic England

Scheduled Ancient Monuments (10)

Beacon Hill Round Barrows – Cadw ID RD111 Crugyn Tump Castle Mound Felindre –Cadw ID RD086 – not identified on Figure 4 of the Landscape Designations Short Ditch near Beacon Lodge Cadw ID RD089 Rhos Crug round barrows Cadw ID RD110 Water breaks its neck Promontory fort Cadw ID RD265 Rhos Crug Hill Settlement – Cadw ID RD268 Rhos Crug Hut Platform (East) - Cadw ID RD267 Cnwclas Castle – Cadw ID RD085 Motte and Bailey Castle SW of The Moat – Historic England Bowl Barrow 160m n of Melin y Grogue Historic England

I also note that the site lies between the national paths of Glyndwr’s Way to the west, and Offas Dyke Path to the East, and Jack Mytton Way to the East. I also note that the Shropshire AONB lies just over 1 KM from the site.

The listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments have been identified above, and in the absence of specific guidance regarding the extent of settings of heritage assets from Cadw, I would refer to guidance from English Heritage. https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/gpa3-setting-of-heritage- assets/gpa3.pdf/

Paragraph 9 of the document assists in the understanding of setting by confirming that, “setting is not a heritage asset, nor a heritage designation, though land within a setting may itself be designated. Its importance lies in what it contributes to the significance of the heritage asset.”

In relation to wind turbines, paragraph 16 advises, “The area of assessment for a large or prominent development, such as a tall building in an urban environment or a wind turbine in the countryside, can often extend for a distance of several kilometres. In these circumstances while a proposed development may affect the setting of numerous heritage assets, it may not impact on them all equally, as some will be more sensitive to change affecting their setting than others.”

The document identifies five steps in the assessment of the setting of a heritage asset;

1. Identifying the heritage assets affected and their setting, (page 7 – 8)

11 Page 47 2. Assessing whether, how and to what degree settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s) (page 8 – 9) 3. Assessing the effect of the proposed development on the significance of the asset(s) (page 10 – 11) 4. Maximising enhancement and minimising harm (page 12) 5. Making and documenting the decision and monitoring outcomes (page 13)

I acknowledge that an analysis of land map has been referred to in the submission, I note a recent appeal decision within Powys where the Inspector referred to” the lack of specific references to all of LANDMAP’s 5 aspects and an analysis of how the proposed development would relate to these, particularly in terms of the historic and cultural significance, in my view, diminishes the weight that can be accorded to (her)LVIA. One of the purposes of LANDMAP is to allow a consistent evaluation of the quality of the landscape and if all the factors are not taken into account then this evaluation is likely to be flawed”.

I note the LANDMAP classifications on the site of the wind turbine to be;

Theme ID Area name Classification Evaluation 1 Geological RDNRGL152 Beacon Hill Bryn Mawr Upland Plateau Outstanding 2 Landscape habitat RDNRLH020 Improved Grassland Moderate 3 Visual & Sensory RDNRVS110 Upland Moor Beacon Hill Upland Moorland High 4 Historic RDNRHL806 Upper Teme Irregular Fieldscapes High 5 Cultural RDNRCL007 Uplands and Lowlands Agricultural High

I note the Powys classifications in the wider area within the 5Km zone to be;

Theme ID Area name Classification Evaluation

4a Historic RDNRHL318 Heyope Regular Fieldscapes High 4c Historic RDNRHL762 Maelienydd Other Fieldscapes High 4d Historic RDNRHL785 Fridd Regular Fieldscapes High 4e Historic RDNRHL984 Beacon Hill Other Fieldscapes High 5a Cultural RDNCLO26 Teme Valley and Settlements Famous People High

The fact that the site has 1 outstanding and 3 high classifications are noted, as is fact that the site lies within an area of High historic classifications within Powys County.

I have expanded on the historic and cultural LANDMAP themes as listed above, however this expansion is not complete and other disciplines may have more comments on the other themes.

4 Historic RDNRHL806 Upper Teme Irregular Fieldscapes High

The area is summarised as a fieldscapes of small and medium sized irregular fields along the dissected valley sides and valley bottom of the upper Teme Valley and its tributaries to the

12 Page 48 north-west of Knighton. And small nucleated church settlement at Beguildy associated with earthwork castle. Other small nucleated settlements of medieval or post medieval date or Lloyney and Knucklas. Isolated areas of strip fields and relict ridge and furrow of probable medieval origin. Scattered farmsteads of probable late medieval and early post medieval date.

The area is classified as rare.

The date recorded for the listed buildings reinforces that statement with the high number of medieval buildings or buildings of medieval origin noted.

Distance Cadw ID listed Building Grade Age from turbine name <1Km 8792 Bryndraenog l 1436 dendrodated 1615 date for repair phase 1-2 Km 23986 Upper Tyn y Cefn ll c.1550 dendrodated C1800 remodelling 1-2 Km 8798 Lawn Farm ll* c.1600 1-2 Km 83073 Barn at Lawn Farm ll C18th barn 1-2 Km 83084 Upper Cwm-yr-Ingel ll Late medieval 1-2 Km 83082 Old House at ll Late C18th/early C19th Rhoshay 2-5 Km 8791 Church of Michael ll* Medieval 1st mentioned 1291 rebuilt 1885 and All Angels 2-5 Km 83078 Church House Farm ll Medieval rebuilt mid C19th 2 -5 Km 83071 Barn and stable at ll Mid c19th Church House Farm 2 -5 Km 83085 Lower Goytre Farm ll C17th altered c19 and C20 2 -5 Km 83086 Barn at Lower Goytre ll Early C19th Farm 2 -5 Km 80817 Upper Hall ll c.1862 replacing older farmhouse 2 -5 Km 8800 Church of St David ll Medieval rebuilt 1880-02 2 -5 Km 18056 Pentrusco Farmhouse ll C18th house barn 1678 and agricultural range 2 -5 Km 83075 Barn at Pentrusco ll 1768 but tie beam dated 1678 2 -5 Km 83080 Lower Dolwilkin ll Early/mid C19th

Distance Historic listed Building Grade Age from turbine England ID name 1-2 Km 1176346 Coed yr Hendre ll C14th or C15th 1-2 Km 1054439 Barn at above ll C15th or C16th 1-2 Km 1176354 Cow house at above ll Mid C19th

4e . Historic RDNRHL984 Beacon Hill Other fieldscapes High

The LANDMAP summary justifies this designation as large upland ridge with occasional areas of (late) enclosure. Significant numbers of prehistoric funerary sites and unusual complexes of rural industry as post medieval, medieval and early medieval activity.

The summary of the key patterns and elements describes the area as partially enclosed and unenclosed 19th century upland commons to the west of the Teme valley. Early prehistoric

13 Page 49 settlement and land use suggested by dispersed hilltop burial monuments. Later prehistoric settlement denoted by a single Iron Age Hillfort near upland boundary. Short dyke representing early medieval political boundary. Medieval and post medieval settlement and land use indicated by abandoned building platforms and discrete area of relict field systems.

As the historic landscape is classified as high and contains a number of heritage assets many of which have been referred to in the LANDMAP summary, I would not consider that the impact of the proposal on the historic landscape has been fully addressed.

I am minded of the advice within Cadw document caring for Historic Landscapes which states, “Despite the intensity, variety and scale of landscape change that has happened in many parts of Wales, the fundamental nature of the terrain and the stewardship exercised over centuries by landowners and farmers, along with only limited intensive cultivation and urbanization, have proved ideal conditions for the survival of a great complexity of historic character in the Welsh landscape.

The contribution of local landscapes to people’s quality of life and to the economic well-being of local communities should not be underestimated. Recent research amongst individuals and businesses has clearly shown that one of the main reasons why people invest so much of their time and money in Wales is the quality of the local environment and landscape. Historic landscapes also have a significant role to play in education and tourism, as well as in the recognition of a sense of place, as people increasingly search for a context from the past in the changing world. The Register of Landscapes of Historic Interest in Wales and the results of historic landscape characterisation are now becoming increasingly available on the internet. This information can play an important role in raising awareness, particularly among schoolchildren and students, about the historical development of the area in which we live, helping us to unravel the pattern of the landscape around us through the shape of the fields, the type of field boundaries, the character of the buildings and the archaeological and historical remains.”

Whilst acknowledging that the landscape around the proposed wind turbine is not a landscape on the Landscape Register it is maintained that the landscape is significant in terms of its archaeological interest, cultural interest, architectural and historic interest. It is noted that the other side of the river valley which lies within Shropshire is designated as an AONB.

I note the number of designated assets in close proximity to the proposed turbine, and I especially note the proximity of Bryndraenog grade l listed, Lawn Farm grade ll* listed and upper Tyn y Cefn grade ll listed, and Scheduled Ancient Monuments of the Round Barrow at Meagrames Corner, and Beacon Hill Round Barrows to this site.

Bryndraenog

Bryndraenog is a grade l listed building, which has been constructed from timbers that been dendrochronologically dated to 1463. The significance of Bryndraenog in addition to its proximity to the site.

Bryndraenog is considered to be significant both architecturally in that it has survived in a very complete form including the hall which remains open to the roof today and historically as the builders, owners and occupies of Bryndraenog were influential and the hall must

14 Page 50 represent the accumulation of social and economic capital over several generations. Bryndraenog was built as a local officials house, and contains the quality of ornamentation that would be associated for a house of that standing.

The location of the house was chosen to is halfway between the administration centres of Ludlow and Montgomery, and was built for Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York (1411 – 1460) and heir to the Mortimer estates, including Maelienydd, unsuccessful claimant to the throne and father of Edward IV and Richard lll. The stability of the area in this period is no doubt one of the contributory factors in the quality of the construction of medieval and post medieval houses that were constructed in this area and as such indirectly in the number of house of that period that have survived in this area.

Despite being partially stone walled since the c17th, Bryndraenog has been described by Peter Smith of the RCAHMW as “the greatest timber framed building in the principality”. Source : “Houses and History in the March of Wales Radnorshire 1400 – 1800” RCAHMW

Grade l Listed Buildings are of exceptional usually national interest. Currently, fewer than two per cent of buildings listed in Wales qualify for this grade. In Powys, there are 45 grade l listed buildings out of the 3925 listed structures in Powys (1% of Powys’ listed building stock).

Out of those 45 grade l listed Structures only 7 are domestic or formally domestic.

The significance of this grade l listed building should be acknowledged.

I would disagree with the findings of the Historic Environment Appraisal that the impact on Bryndraenog is very low.

Whilst acknowledging the trees between Vedwllwyd and Bryndraenog, the proposed turbine and Bryndraenog will be clearly seen together for long period of time from the roads from Dutlas to The Anchor, not only the road that leads directly between The Anchor and Dutlas but also the roads that run parallel with the river such as; the unclassified road that passes Runnis Chapel, the road that leads past Coed Yr Hendre. The zone of Theoretical visibility indicates that the turbine will be seen from this network of roads and given the fact that you are viewing one valley side from the opposite valley side the views are clear and sustained. I would question photomontage viewpoint 2 as submitted with the application, as the view is screened by a tree which is not the case all along that road, and I also note the angle of view, and the impact could be considered greater at a higher altitude. I note Offa’s Dyke Path and Jack Mytton Way are located on the Shropshire side of the Valley in this location.

I note that there is an existing wind turbine on the Bryndraenog holding, and this turbine is clearly visible from the opposite side of the valley, adjacent to the farmstead of Bryndraenog. This would be the second turbine in close proximity to Bryndraenog a grade l listed building.

Photomontage viewpoint 1 indicates the view from Beacon Hill towards the Shropshire AONB, and the network of roads is clearly seen within that photo.

I would have some concerns with the assessment of the historic environment as submitted within the Historic Environment Appraisal as the assessment appears to concentrate on the values or significance of the buildings themselves and not what the setting contributes to the evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal value of the asset. I note that Table 2 of the

15 Page 51 document refers to 29 heritage assets, however I note that the majority of them are undesignated assets within the Historic Environment Record, with only 4 of the entries being listed buildings, and a further 8 appearing to be buildings, with equal weight apparently being proportioned to a grade l listed building as non-listed buildings, entries that are not buildings and even archaeological finds.

I note that the Historic Environment Appraisal in Tables 3 and 4 identifies Fedw Llwyd barrow within 2 KM of the site have a very low level of impact and Bowl Barrow north of Melin-Grogue (Historic England 1016659) and Pound barrow ( Cadw ID RD090 ) as also having a very low impact.

However I note the letter from Cadw dated 7th October, stated that they are still of the view that the proposed turbine would have some adverse effect on the setting of the Scheduled Ancient Monument – Round Barrows South of Meagrams Corner (Cadw ID RD088) and the degree of this impact cannot be assessed properly without the aid of a photomontage. I also note the previous correspondence from Cadw dated 5th March 2015, which refers to SAM RD088 – Barrow s of Meagrams Corner which is unusually sited on the banks of the River Teme, with this unusual topographic position shred by a number of other barrows in this locality including the barrow near Pennant Pound (Cadw ID RD090). The letter confirms that no photomontage of the view from the barrow has been included within the LVIA accompanying the application, “however given the surrounding topograpghy it is likely that the turbine will feature as a prominent man-made moving feature which breaks the skyline in views from the site toward Beacon Hill to the south west. Beacon Hill retains a number of round barrows which are located on the west side of the summit of Beacons Hill. Although these barrows are not intervisible with the lowland barrows there is potentially some significance to this relationship. “

The response concludes that the setting Meagrams Corner Barrow will be affected by the introduction of this turbine, however the extent to which the setting of this monument will be affected cannot be determined without the inclusion of relevant photomontage.

The consultation response concludes by reminding us of paragraph 6.5.1 of Planning Policy Wales 2014 which states that the desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in determining an application.

The Historic Environment Appraisal does not appear to refer to the scheduled ancient monuments on top of Beacon Hill – Beacon Hill Round Barrows (Cadw ID RD111). The Scheduled Ancient Monument relets to 4 tumuli on the summit of Beacon Hill, each with a base circumference of 300 feet and a height of 6 feet (barrow l) – 10 feet (barrow ll). I note that barrow ll has on its top a large standing stone which can be seen from the roads on the Shropshire side of the valley. It is regrettable that the photomontage viewpoint submitted with the application indicates the turbine clearly from a point taken below the summit of Beacon Hill, and the opportunity to take a photograph from Glyndwr’s Way to the south and/or north of the summit of Beacon Hill to illustrate the impact that the turbine would have on the landscape of Beacon Hill when viewed from Glyndwr’s Way.

I note that these Scheduled Ancient Monuments have not been addressed in the Historic Environment Appraisal as the Zone of Theoretical Visibility excludes the summit of Beacon Hill. I would question therefore whether the ZTV is in fact correct in this regard. However even if the ZTV is correct due to the curvature of the hill, resulting in a person standing on or

16 Page 52 between the Scheduled Ancient Monuments not being able to see the proposed turbine. That does not address the setting of the Ancient Monument when viewed from across the valley, and I would not consider that the impact of the proposal on the Scheduled Ancient Monuments has been fully addressed in the submission.

I would not disagree with the comments made by Cadw that the impact of the Scheduled Ancient Monuments has not been fully addressed in the submission.

I am aware of the requirements of Planning Policy Wales (July 2014) which identifies among others the following priorities;

• A thriving and diverse local economy where agriculture-related activities are complemented by sustainable tourism and other forms of employment in a working countryside’; and • An attractive, ecologically rich and accessible countryside in which the environment and biodiversity are conserved and enhanced

I would also refer to Environment Strategy for Wales (2006) which states that ” The strategy recognises that the economy and the environment are closely linked and that a healthy, attractive environment will play a key role in attracting and retaining people to live and work in Wales. “The diversity of the Welsh landscape, and the cities, towns and villages that form part of it, gives Wales its unique sense of place. The landscape and coast is high quality, including large areas which are internationally recognised for their beauty, heritage or biodiversity value.”

The Strategy continues and identifies the challenge of managing the pressures of development, energy use and agriculture on the environment, and to address climate change amongst other challenges relating to the built heritage such as;

• loss of landscape and heritage quality and distinctiveness • poor quality local environments

The Strategy has a summary of 39 outcomes, of which several are relevant in this case including,

• Outcome 23 - The quality and diversity of the natural and historic character of our landscape and seascape is maintained and enhanced. • Outcome 24 - The built environment is high quality and vibrant, reflecting local distinctiveness and supporting strong communities, which are actively engaged in the management of their local environment. • Outcome 26 - The historic building stock and character is maintained to a high standard.

The Strategy identified Local Authorities as the organisation responsible for meeting these outcomes.

To communicate the value of the historic environment to the wider economy, in terms of direct building work, and indirectly via tourism. The following are taken from the conclusions (page 36/37) of the National Trust (& Partners) report on valuing the Welsh historic environment.

• It is estimated that the historic environment sector supports over 30,000 FTE jobs in Wales.

17 Page 53 • In addition, it contributes some £840 million to Wales' national GVA, which is equivalent to 1.9% of Welsh GVA, and some £1.8 billion in respect of output. • One-fifth (20%) of total tourism expenditure represents a reasonable, if conservative estimate of the importance of the historic Environment sector in attracting visitors to Wales. • The historic environment supports some 14,900 FTE jobs in Wales…representing some £330 million in respect of GVA and more than £610 million in respect of output.

I am aware of the requirements of Planning Policy Wales (July 2014) which identifies among others the following priorities;

• A thriving and diverse local economy where agriculture-related activities are complemented by sustainable tourism and other forms of employment in a working countryside’; and

• An attractive, ecologically rich and accessible countryside in which the environment and biodiversity are conserved and enhanced

These aims are also reiterated in Policies ENV13 and ENV14 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (adopted March 2010).

Notwithstanding the existing turbine at Bryndraenog, I would consider that this proposal would unacceptably affect the setting of Bryndraenog a grade l listed building. When viewed from the north and east the proposed turbine will be clearly seen to the south west of Bryndraenog farmstead. The visual impact of the current turbine is acknowledged, and it is noted that the proposed turbine would be at a slightly higher ground level and would compound the effect of the current turbine at Bryndraenog.

I am mindful of the advice in Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation areas) Act 1990, and paragraph 11 of Welsh Office Circular 61/96 which states “Sections 16 and 66 of the Act require authorities considering applications for planning permission or listed building consent for works which affect a listed building to have special regard to certain matters, including the desirability of preserving the setting of the building. The setting is often an essential part of a building's character especially if a park, garden or grounds have been laid out to complement its design or function. Also, the economic viability as well as the character of historic buildings may suffer and they can be robbed of much of their interest and of the contribution they make to townscape or the countryside if they become isolated from their surroundings, e.g. by new traffic routes, car parks, or other development.”

However, I would also refer to more recent guidance in paragraph 6.5.9 of Planning Policy Wales 4th edition 2011 which states, “Where a development proposal affects a listed building or its setting, the primary material consideration is the statutory requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, or its setting, or any features of special

18 Page 54 architectural or historic interest which it possesses.” This replaces paragraph 6.5.7 Planning Policy Wales 2002.

I am aware of a High Court case in 1999 (JPL 1999 Jun 498-513) where the Deputy Judge considered that: "Setting is fundamentally a visual concept, concerning the relationship between a principal upstanding heritage feature and other visible features in its surroundings". The advice continues that “From examination of cases, it would appear that the minimum degree of visibility necessary to trigger the consideration of setting has been taken as a matter of common sense (ie. A degree of visibility perceptible to the average observer)". And that: "[regarding the boundary of setting] the Deputy Judge considered it was proper to have regard to the view from a monument or listed building toward the proposed development, from the proposed development toward a monument or listed building, or from any other relevant sideway view…

I am aware that Powys County Council UDP policies support the national aims namely;

• UDP SP 3 - NATURAL, HISTORIC AND BUILT HERITAGE • POLICY GP1 – DEVELOPMENT CONTROL • POLICY ENV2 - SAFEGUARDING THE LANDSCAPE • POLICY ENV 14 - LISTED BUILDINGS • POLICY ENV 16 - LANDSCAPES, PARKS AND GARDENS OF SPECIAL HISTORIC INTEREST • POLICY ENV 17 - ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES • POLICY E3 – WINDPOWER

It is considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable and adverse impact on the setting of Bryndraenog a grade l listed building. In addition the impact of the proposal on the Scheduled Ancient Monuments has not been fully addressed. Whilst noting the economic benefits to the applicant, I would not consider that the personal benefits of the applicant would outweigh national legislation, national policy and local plan policies in this instance.

I would wish to object to the proposal on the following grounds.

1. I would consider that the proposal would have an unacceptable adverse effect on; the setting of Bryndraenog a grade l listed building. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority shall have due regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Paragraph 11 of Welsh Officer Circular 61- 96 reinforces the need to preserve the setting of a listed building and that the setting is often an essential part of a buildings character. It is considered that the introduction of a turbine in this location would adversely affect the setting of this listed building, Powys Unitary Development Plan Policy Env14 (Listed Buildings) states that “proposals for development unacceptably adversely affecting a listed building or its setting will be refused”. UDP Policy SP3b states that “proposals for development should seek to protect, conserve and wherever possible enhance sites and features of historic and built heritage importance including those of archaeological, architectural and heritage conservation and historic interest”.

19 Page 55 The proposals are thus considered contrary to the provisions of Powys Unitary Development Plan Policy SP3b, ENV14, GP1 and the requirements of Welsh Office Circular 61/96

2. The application has not fully addressed the impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments Beacon Hill Round Barrows (Cadw ID RD 111) and Round Barrow S of Meagrams Corner (Cadw ID Rd088), and the relationship between the two. Paragraph 6.5.1 of Planning Policy Wales 2014 which states that the desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in determining an application.

Representations

At the time of writing this report, 5 public representations have been received by Development Management (3 objections and 2 support letters). The representations can be summarised as follows:

Objections;

-Landscape and visual impact -Environmental impact -Cumulative impact -Impact on ecology -Impact on archaeology/heritage -Benefits only the applicant (high subsidies)

Support;

- No reasons given.

Planning History

SO/2014/0025

Principal Planning Constraints

Flood Zone Public Right of Way – Bridleway in close proximity

Principal Planning Policies

National Planning Policy

Planning Policy Wales (2016)

Technical Advice Note 5 – Nature Conservation and Planning (2009) Technical Advice Note 6 – Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (2010) Technical Advice Note 8 – Renewable Energy (2005) Technical Advice Note 11 – Noise (1997) Technical Advice Note 13 – Tourism (1997) Technical Advice Note 16 – Sport, Recreation and Open Space (2009) Technical Advice Note 18 – Transport (2007) 20 Page 56 Technical Advice Note 23 – Economic Development (2014)

Welsh Office Circular 60/96: Planning and the Historic Environment: Archaeology

Welsh Officer Circular 61/96: Planning and the Historic Environment: Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas

- Wales Tourist Board (2003) Investigation into the Potential Impact of Wind Farms on Tourism in Wales, Cardiff: Wales Tourist Board.

The Economic Impact of Wind Farms on Tourism – Study into the potential economic impact of wind farms and associated grid infrastructure on the Welsh tourism sector (2014)

Local Planning Policy

Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010)

SP3 – Natural, Historic and Built Heritage SP12 – Energy Conservation and Generation GP1 – Development Control GP3 – Design and Energy Conservation GP4 – Highway and Parking Requirements ENV2 – Safeguarding the Landscape ENV3 – Safeguarding Biodiversity and Natural Habitats ENV7 – Protected Species ENV14 – Listed Buildings ENV17 – Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites ENV18 – Development Proposals Affecting Archaeological Sites EC1 – Business, Industrial and Commercial Developments EC7 – Farm/Forestry Diversification for Employment Purposes in the Open Countryside T2 – Traffic Management T3 – Transport Assessment and Travel Plans TR2 – Tourist Attractions and Development Areas RL6 – Rights of Way and Access to the Countryside E3 – Wind Power E4 – Removal of Redundant Wind Turbines DC9 – Protection of Water Resources DC13 – Surface Water Drainage

RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

Officer Appraisal

Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

21 Page 57 Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Environmental Impact Assessment

Individual wind turbines are listed under Schedule 2.3(i) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. Local Planning Authorities are required to screen applications for the need for an Environmental Statement where the development proposes the installation of more than 2 turbines or the hub height of any turbine or height of any other structure exceeds 15 metres.

The proposed turbine development was subject to a screening opinion by Development Management on the 21st October 2014. It was considered by the Local Planning Authority that the development was EIA development for the purposes of the Regulations and therefore required a full Environmental Impact Assessment. The applicant subsequently sought a Screening Direction from Welsh Government who confirmed that the proposal is not EIA development within the meaning of the 1999 Regulations. On this basis and notwithstanding the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the application is not accompanied by an Environmental Statement.

Principal Considerations

Having carefully considered the proposed turbine development, the principal material considerations relevant to the determination of the proposal are as follows;

1. Principle of Development 2. Farm Diversification 3. Landscape and visual impact 4. Heritage impact 5. Impact on residential amenity 6. Impact on public rights of way 7. Ecological impact 8. Social and economic impact 9. Highway Safety 10. Telecommunications, aviation and public safety 11. Hydrology and hydrogeology 11. Reversibility

Principle of Development

Planning Policy Wales acknowledges that the generation of wind energy is a key feature in achieving the vision for renewable electricity production in Wales. It also provides an opportunity to sustain and diversify farming activities within rural areas. Policy therefore seeks to promote proposals for renewable energy developments where appropriate however emphasises that the generation of renewable energy should not be at the expense of the character and appearance of the landscape and therefore a careful balance is needed.

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed development is broadly supported by both national and local planning policy guidance. As such, the proposal is considered to be fundamentally acceptable in principle.

22 Page 58

Farm Diversification

Information submitted in support of the proposed turbine development indicates that the proposal will reduce the existing farm’s reliance on imported electricity but also generate an additional source of income by virtue of the feed in tariffs.

On this basis, it is acknowledged that the combined benefits would diversify the farms income sources and reduce expenditure thus securing the future sustainability of the existing enterprise. In considering the proposed development, Members are advised that weight needs to be given to the case for farm diversification as encouraged by Planning Policy Wales and Technical Advice Note 6.

In acknowledging the significance of farm diversification and policy objectives, this needs to be weighed against other material considerations in the overall planning balance.

Landscape and Visual Impact (including cumulative: existing, proposed and consented schemes)

Guidance within policy E3 indicates that proposals for wind turbine development will only be permitted where they do not unacceptably adversely affect the environmental and landscape quality of Powys. The visual and the landscape impacts of wind turbine development are distinct entities but they are inevitably linked by common considerations and are considered as one through this section.

The application is accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) which includes a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (to blade tip) together with photomontages and cumulative assessment across a 10km radius. The details submitted indicate that the proposed turbine will be visible from the Shropshire Hills (AONB) together with surrounding villages including Lloyney and Beguildy, residential properties, rights of way and the public highway.

The submitted Landscape and Visual Assessment identifies that the application site is located within the Upland Moor, Beacon Hill and Gors Lydan LANDMAP aspect area. The Visual & Sensory value of the area is defined as high. The characteristics and description of the area is summarized as: “Two areas in north east of county, between Wye and Teme valleys ... Relatively gentle slopes ... Line of wild, exposed upland hills, with smooth & rounded profile and semi-natural rough moorland landcover“. This landscape is considered to be a good example of wild upland moorland.

The Landscape and Visual Assessment considers the impact of the proposed turbine development on the host aspect area but also identifies three other neighbouring LANDMAP aspect areas which are likely to be affected and thereafter characterises the nature of the surrounding landscapes .The surrounding Aspect Areas identified include Ridge & Valley, North Teme Side (evaluated as Moderate), Ridge & Valley, Around Knucklas (evaluated as High), and Upland Moor, Kerry Hills (evaluated as High).

The most significant component of the development in landscape impact terms is considered to be the proposed turbine. At approximately 48.4 metres to blade tip, 36.6 metres to hub

23 Page 59 height and with a rotor diameter of 23.5m, the turbine would be viewed as a new vertical, moving and man-made element within the landscape.

The area immediately surrounding the application site is crossed by a network of public rights. There are a number of bridleways within approximately 130 metres of the application site, namely BG843 (60m away), BG846 (126m) and BG848 (127m) located to the east and west of the proposed turbine. Given the proximity of the proposed turbine to these bridleways together with the blade tip height, Officers consider that the proposed wind turbine would appear a dominant feature within the landscape when viewed from these distances. Views from longer distant rights of ways including Glyndwrs Way vary depending upon topography and elevation. Nevertheless and notwithstanding intervening distances and landscaping, Officers note that the proposed wind turbine would be remain visible however from distance locations, would be seen against the backdrop of existing landforms.

The proposed turbine would also be visible from various roads within the surrounding area. The principal public highway in the study area includes the B4355, located approximately 850 metres east of the proposed turbine at the closest point. The view point analysis has predicted that for medium sensitivity receptors such as motorists and their passengers, there will be recurrent views of the turbine as they traverse the study area from southeast to northwest. Notwithstanding the potential visibility, the LVIA concludes that these views are likely to be minor and fleeting from the road corridor due to its position in the valley, intervening distance and natural vegetation cover (trees and hedges).

The submitted ZTV’s and photomontages confirm that the proposed turbine will be visible from Beacon Hill Open Access Land, Glyndwrs Way National Trail, National Cycle Route and Shropshire AONB, the users of which are considered to be highly sensitive receptors. Whilst visible from these locations, given the noted distances, intervening topography and position below the skyline, it is not considered that the landscape and visual impact would be unacceptable.

In considering landscape and visual impact, UDP policy E3 requires consideration to be given to potential cumulative impact and as such asks that the proposal be assessed in combination with all existing, proposed and consented wind turbines.

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment sought to identify likely cumulative effects of development by assessing the potential visibility of the other existing and permitted schemes in the vicinity. It is noted that the application site is located within proximity of proposed wind farm developments at Garreg Llwyd (approximately 6km of the application site). There are also a number of single turbine developments located within the 10km radius of the application site, and the closest turbine being approximately 1km northwest of the proposed site at Bryndraenog (measuring 45.07m to blade tip, 30.5m to hub height, with 29.1m blade diameter).On the basis of the information submitted, it is not considered that the impact of the proposed development in combination with neighbouring wind farm developments would be detrimental to the quality, character and appearance of the surrounding landscape.

Development Management acknowledges that the proposed development will introduce a man-made, vertical feature within the landscape, which in some locations will be visible through intrusion and obstruction. Nevertheless, the submitted ZVT’s are based upon bare terrain and do not take account of minor topographical features, vegetation and built structures which reduce the extent of the turbine that will be visible from any one location.

24 Page 60 Views of the turbine from the public highway are likely to be fleeting along short stretches of road whilst the views of the proposed turbine from the surrounding public rights of way network and open access land (including Glyndwrs Way and Beacons Hill) together with Shropshire AONB would be reduced by intervening landscaping, distance and topography.

In light of the above observations, notwithstanding the sensitivity of the surrounding landscape together with the concerns expressed by interested parties, given existing landscape features, topography and relative distances from the identified receptors, it is not considered that the proposed turbine will have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the landscape (impact on heritage assets discussed below).

Highway Safety and Movement

UDP policy E3 indicates that turbine proposals will only be permitted where the site is capable of being served by an acceptable means of highway access and any new or improved roads and accesses required would not have unacceptable environmental impacts.

Vehicular access to the site is provided via an existing access off the county class II highway (B4355). Welsh Government Transport queried the vehicular movements during the construction process. The applicant’s agent clarified that the proposed turbine would be loaded onto the standard 40ft artic trailer (HGV) and as such it would not generate any Abnormal Indivisible Loads (AIL). The largest component would be the mast, which is nested (meaning that all the sections are carried with each other), total weight 17.8t, 2.18m wide, 2.38m high, the blades are 9.6m long, 1.85m wide and the nacelle is 4t, 1.93 wide, 2.18m high and 2.73 long.

Having carefully considered the proposal and given the nature of the proposal, Officers are satisfied that the existing access is suitable and therefore, it is considered unlikely that the proposed development will have an unacceptable adverse impact on highway safety. Nevertheless, should Members be minded to grant consent, it is recommended that a suitable condition be attached requiring the submission of a Construction Management Plan prior to the commencement of development.

In light of the above and subject to the said condition, it is considered that the proposed turbine development is broadly in accordance with policies GP4 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan, Technical Advice Note 18 and Planning Policy Wales.

Cultural Heritage

The key impacts of wind turbine developments on features of cultural heritage (such as scheduled ancient monuments; listed buildings; conservation areas; registered historic landscapes; and parks and gardens of special historic interest) include:

 Loss or direct impact on identified features of historic interest, including undiscovered archaeology.

 Indirect impacts on the character or appearance and setting of features of historic interest.

25 Page 61 Whilst acknowledging that the landscape surrounding the proposed wind turbine is not detailed on the Landscape Register, Officers consider that the landscape is significant in terms of its archaeological interest, cultural interest, architectural and historic interest. Consideration of the potential impacts as detailed above is detailed below.

Listed Buildings

Planning Policy Wales states that where a development proposal affects a listed building or its setting, the primary material consideration is the statutory requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Bryndraenog Hall is a grade I listed building located approximately 930m to the north-east of the proposed site of development. There are a further 8 listed buildings (grade I and II*) located within a 2km radius of the application site and 31 (grade II* and II) located within 2- 5km of the site as detailed within the Built Heritage response above.

Whilst noting the significant number of listed buildings within the study area, it is considered that Bryndraenog Hall is of particular significance given the exceptional historic interest of the building as reflected in the grade I listing. It is noted that the proposed wind turbine will be viewed in combination with Bryndraenog Hall, with clear and sustained views from the public highway and open access land on the opposite side of the valley despite intervening distances, topography and landscaping.

In light of the above and notwithstanding the conclusions of the submitted Historic Environmental Appraisal, the Built Heritage Officer contends that the proposed wind turbine development will have an unacceptable adverse impact on the setting of this building by reasons of scale and siting contrary to policies SP3, ENV14 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Wales.

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in determining a planning application. Where nationally important archaeological remains and their setting are likely to be affected by proposed development, there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation in situ. In cases involving lesser archaeological remains, local planning authorities will need to weigh the relative importance of archaeology against other factors, including the need for the proposed development.

There are a number of Scheduled Ancient Monuments located within a 5 km radius of the application site. Within their response, Cadw highlights the proximity of the application site to Scheduled Ancient Monument RD088 – Round Barrows South of Meagrams Corner which is located approximately 1km to the north-east of the site. Cadw confirms that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the setting of the aforementioned monument however the degree of impact has not been fully assessed within the Historic Environment Assessment or LVIA.

Further concern is expressed by the Built Heritage Officer in relation to the potential impact on the setting of RD111 – Beacon Hill Round Barrows which comprises of 4 tumuli located on the summit of Beacon Hill Open Access Land. It is noted that the said asset has been

26 Page 62 excluded from the Historic Environment Assessment and therefore no assessment of the potential impact on setting when viewed from across the valley has been undertaken.

In determining the application, Members needs to carefully consider the impact on the identified Scheduled Ancient Monuments and their settings, in particular whether the harm identified by Cadw and the Built Heritage Officer is outweighed by other factors such as the need for the proposed development and likely benefits. In this instance, whilst Officers acknowledge the scale of the proposed turbine and noted distances, it is not considered that sufficient information has been provided to fully assess the impact of the development on the identified Scheduled Ancient Monuments contrary to policies ENV17, ENV18 and E3 of the Powys UDP, Welsh Office Circular 60/96 and Planning Policy Wales.

Impact on residential amenity

UDP policy E3 indicates that wind turbine proposals will only be permitted where they do not unacceptably adversely affect the occupants or users of sensitive properties or their amenities by reasons of noise, vibration, shadow flicker or reflected lights.

Noise Impact

Wind turbine developments generate noise, both during construction and operation. Whilst construction noise is regarded as temporary, careful consideration needs to be given to noise generated by the operation of turbines in order to safeguard residential amenity. The closest non associated property is located approximately 910 metres to the east of the proposed turbine.

National policy and guidance refers to the need for operational noise levels to fall within the established limits of ETSU-R-97 (The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind farms (1997) Energy Technology Support Unit). This guidance sets out indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farms. ETSU-R-97 is supported as an appropriate standard in Technical Advice Note 8. The levels are set relative to background noise limits, rather than as absolute limits, with separate limits for day-time and night-time. They are presented in a manner that makes them suitable for noise related planning conditions.

Following consultation with Environment Health, no objection has been raised in respect of noise impact subject to the imposition of standard noise conditions. Should Members be minded to grant consent, it is recommended that the conditions as recommended by the Environmental Health Officer are attached to any permission granted. Subject to the above, it is considered that noise impact can be adequately managed thereby avoiding any unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring properties in accordance with policies GP1 and E3 of the Powys UDP.

Shadow Flicker

Guidance suggests that shadow flicker occurs at distances no more than ten rotor diameters. The proposed turbine has a rotor diameter of approximately 23.5 metres. As highlighted, the nearest non-associated residential property is located approximately 910 metres from the proposed turbine which is in excess of 235 metres and as such, it is not considered that the proposed development will have an unacceptable impact resulting from shadow flicker. The proposed development therefore is compliant with policies GP1 and E3 in this respect.

27 Page 63

Impact on public rights of way/bridleways

UDP policy E3 indicates that turbine proposals will only be permitted where they do not unacceptably adversely affect the enjoyment and safe use of highways and the public rights of way network especially bridleways (including during the construction period).

Members are advised that Countryside Services recommend that turbines are kept at least tip height from footpaths and 200m from public rights of way of bridleway status or higher. Following consultation, the Countryside Services department has confirmed that this turbine fails to meet Countryside Services recommended distance from a number of bridleways. The proposed turbine would be located approximately 60 metres from bridleway BG843, 126 metres from bridleway BG846 and 127 metres from bridleway BG848.

In their response, Countryside Services confirms that parts of bridleways BG843, BG846 and BG848 closest to the proposed turbine, cross Crown Common land and therefore, horse riders are able to ride freely across the area (subject to vegetation and natural features) and can choose to stay further from the turbine if they wish. Notwithstanding this, to access the bridleways off the common land requires the horse rider to come within the recommended 200m distance.

In light of the above, an alternative route has been offered by the applicant allowing riders the opportunity to maintain the 200 metre recommended distance if required. Countryside Services has confirmed that the proposed route is of an acceptable standard for a permissive alternative route subject to appropriate signage and improved gates being provided.

Having carefully considered the proposed details and comments received, Officers consider that the potential impact on users of the bridleway could be appropriately managed through the implementation of an alternative route. In light of the above and subject to appropriate conditions securing an implementation and maintenance scheme, it is considered unlikely that the proposed development will have an unacceptable adverse impact on the enjoyment and safe use of the public rights of way network.

On the basis of the above, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with planning policy, particularly policies E3 and RL6 of the Powys UDP.

Ecological impact

UDP policies ENV3, ENV7 and E3 seek to safeguard biodiversity, protected species and their habitats. This is further supported by Technical Advice Note 5, Planning Policy Wales and legal duties placed on the Local Planning Authority.

The site has been subject to ecological survey and assessment in respect of statutory protected species. Natural Resources Wales has confirmed that the submitted surveys and assessments have been carried out to a satisfactory standard and agree with the conclusions of the report which indicate no adverse impact on protected species or birds.

On the basis of the ecological report and NRW response, Development Management considers that the proposal will not be detrimental to the favourable conservation status of any populations or colonies of European or British protected species. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with policies SP3, SP12, GP1,

28 Page 64 ENV3, ENV7 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan, Technical Advice Note 5 and Planning Policy Wales.

Social and economic impact

The Mid Wales Tourism Strategy (TPMW, 2011) recognises the natural environment as Powys’ key visitor asset. Wind energy development, through landscape and visual impact has the potential to alter the natural environment by changing the landscape character and visual amenity. The proposed turbine is located within proximity of recreational and tourism assets including public rights of way. Within immediate proximity there are footpaths and sections of Glyndwrs Way, Offa’s Dyke and The Jack Mytton Way which travel through the 5km study area as detailed within the LVIA. The visibility of the turbine from the nearby public rights of ways and long distance trails is discussed in the section above as is the impact upon other identified recreational and tourism facilities and the wider landscape. Public representations have expressed concern with regards to the potential impact that the proposed development may have on tourism in the area which appears to be as a result of the landscape impact.

Policy TR2 of the Unitary Development Plan states that development of any kind which would have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the environmental setting of established tourist attractions will be opposed. There is limited information available on the impact of wind energy development on local economies particularly tourism.

Research has been carried out in the United Kingdom to establish whether wind farms are seen as having a negative impact on tourism. A study carried out by the University of Edinburgh as a submission to the Renewables Inquiry of the Scottish Government entitled “Tourism impact on wind farms” and provided the following conclusion: “In conclusion, the findings from both primary and secondary research relating to the actual and potential tourism impact of wind farms indicate that there will be neither an overall decline in the number of tourists visiting an area nor any overall financial loss in tourism related earnings as a result of a wind farm development.”

It is advised that consideration is also given to the “Study into the Potential Economic Impact of Wind Farms and Associated Grid Infrastructure on the Welsh Tourism Sector” by Regeneris Consulting Ltd (February 2014) for the Welsh Government. This is an up to date piece of research and is specific to Wales. It is an extensive report which takes in a wide variety of literature and uses case studies to look at the impact of wind farm development. The study is complex, but it is considered reasonable to state that it emphasises the need to look at each case and situation on its own merits. The study offers the following advice in relation to the scale of development and potential considerations:

“5.54 The authors of this study argue that it is the degree to which a development changes the character of the landscape rather than its absolute size that is the driving factor. While there is clearly a relationship between turbine size and number of turbines and the impact on landscape character these findings suggest that landscape context is as important as the characteristics of the development itself in determining impact. That is, a large wind farm in a landscape with lots of other man-made structures could have less of an impact than a single turbine in an area of particularly high landscape value’.

5.55 This suggests that the context for the development is a critical factor in determining potential tourism impacts. The findings of relevant studies suggest that the context for the development influences three inter-related factors: the nature of the landscape, the

29 Page 65 importance of landscape in an area’s tourism offer and the characteristics and interests of visitors to a particular tourism area.”

The report tends to focus on the large scale wind farm development where there is significant landscape change. Paragraphs 5.54 and 5.55 do it is considered highlight the potential for harm to tourism from a single turbine in an inappropriate location. The suggested considerations in 5.55 are considered helpful in assessing this issue e.g. the need to consider the nature of the landscape (and the nature of the change from the turbine), the importance of the landscape in an area’s tourism offer and the characteristics and interests of visitors to a particular tourism area.

The report also identifies that there may be higher sensitivity to wind farms for certain visitor markets in close proximity to wind farms, stating:

“9.17 While most of the evidence points toward limited impacts on tourism from wind farms, there are examples of certain locations which are, on balance, more sensitive to wind farm development. This is on account of their landscapes, types of visitor, limited product diversity and proximity to wind farms. This is particularly the case where the key visitor markets are older people visiting for the tranquillity, remoteness and natural scenery offered in some parts of Wales. Remoter parts of Powys are the most notable examples of where this may be the case.

9.18 In these locations, the study has concluded that the potential negative effect on visitor numbers may still be low overall, but in some circumstances could be moderate. The case studies have revealed that there is clearly a great deal of uncertainty around the potential impact which may arise in practice. Greatest concern exists amongst areas and businesses closest to wind farms and appealing to visitor markets most sensitive to changes in landscape quality. The case studies did highlight some businesses reporting negative reaction from visitors and also holding back investment on account of the uncertain impact, although a majority were not affected negatively at all.

9.19 Although these areas account for a small proportion of tourism employment in Wales as a whole, the narrow economic base in these areas means the sector is an important source of local employment and income. The businesses in these locations may be sensitive even to small changes in visitor numbers as a result of wind farm development. They may have a particular challenge for businesses replacing those visitors which are deterred in areas where there may be limited appeal for other visitor markets.”

The research is not considered to be a categorical statement on the positive or negative impact of wind turbines on tourism. There is also likely to be other research available, but as a Local Planning Authority we are not aware of robust evidence of a detrimental impact. The whole issue of detrimental tourism impacts is a nebulous issue vulnerable to assessment by assumption rather than by evidence. There is little general evidence to support the assertion that the development of wind turbines will always have a detrimental economic impact on tourism.

Whilst the above considers the general situation and identifies some points raised by relevant research; the important consideration to take into account is the impact of this specific proposal on tourism. The area has a scenic value and there are public rights of way within immediate proximity of the application site, all of which are likely to be appreciated by tourists.

30 Page 66 The area has a scenic value and there are a number of recreational assets as highlighted previously within the report, all of which are likely to be appreciated by tourists, including horse riders and ramblers. The area in which the proposed turbine will be located is considered to be generally attractive and relatively tranquil. No particular tourism issue has been drawn to the attention of the local planning authority, beyond the identification of Public Rights of Way and Highways in the locality and the potential of certain groups to be sensitive to the impact of turbines, particularly those engaged in outdoor recreation/horse riding. This should be seen in the context of relatively low tourist numbers and the suggestion that areas of Powys maybe more sensitive due to their remote unspoilt nature and tourism offer as indicated in the 2014 Welsh Government research.

As articulated in the section relating to Landscape and Visual Impact, Development Management does not consider that the proposed turbine, by virtue of its scale, location and in combination impacts, will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape. Advising on the impact on tourism however is difficult and the Local Planning Authority must be wary of straying into areas of un-evidenced assumption. While it may seem reasonable to consider that some visitors or that particular types of tourists such as horse riders and ramblers could be put off by wind farm development in this general area, this is not well evidenced. Given the lack of evidence, Members are advised that a recommendation for refusal on the grounds of an adverse impact on tourism is considered difficult to sustain.

Telecommunications, aviation and public safety

Wind turbines can potentially affect electromagnetic transmissions (e.g. radio, television and phone signals). Specialist organisations responsible for the operation of electromagnetic links typically require 100m clearance either side of a line of sight link from the swept area of turbine blades. There is no indication that any such impacts have occurred following development.

Air traffic and safety - Wind turbines may have an adverse effect on air traffic movement and safety. Firstly, they may represent a risk of collision with low flying aircraft, and secondly, they may interfere with the proper operation of radar by limiting the capacity to handle air traffic, and aircraft instrument landing systems. There is a 15 kilometre (km) consultation zone and 30km or 32km advisory zone around every civilian air traffic radar, although objections can be raised to developments that lie beyond the 32km advisory zone. There is a c.15km statutory safeguarding consultation zone around Ministry of Defence aerodromes within which wind turbine proposals would be assessed for physical obstruction. The Ministry of Defence have been consulted on this application, but have not responded. There is no indication that the proposal will give rise to any harm to aviation and in line with other consents for wind turbine development a standard condition is recommended requiring that details of the turbine lighting are provided for the MOD.

Turbines may present a risk to nearby buildings. Fall over distance (i.e. the height of the turbine to the tip of the blade) plus 10% is often used as a safe separation distance. This is often less than the minimum desirable distance between wind turbines and occupied buildings calculated on the basis of expected noise levels and due to visual impact and does not give rise to any concerns in this case. TAN 8 further advises that experience indicates that properly designed, erected and maintained wind turbines are a safe technology. The very few accidents that have occurred involving injury to humans have been caused by

31 Page 67 failure to observe manufacturers’ and operators’ instructions for the operation of the machines. There has been no example of injury to a member of the public.

In respect of icing, TAN 8 advises that the build-up of ice on turbine blades is unlikely to present problems on the majority of sites in Wales. Even where icing does occur the turbines’ own vibration sensors are likely to detect the imbalance and inhibit the operation of the machines.

Hydrology and hydrogeology

The construction and decommissioning of wind turbines can have potential impacts on local watercourses, water bodies, groundwater and water supplies due to pollution, erosion, sedimentation and impediments to flow resulting from construction activity.

It should be noted that Natural Resources Wales have offered no comments on the application on hydrology and hydrogeology. Based on a site visit there was no evidence of any hydrology or hydrological issues identified within proximity of the turbine. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with policies E3 and DC9 of the Powys UDP.

Reversibility

Policy E4 of the Powys UDP (Removal of Redundant Wind Turbines) requires the removal of redundant turbines and outlines conditions that should be imposed on planning permissions in this respect. As a single turbine, at 48.4 metres high it is considered that this proposal should be considered as reasonably reversible and that this can be required through planning conditions. The reversibility of the proposal can be given weight in decision making.

Recommendation

Having carefully considered the proposed turbine development, Development Management considers that insufficient information has been submitted to fully assess the potential impact of the development on the setting of the identified Scheduled Ancient Monuments. Furthermore, Officers consider that the proposed development will have an unacceptable impact on the setting of Bryndraenog Hall, a grade I listed building of exceptional historic interest.

In light of the above and notwithstanding the acknowledged farm diversification benefits, Development Management considers the proposed development to be contrary to planning policy. As such, the recommendation is one of refusal on the grounds cited below;

Reasons for Refusal

1. Insufficient information has been submitted to assess the impact of the proposed development on the setting of Scheduled Ancient Monuments, specifically Round Barrow South of Meagrams Corner (RD088) and Beacon Hill Round Barrows (RD111) including the relationship between the two. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies SP3, SP12, ENV17, ENV18 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010), Welsh Office Circular 60/96 and Planning Policy Wales (2016).

32 Page 68 2. The proposed development will have an unacceptable adverse impact on the setting of Bryndraenog Hall - grade l listed building. The proposed development is therefore contrary policies SP3, GP1, E3 and ENV14 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan, Welsh Officer Circular 61/96 and Planning Policy Wales (2016).

______Case Officer: Eddie Hrustanovic- Swyddog Cynllunio / Planning Officer Tel: 01938 551231 E-mail:[email protected]

33 Page 69 Page 70 PTLRW21 - 20164

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2015/1196 Grid Ref: 307052 / 290962

Community Mochdre Valid Date: Officer: Council: 18/12/2015 Robin Wynne Williams

Applicant: Mr Stuart Lawrence, Tudor Griffiths Ltd, Wood Lane, Ellesmers, Shropshire, SY12 0HY

Location: Concrete Batching Plant, Penstrowed Caersws, SY17 5SG

Proposal: The change of use of land to enable the extension of the concrete batching plant into an agricultural field to the north of the existing site.

Application Application for Full Planning Permission Type:

The reason for Committee determination

Powys County Council is the owner of the land.

Site Location and Description

The site is located approximately 3 miles to the east of Newtown along the A489 and is adjacent to the access to Penstrowed quarry. The site is approximately 0.1ha in area and is part of an agricultural field within the open countryside to the north and the existing concrete batching plant to the south. The lay of the land slopes in an easterly direction down towards the A489. There are residential properties located approx. 150m to the north-west (Y Plas) and 80m to the north east (Fronderw).

The current concrete batching plant benefits from a standalone unrestricted planning permission granted in 1967 and includes structures such as stock bays, hoppers, silos, fuel tanks and a welfare cabin. The extension to the site will enable the relocation of the stocking bays and development of a concrete pad, hardstanding and on-site turning facility that will enable improved access and increased storage of concrete making material on site.

Consultee Response

Mochdre CC - No objection

Local Ward Councillor – Support

Highways Dept – No objection

Building Control – No comment

Environmental Health - Condition relating to operating hours

1 Page 71 Contaminated Land Officer - No objection

PCC Ecologist - Conformation required relating to tree species forming the planting scheme

PCC Land Drainage – No comment

Welsh Government - No direction to be issued

Natural Resources Wales - Suggest conditions relating to drainage and pollution

Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust – No objection

Representations

None to report.

Planning History

6997 – Conditional Consent for the development of further land at Penstrowed Quarry

Principal Planning Policies

National planning policy and guidance

Planning Policy Wales (2014) MTAN 1 - Aggregates TAN 11 - Noise Technical Advice Note 23 – Economic Development

Local planning policies

UDP GP 1 – Development Control UDP ENV2 – Safeguarding the Landscape UDP ENV 9 – Woodland Planting UDP EC 1 – Business, Industrial and Commercial Developments UDP EC5 – Expansion of existing employment sites MW14 – Noise MW21 – Ancillary Plant

RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

Officer Appraisal

Members are advised to consider this application in accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and paragraph 3.1.2 of Planning Policy Wales,

2 Page 72 which requires applications to be determined in accordance with the approved or adopted development plan for the area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The main policies to be considered in the determination of this application are the policies of the Powys Unitary Development Plan. The policies and guidance contained within MTAN1- Aggregates, TAN 11 – Noise, TAN23 – Economic Development and also PPW 2014 are also central to the determination of this application. The materiality of the above polices are discussed in the following planning appraisal.

Tudor Griffiths Ltd is seeking to upgrade and extend the concrete batching plant at Penstrowed. The current site due to its limited size, topography and orientation can be described as restrictive in terms of, vehicular access, movement and ability to store concrete making materials; consequently this significantly curtails upon production capabilities.

The development is to extend the existing concrete batching plant into an adjacent agricultural field. Although the site is not allocated within the Powys Unitary Development Plan: Policy EC5 of the Powys UDP allows limited expansions and environmental improvements of existing employment sites in accordance with the criteria in Policy EC1 that satisfies scale, environmental impact, highway issues and proximity to users and raw materials. Also, TAN 23 - Economic Development states that unallocated sites could be permitted if the resulting benefits outweigh any adverse impacts of the development and that proposals to extend and develop land not identified in the plan will often come from established businesses wishing to expand.

As such, the applicant has amended the description to accord with the requirements of the above policy to extend the existing concrete batching plant rather than to change the use of the land to open storage under use class B8 of the Use Classes Order as originally described.

In relation to the proposal, no adverse comments were received from statutory consultees or members of the public during the consultation process.

Notwithstanding, as no information was submitted as to how the site was drained, Natural Resources Wales recommended conditions relating to the environmental management of water and chemicals on site that required the bunding of the plant and that surface water be discharged through an oil interceptor and appropriately sized trapped gullies. In response, the applicant considers this to be unnecessary as they state there are adequate drainage ditches on site and retro fitting the site is unfeasible due to site constraints. Subsequently in discussion with NRW, it is the intention to include pre-commencement conditions requesting the submission of a pollution prevention programme together with details for the disposal of surface water on site so that the applicant can demonstrate that concurrent and proposed drainage and pollution arrangements accords with the required environmental controls.

The submitted plans demonstrate that the proposed extension area is to be landscaped along the northern and eastern boundaries with that of evergreen trees / hedgerows. The proposed landscaping is welcomed, however the use of evergreens would not be in keeping with the character of the surrounding landscape, as required by policy ENV2 – Landscaping and ENV9 – Woodland Planting. Therefore, a condition is to be included requiring the submission of an indigenous planting scheme so as to ensure satisfactory integration into the landscape with that of native hedgerow field boundaries.

3 Page 73

The existing concrete batching plant was granted planning permission in 1967, and was not subject to planning conditions to control amenity, environmental impact which would be applied for such an application in this day and age.

Through the submission of a planning application to extend the site, the Planning Authority has the option to include conditions not only on the land subject to the application but also to the existing concrete batching plant as the land is under the control of the applicant and sufficiently relates to this proposal.

Because of the unrestrictive nature of the original planning permission, there is a responsibility on the Planning Authority to adequately control the site through the imposition of modern planning conditions that are in accordance with the requirements of Welsh Government Circular 016/2014 – The Use of Planning Conditions for Development Management. As previously noted, policy EC5 – of the Powys UDP allows limited expansions and environmental improvements of existing employment sites. Therefore, subject to granting planning permission, it is recommended that conditions are included for the whole site in relation to operating hours and noise limits so as to protect the amenity of nearby dwellings and therefore accord with the environmental improvements requirement of condition EC5.

In discussion with the Environmental Health department it is considered that a condition is applied, which restricts the operating hours to between 07:00 and 18:00 Monday to Saturday, which also allows flexibility for work to be done outside these hours upon the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Unfortunately, having discussed the condition with the applicant; they request the operating hours to be extended so as to start from 05:30 rather than 07:00 as contractors require concrete to be delivered prior to the start of the working day. In response, it is Development Managements position that daytime working is defined as 07:00-19:00 hours within MTAN1 and also the recommended condition allows for earlier starts subject to prior approval.

It is noted within MTAN1, where aggregates extraction and related operations occur close to areas that are sensitive to noise, particularly residential areas, noise impact must be minimised to acceptable levels. This planning application will result in the encroachment of development to within 80 metres of a residential property known as Fronderw (previously 150m). It will also come to within 150 metres to Y Plas (previously 170m). As the original planning permission does not have any planning conditions attached, this allows the site to operate unrestricted. Although TAN 11 – Noise does not deal specifically with noise from mineral extraction and processing sites, general points within the TAN apply. However, Powys UDP policy MW14 follows the limits set in MTAN 1 and the most important points to consider in terms of the setting of noise limits are noise sensitive properties. Notwithstanding, the Environmental Health Department, are of the opinion that due to the operational good history of the site in which no complaints have been received in relation to noise it is not necessary to include specific noise conditions for the site. This is also the view of the applicant.

In response; it should be noted that the operational good history of the site is not a material planning consideration in relation to this application as planning permission runs with the land rather than with a specific operator. As noted above, the extension will move the site closer to residential properties and the condition restricting operating hours will allow the flexibility for night time working. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the local planning authority to include

4 Page 74 a condition controlling noise in accordance with the requirements of local and national policy. Accordingly, it is considered that condition 5 as recommended within policy MW14 – Noise of the Powys UDP be applied should planning permission be forthcoming.

Recommendation

Based on the above report it is considered that the proposal accords with local and national policies noted within this document, it will also allow the Local Planning Authority to impose modern and up to date planning conditions to control noise, working hours to restrict any possible adverse effects upon the local amenity. Subject to the inclusion of the planning conditions noted below it is recommended that planning permission is granted.

Conditions

1. The development to which this permission relates shall begin no later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Acts

2. Unless otherwise required by planning condition or agreed in writing by the local planning authority the development hereby approved relates to the area within the red and blue line site boundary shown on drawing No. M15. 120.D.003B and shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings, plans and supporting documentation:  M15. 120.D.003B – Proposed Block Plan  M15. 120.D.004B – Cross Sections  PS_TOPO161115_A1- Topographical Survey

Reason: To secure the proper development of the site and to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Acts

3. A copy of this decision notice and all approved plans, schemes and all documentation subsequently amended, approved or agreed in accordance with this permission shall be kept at the operators site office and made known to any person(s) given responsibility for the construction of the facility, and the management, or control of activities/operations at the site for inspection during operating hours. Reason: To assist the monitoring and compliance of the development with the permission, conditions and approved documentation.

4. Except in emergencies to maintain safe working (which shall be notified to the Local Planning Authority as soon as practicable) or unless with the prior written approval of the local planning authority, the concrete batching plant together with

5 Page 75 any ancillary transporting and stockpiling of materials shall only be operated between the hours of 07.00 and 18.00 on Monday to Saturday in each week.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to protect the amenities of local residents

5. The noise attributable to the working operations at any nearby noise sensitive properties should not exceed:

a. Between the hours of 0700 – 1900 Mondays to Saturdays

 55 db(a) (1 hour), where background noise levels exceed 45db(a).

 Background noise levels + 10 db(a) (1 hour), where background noise levels are less than 45 db(a).

b. Between the hours of 1900 – 0700 or on Sundays or Public Holiday as authorised under the provisions of Condition 4 above,

 42 db(a).

Reason: To ensure minimum disturbance from operations and to minimise the adverse impact of noise generated by the operations in the interests of the amenities of local residents and occupiers of adjacent land.

6. All vehicles and machinery operated within the site shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specification at all times, and shall be fitted with and use effective silencers. Vehicles when reversing will not emit warning noise that would have an adverse impact on residential or rural amenity.

7. No development shall commence on site until details have been submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority demonstrating means of disposal of surface water from the development. Upon the written approval of the Local Planning Authority, the approved details shall be implemented in full.

Reason: To prevent pollution and to protect the water environment

8. No development shall commence on site until a pollution prevention programme identifying potential pollution risks and the mitigation, remediation and management procedures to control such risks shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Upon written approval of the local planning authority, the scheme shall be implemented in full.

Reason: To prevent pollution and to protect the water environment.

6 Page 76 9. No solid matter, sand or gravel or excess amounts of suspended matter, soil, grease or any other offensive or injurious matter shall pass into any watercourse from any activities or operations hereby approved.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment

10. Prior to the commencement of construction, a landscaping scheme shall be submitted in writing for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The approved landscaping scheme shall include a timetable for planting indicating when the planting shall be undertaken and shall be implemented as approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that impacts of the development is mitigated and maintained to an acceptable level in the interests of amenity and nature conservation.

______Case Officer: Robin Wynne Williams- Minerals And Waste Planning Officer Tel: 01286 679833 E-mail:robinwynnewilliams@gwynedd.gov.uk

7 Page 77 Page 78 PTLRW21 - 20165

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2015/1211 Grid Ref: 306077.29 262785.96

Community Llandrindod Wells Valid Date: Officer: Council: 05/01/2016 Holly-ann Hobbs

Applicant: Mr Tim Beach, Powys County Council, Spa Road East, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 5LG.

Location: Unit 29 Ddole Industrial Estate, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 6DF.

Proposal: Change of use from unit (B2 use) to Powys Modern Records & Archives (sui generis use) including alterations and extensions, erection of bin store and all associated works

Application Application for Full Planning Permission Type:

The reason for Committee determination

The application is submitted on behalf of Powys County Council.

Site Location and Description

The site subject to this application is located on the Ddole Industrial Estate. Unit 29 occupies a corner plot and is bounded by existing industrial buildings to the north and west. Located to the east and south is the existing estate road with additional industrial units beyond.

Consent is sought in full for the change of use of the existing industrial unit (B2) to provide accommodation for Powys Modern Records and Archives. The proposed development also includes extensions and alterations to the existing building together with the provision of a bin store.

The proposed extensions include two additions to the east elevation of the building which measures approximately 5 metres square. The proposed extension on the west elevation measures approximately 11 metres by 2.8 metre. The ridge and eaves height of the proposed extensions measure approximately 4.8 metres and 3.2 metres respectively (mono- pitch). The proposed extensions will comprise of facing brick and metal cladding to match the existing unit.

Vehicular access to the site will be provided via an existing access off the estate road located to the south. Parking and turning provision will be provided within the application site boundary.

Consultee Response

1 Page 79 Llandrindod Wells Town Council

The above application was placed before my Council at its meeting held on 19th February 2016.

The Town Council had no objection to this application.

Highway Authority

The County Council as Highway Authority for the County Unclassified Highway, U1650 does not wish to comment on the application.

Building Control

Building Regulations approval will be required for this proposal.

Wales & West Utilities

No comments received at the time of writing this report.

County Ecologist

No comments received at the time of writing this report.

Contaminated Land Officer

The following document has been submitted in support of Planning Application P/2015/1211: Arcadis ‘Unit 29, Ddole Road Enterprise Park, Llandrindod Wells: Phase 1 Geo- Environmental Desk Study’ 23 December 2015.

Based on the information submitted the following advice is provided for the consideration of Development Control.

Advice

1. The proposed development involves the change of use of an existing industrial unit to a records and archive facility, which will include alterations and extensions. The proposed extensions will be undertaken on the Northeast, Northwest and Southeast corners of the site and will each cover approximately 24 square metres.

Part 3 ‘Description of the Proposal’ of the ‘Application for Planning Permission’, dated 23 December 2015, details that: “The existing building was granted Full Planning Permission on 8 May 1986 as an Advanced Factory Unit” and: “Unit 29 was purchased by Powys County Council on 12 February 2004 and was first used by the Powys Modern Records Service after 19 May 2004”.

2. Subsection 2.1 ‘Site Setting’ of the ‘Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study’ details that: “It is assumed the site was constructed by benching into the side of the slope and then

2 Page 80 levelling to provide flat ground for the warehouse. Therefore there is the potential for Made Ground to be present, which may have been used to form level ground”.

Furthermore, subsection 2.2 ‘Site Description’, of the ‘Phase 1 Geo- Environmental Desk Study’, identifies that: “Inside the warehouse there is a jointed concrete floor in good condition” and: “No visual evidence of surface contamination was noted. No evidence of fuel or chemical storage was noted”. 3. Subsection 5.1 ‘Potential Contaminant Sources’, of the ‘Phase 1 Geo- Environmental Desk Study’, states that: “Based on the information obtained from the historical and environmental research, there are no offsite potentially contaminative sources”.

Table 5.1 ‘Potential contaminant sources’, of the ‘Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study’, identifies: “Made Ground used to form level ground for the site. Possible impacts during construction activities and day to day traffic (leaks, spills)” as the potential on-site sources of contamination.

Furthermore, in subsection 6.1 ‘Conclusions’ of the ‘Phase 1 Geo- Environmental Desk Study’ it is stated: “The site has been occupied by Unit 29 of an enterprise park since 1985, prior to which it was undeveloped farmland. There is the potential for Made Ground to be present beneath the site which may have been used to level ground” and: “The risk to human health is considered to be low”.

4. Based on the findings of the preliminary risk assessment it is stated in subsection 6.2 ‘Recommendations’, of the ‘Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study’, that: “An intrusive site investigation is recommended to investigate the extent of Made Ground present beneath the site, collect samples for chemical testing and inform the presence or absence of shallow perched groundwater”.

Paragraph 13.5.1, of Chapter 13 ‘Minimising and Managing Environmental Risks and Pollution’, of the Welsh Government document ‘Planning Policy Wales’ (2014) advises: “responsibility for determining the extent and effects of instability or other risks remains that of the developer. It is for the developer to ensure that the land is suitable for the development proposed, as a planning authority does not have a duty of care to landowners”.

5. It is considered that the information provided is sufficient to demonstrate that there is not a significant risk to the proposed development from land contamination. Therefore, it will not be necessary for any further investigation and assessment of the risks associated with the potential presence of land contamination to be undertaken in support of Planning Application P/2015/1211.

However, based on the recommendations made in the ‘Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study’ it is advised that the following Condition, in respect of the potential presence of land contamination, is attached to any permission granted for Planning Application P/2015/1211:

Potential Contamination

In the event that contamination is encountered at any time when undertaking the approved development immediate contact must be made with the Local Planning Authority. The development must then not proceed until an investigation and risk assessment has been undertaken, by a qualified and experienced environmental consultant, and where remediation

3 Page 81 is necessary a Remediation Strategy must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of the remedial works identified in the approved Remediation Strategy a Verification Report that demonstrates compliance with the agreed remediation objectives must be produced by a qualified and experienced environmental consultant, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority, prior to commencement of use of the development.

Representations

The proposed development has been advertised by site display. At the time of writing this report, no public representations have been received by Development Management.

Planning History

1760 – Outline: Industrial development. Consented 4th April 1979. R1760A - Reserved matters for access road & sewers. Consented 7th October 1981. 1760J – Full: Advanced factory unit. Consented 8th May 1986.

Principal Planning Policies

National Planning Policy

Planning Policy Wales (2016)

Local Planning Policy

Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010)

SP2 – Strategic Settlement Hierarchy SP4 – Economic and Employment Developments GP1 – Development Control GP3 – Design and Energy Conservation GP4 – Highway and Parking Requirements ENV2 – Safeguarding the Landscape ENV7 – Protected Species EC1 – Business, Industrial and Commercial Developments EC2 – Business Sites Hierarchy EC4 – Local Employment Sites within or adjoining settlements DC10 – Mains Sewage Treatment DC13 – Surface Water Drainage DC15 – Development on Unstable or Contaminated Land

RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

Officer Appraisal

Introduction

4 Page 82

Principle of Development

Provision is made within the Powys Unitary Development for the delivery of industrial and commercial developments providing that the development is located within a settlement development boundary and is of a scale and type which safeguards the environment and character of the sites surroundings.

The application building has been occupied by Modern Records since 2004. The proposed development seeks to regularise the existing use and proposes to relocate Powys Archives. Officers consider that the proposed use is fundamentally in keeping with the existing industrial use of the site and therefore considers the principle of development to be in accordance with planning policy.

Scale, Design and Appearance

UDP policy GP1 indicates that planning permission will only be granted where the proposal complements and wherever possible enhances the character and appearance of existing buildings and the surrounding areas by reasons of design, siting, scale, mass and materials used.

The proposed development includes the erection of three modest extensions. Officers consider that the proposed extensions have been suitably located and are of an appropriate scale and design, such that the character and appearance of the application building and surrounding estate will not be adversely affected. Proposed materials include facing brick and profile cladding to match those of the existing industrial unit.

In light of the above observations and subject to appropriate conditions specifying external materials, Development Management considers that the proposed extensions and external alterations are in keeping with the industrial character of the application building. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with planning policy, particularly policy GP1 of the Powys UDP.

Highway Safety and Movement

Policy GP4 of the Powys UDP confirms that permission for development will be dependent on adequate provision for highway access including visibility, turning, passing and circulation space.

Access to the application site will be facilitated via an existing access off the estate road. Staff and visitor parking (including disabled provision) will be provided to the south of the existing building. Following consultation, the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposed development.

5 Page 83 In light of the Highway Authority comments received and having visited the application site, Officers are satisfied that adequate highway provision has been made. On this basis, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with policy GP4 of the Powys UDP.

Contaminated Land

UDP policy DC15 states that proposals to develop land known or suspected to be contaminated will only be permitted where sufficient information is submitted to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in contamination on/off site or unacceptably adversely affects public health and safety.

Given the industrial use of the surrounding site, the application is accompanied by a Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study prepared by Arcadis. Following consultation, the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer has confirmed that sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there is no significant risk to the proposed development from land contamination.

Notwithstanding the above conclusions, in the event that planning permission is granted, the Contaminated Land Officer has recommended that a precautionary condition be attached to any consent to ensure that the interests of site users are protected in the event that contamination is discovered during construction.

Subject to the imposition of the above, Officers are satisfied that contamination risks can be adequately managed. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with UDP policy DC15.

Recommendation

Having carefully considered the proposed development, Officers are satisfied that the proposed development is compliant with planning policy. The proposal will secure a use in keeping with the general character of the existing industrial estate. The site benefits from existing infrastructure thereby enhancing the accessibility of the application building for visiting members of the public. In light of the above, the recommendation is one of approval subject to the conditions detailed below;

Conditions:

1. The development to which this permission relates shall be begun no later than the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans received 5th January 2016 stamped as approved.

3. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension shall match those used in the existing building.

4. In the event that contamination is encountered at any time when undertaking the approved development, development must cease and immediate contact must be made with the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development must not proceed until an investigation and risk assessment has been undertaken by a qualified and experienced

6 Page 84 environmental consultant. Where remediation is necessary, a Remediation Strategy must be prepared and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of the remedial works identified in the approved Remediation Strategy a Verification Report that demonstrates compliance with the agreed remediation objectives must be produced by a qualified and experienced environmental consultant and submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the re-commencement of the development.

Reasons:

1. Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. To ensure adherence to the plans stamped as approved in the interests of clarity and a satisfactory development.

3. In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the building in accordance with policies GP1 and GP3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan and the Councils Residential Design Guide.

4. This condition is attached to protect the environment together with public safety in the event that contamination is discovered in accordance with policies GP1 and DC15 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010) and Planning Policy Wales (2016).

Notes

This development will need separate prior approval under the Building Regulations before it may proceed - if you have not already done so please contact Building Regulations 01874 612290

______Case Officer: Holly-ann Hobbs- Principal Planning Officer Tel: 01597 827319 E-mail:[email protected]

7 Page 85 Page 86 PTLRW21 - 20166

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: DEM/2016/0002 Grid Ref: 305751.78 260693.39

Community Llandrindod Wells Valid Date: Officer: Council: 10/02/2016 Thomas Goodman

Applicant: Mrs Helen Hodgson, 5 Callaghan Square, Network Rail, 5th Floor, Cardiff, CF10 5BT.

Location: Temple Avenue, Alexandra Road, Llandrindod Wells, LD1 5NR

Proposal: Demolition of footbridge over railway

Application Application for prior Notification of Proposed Demolition Type:

The reason for Committee determination

Powys County Council as landowner has an interest in the Demolition Notification. As such and in accordance with the Planning Protocol, the application is required to be determined by Members of the Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee.

Site Location and Description

The proposed development site adjoins the settlement development boundary of Llandrindod Wells as defined by the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010). The Heart of Wales line runs north to south underneath the footbridge. To the east of the proposed application site is the U1673 and to the west are playing fields. A public right of way crossed the footbridge.

The notification proposes the demolition the footbridge at Temple Avenue, Alexandra Road, Llandrindod Wells, LD1 5NR

Consultee Response

Llandrindod Wells Town Council

The Town Council object to this proposal as this footbridge is an established right of way and a public footpath.

We have had a great deal of representation from local residents opposing this application also.

The Town Council would urge the planning officer/committee to refuse this application.

Building Control

No response received at the time of writing this report.

1 Page 87

Environmental Health

No response received at the time of writing this report.

Rights of Way

Countryside Services have been involved with the decision to demolish this footbridge and therefore request that the application proceeds to a positive determination as soon as possible.

The decision to demolish the structure was made by relevant Portfolio Members. https://powys.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=389&MId=2699&Ver=4

County Ecologist

No response received at the time of writing this report.

Natural Resources Wales

No response received at the time of writing this report.

Councillor.Tom Turner

No response received at the time of writing this report.

Representations

In accordance with Part 31 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, the applicant is required to display a site notice on the land for a period of not less than 21 days in the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the application was submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

In response to the notice displayed, 9 letters of objection have been received. The concerns expressed relate to the loss of the footbridge and popular public right of way.

Principal Planning Constraints

Public right of way crosses the footbridge

Principal Planning Policies

National Planning Policy & Order

Planning Policy Wales (Edition 8, January 2016)

Part 31 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 – Demolition of Buildings.

Local Planning Policy

2 Page 88

Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010)

GP1 – Development Control GP3 – Design and Energy Conservation ENV2 – Safeguarding the Landscape DC1 - Access by Disabled Persons RL6 - Rights of Way and Access to the Countryside TR2 – Tourist Attractions and Development Areas T10 – Rail Facilities and Operations

RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

Officer Appraisal

Introduction

Part 31, Class A of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 permits the demolition of a building providing that the developer applies to the Local Planning Authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the Authority will be required with respect to the method of demolition and any proposed restoration of the site.

In instances where the Local Planning Authority considers that additional information is required in respect of the above, they are required to confirm to the applicant that prior approval is required. Where the information submitted is acceptable, the Local Planning Authority will confirm that prior approval is not required and therefore permits the developer to exercise permitted development rights under Class A as above. In every instance, consideration must be limited to the method of demolition and proposed restoration. It is not for the Local Planning Authority to consider the general acceptability of the proposal or the loss of the specific structure/building.

Accompanying the proposal is statement prepared by Wye Valley Demolition which details the proposed method of demolition. Having carefully considered the statement, Development Management considers the proposed method of demolition to be acceptable. It is not considered that the demolition of the footbridge will require site restoration and therefore no further details are considered necessary in this respect.

Recommendation

It is considered that sufficient detail has been submitted to assess the proposal in respect of the method of demolition and site restoration. In light of the above and in accordance with Class A, it is not considered that the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority is required.

Notes

Public Right of Way

3 Page 89 The applicant should consider applying to divert the public right of way (137/10(A)/1 as the proposed development will obstruct the public right of way. You are reminded that the right of way must be kept unobstructed and passable both during and after the completion of the development. It is advised that the footpath is diverted prior to commencement.

______Case Officer: Thomas Goodman- Planning Officer Tel: 01597 827655 E-mail:[email protected]

4 Page 90 Page 91 This page is intentionally left blank PTLRW21 - 20167

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2016/0021 Grid Ref: 322721.57 307721.14

Community Welshpool Valid Date: Officer: Council: 06/01/2016 Kate Bowen

Applicant: Welshpool Town Council, Union Street, Welshpool, Powys, SY21 7PG

Location: Victoria Memorial Hospital (Westwood Day Centre), Gungrog Road, Welshpool, Powys SY21 7DU

Proposal: Erection of a conservatory

Application Application for Full Planning Permission Type:

Reason for Committee determination

The application site is within the ownership of Powys County Council.

Site Location and Description

Westwood Day Centre is located to the south west of Victoria Memorial Hospital in Welshpool. It is proposed to construct a single storey conservatory extension to the south east elevation of the Day Centre. The conservatory would measure 5.6m by 5.6m (providing an additional gross internal floor area of 26 square metres. The conservatory would have a maximum height of 3.8m to the ridge. It is proposed to construct base walls using brickwork to match the existing building with a white plastic double glazed frame above under a twin wall polycarbonate roof.

Consultee Response

Welshpool Town Council

The Council makes no comments as they are the applicant.

PCC Highway Authority

Having reviewed the plans for this application I can confirm that the Highway Authority does not wish to object to this application and therefore has no further comments to make.

PCC Building Control

Building Regulations application required.

Wales & West Utilities

We enclose an extract from our mains records of the area covered by your proposals together with a comprehensive list of General Condiitons for your guidance. This plan shows

1 Page 93 only those pipes owned by Wales & West Utilities in its role as a Licensed Gas Transporter (GT). Gas pipes owned by other GT’s and also privately owned pipes may be present in this area. Information with regard to such pipes should be obtained from the owners. The information shown on this plan is given without obligation, or warranty and the accuracy thereof cannot be guaranteed. Service pipes, valves, syphons, stub connections, etc, are not shown by their presence should be anticipated. No liability of any kind whatsoever is accepted by Wales & West Utilities, its agents or servants for any error or omission.

Wales & West Utilities have no objections to thes proposals, however our apparatus may be at risk during construction works and should the planning application be approved then we require the promoter of these works to contact us directly to discuss our requirements in detail. Should diversion works be required these will be fully chargeable.

You must build over any of our plant or enclose our apparatus.

Welsh Government Transport Section

I refer to your consultation of 19 January 2016 regarding the above application and advise that the Welsh Government as highway authority for the A483 trunk road does not issue a direction in respect of this application.

PCC Care & Social Services

No response received.

Representations

Following display of a site notice, no public representations have been received.

Planning History

4958 4796 4442 26180

Principal Planning Constraints

 Unclassified highway  Within settlement development boundary of Welshpool  Conservation area located to south of the application site (site is not located within the conservation area)

Principal Planning Policies

National Planning Policy

Planning Policy Wales (Edition 8, January 2016)

2 Page 94

Local Planning Policy

Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010)

UDP GP1 – Development Control UDP GP4 – Highway and Parking Requirements UDP DC1 – Access by Disabled Persons UDP CS6 – Health Care Development UDP SP2 – Strategic Settlement Hierarchy UDP SP9 – Local Community Services and Facilities

RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

Officer Appraisal

Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Principle and Policy

The key local planning policy for this application is UDP Policy CS6 (Health Care Development) which supports the development and improvement of existing sites for day centres where their location complies with the sustainable strategic settlement hierarchy. The strategic settlement hierarchy is set out within UDP Policy SP2 where it is advised that land is allocated for development to reflect the needs of each settlement/community and the principles of sustainability.

The proposal would provide improved facilities at the day centre and given that the day centre is located within Welshpool, which is classified as an area centre within the UDP, the principle of the proposal is acceptable.

Design

The conservatory would be sited within an area which is currently lawned and bounded by hedgerows and a brick wall. The existing building is of brick construction with a slate roof. Windows are a mixture of white plastic and timber. The use of brick base walls for the conservatory will reflect the existing building and otherwise the scale, layout, height and materials are considered acceptable.

Highway and parking requirements

The day centre is accessed via the same vehicular access as the hospital, from Gungrog Road (unclassified highway) which meets Salop Road (trunk road). There is off road parking

3 Page 95 provision associated with the day centre which provides at least 15 car parking spaces. The proposal does not seek any alterations to the existing means of vehicular access and the proposal would not affect the current parking provision. Taking into account the current parking provision and access arrangements and that no objections have been received from the Welsh Government Transport Section or the Highway Authority, it is considered that the proposal would have an adequate means of access and ample parking provision and therefore complies with UDP Policy GP4.

Amenities enjoyed by occupiers of neighbouring properties

The site is located to the north of the Westwood public house and two residential properties with Bryntirion situated to the east. Planning permission has been granted under references P/2012/1112 and P/2014/0400 for change of use of former council offices (class B1) use to residential units (class C3) at Bryntirion. The hospital is situated to the north east and a training centre associated with the hospital is situated to the north west.

The conservatory would be constructed on relatively flat land and the existing hedgerow and walled boundaries would not be altered. Taking into account the neighbouring land uses and the scale and size of the conservatory, it is considered that the proposal would not unacceptably adversely affect the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with UDP Policy GP1.

Access by Disabled Persons

UDP DC1 requires proposals for new buildings to provide suitable access for disabled persons. The principal access to the existing day centre will not be altered which is relatively flat. The principal entrance door into the conservatory will offer a level threshold with a wide doorway and low sockets and light switches. Overall, the submission states that the building will meet the requirements of Part M of the Building Regulations in terms of accessibility for disabled persons and as such it is considered that the proposal complies with UDP Policy DC1.

Conclusion

The proposed conservatory would improve the existing day centre facilities in accordance with UDP Policy CS6 and in consideration of all other planning matters the proposal is considered acceptable. Therefore, the recommendation is one of conditional consent.

Recommendation

Conditional Consent 1. The development to which this permission relates shall be begun no later than the expiration of five years from the date of this permission. 2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans stamped as approved on xxxx (drawing no's: location plan, 3441.15, 3441.16, 3441.17, 3441.18, 3441.19).

Reasons

1. Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

4 Page 96 2. To ensure adherence to the plans stamped as approved in the interests of clarity and a satisfactory development.

Notes

Comments from Wales & West Utilities:

We enclose an extract from our mains records of the area covered by your proposals together with a comprehensive list of General Condiitons for your guidance. This plan shows only those pipes owned by Wales & West Utilities in its role as a Licensed Gas Transporter (GT). Gas pipes owned by other GT’s and also privately owned pipes may be present in this area. Information with regard to such pipes should be obtained from the owners. The information shown on this plan is given without obligation, or warranty and the accuracy thereof cannot be guaranteed. Service pipes, valves, syphons, stub connections, etc, are not shown by their presence should be anticipated. No liability of any kind whatsoever is accepted by Wales & West Utilities, its agents or servants for any error or omission.

You must build over any of our plant or enclose our apparatus.

______Case Officer: Kate Bowen- Planning Officer Tel: 01938 551268 E-mail:[email protected]

5 Page 97 Page 98 PTLRW22 - 2016

Delegated List

20/01/2016 09 19/02/2016 09 For the purpose of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the background papers relating to each individual planning application constitute all the correspondence on the file as numbered in the left hand column.

FOR INFORMATION Decisions of the Head of Regeneration, Property & Commissioning on Delegated Applications

Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Land at Mayfield P/2015/0021 06/01/2015 00CONSENT 21/01/2016 Outline: Erection of an Llanfihangel Bryn OUT S106 agricultural workers dwelling Pabuan Builth Wells

LD2 3PU

Unit 7 P/2015/1056 27/11/2015 00CONSENT 21/01/2016 Erection of ground FULL mounted 12.5 kw solar pv array (over existing Dyfi Eco Parc parking bays) Machynlleth

SY20 8AX

Page 99

1 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Barn at Grange House P/2015/1060 27/11/2015 00REFUSE 21/01/2016 Conversion of barn to FULL form a dwelling, erection of detached garage, installation of Glasbury sewage treatment plant and formation of HR3 5LP vehicular access

Bryn Y Pentre P/2015/1089 30/11/2015 00CONSENT 21/01/2016 Proposed base station Cellnet Mast Aberhafesp FULL installation upgrade Newtown

SY16 3JJ

Hen Blass P/2015/1094 30/11/2015 00CONSENT 21/01/2016 Proposed Caersws FULL telecommunication installation, upgrade Pontdolgoch and associated works Newtown

SY17 5JE

GERNANT P/2015/1131 18/11/2015 00CONSENT 22/01/2016 Proposed conversion & CHURCH STOKE FULL extension of redundant agricultural building to form a residential dwelling with installation of septic tank drainage SY15 6TG system & improvements to existing vehicular access & demolition of two agricultural buildings. 5 Tan y Mur P/2015/1197 03/12/2015 00CONSENT 22/01/2016 Erection of a two storey Montgomery HOUS extension to dwelling together with formation of raised parking area

SY15 6PR

Page 100 2 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

1 Hengwm Cyfeiliog P/2015/1075 30/11/2015 00CONSENT 25/01/2016 Micro Hydroelectric Aberhosen FULL scheme, including small weir, buried pipeline and turbine house

SY20 8RR

Irfon House P/2015/1057 20/11/2015 00CONSENT 26/01/2016 Erection of a two storey HOUS extension to existing dwelling, demolition of Irfon Crescent existing store

LD5 4SS

17 Penygraig P/2015/1081 06/11/2015 00REFUSE 27/01/2016 Construction of a HOUS balcony to rear including removal of existing window and Llanidloes installation of double door to rear SY18 6AL

Off Road Only Ltd P/2015/1123 04/12/2015 00CONSENT 27/01/2016 Advert: Display of 2 ADV illuminated signs on building 2 Ddole Industrial Estate Road Llandrindod Wells

LD1 6DF

Tyn Coed P/2016/0041 19/01/2016 00LAWFUL USE 27/01/2016 Section 192 proposed Llanafanfawr CLA2 erection of summerhouse/office Builth Wells

LD4 4BE

Page 101 3 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Gilfach P/2015/1177 02/12/2015 00CONSENT 27/01/2016 Erection of Interpretation Centre St. Harmon FULL Interpretation hub shelter Rhayader

LD6 5LF

Land at rear of 258 Brecon Road P/2015/1184 02/12/2015 00CONSENT 27/01/2016 Outline planning OUT permission with all matters reserved for one detached dwelling Ystradgynlais

SA9 1QX

Pengwern Annex P/2015/1028 11/11/2015 00CONSENT 28/01/2016 Change of use of annex Llangynog FULL to residential dwelling (C3) (including extension and Oswestry conversion of loft), construction of garage, SY10 0HJ installation of micro hydro turbine, erection of turbine shed and realignment of access track Pen Y Bryn P/2015/1050 03/12/2015 00CONSENT 28/01/2016 Removal of modern Dolanog LBC fireplaces (listed building consent) Welshpool

SY21 0LQ

Ashlea P/2015/1120 03/12/2015 00CONSENT 28/01/2016 Erection of an Llandegley FULL agricultural building Llandrindod Wells

LD1 5UD

Page 102 4 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Rhallt Farm P/2015/1190 02/12/2015 00CONSENT 28/01/2016 Demolition of existing Rhallt, Trelydan FULL dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling, change of use of land to Welshpool form additional residential curtilage SY21 9HR (Use Class C3), installation of sewage treatment plant and associated works

Hendre Dyfnant P/2015/1199 04/12/2015 00CONSENT 28/01/2016 Alterations to dwelling Llanwddyn HOUS including replacement sunroom with covered canopy area

SY10 0NL

Land South of Siluria Farm P/2014/1108 13/11/2014 00CONSENT 29/01/2016 OUT: Erection of Old Radnor OUT S106 agricultural workers dwelling (all matters reserved) Presteigne

LD8 2RP

Upper Penygelli P/2015/0871 28/09/2015 00CONSENT 29/01/2016 Conversion of Kerry FULL agricultural building into a single residential building.

SY16 4LX

Hill Cottage P/2015/0921 22/10/2015 00CONSENT 29/01/2016 Proposed extensions Trewern FULL and alterations to dwelling, new garage Moel y Golfa and extension of Welshpool curtilage SY21 8ET

Page 103 5 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Land adjacent to The Brambles P/2015/1090 10/11/2015 00CONSENT 29/01/2016 Erection of a dwelling, Hendidley FULL formation of vehicular access and associated works Newtown

SY16 3HD

HAULFRON P/2015/1121 11/12/2015 00CONSENT 01/02/2016 Erection of extension Llanfair Caereinion HOUS Welshpool

SY21 0HW

P/2015/1110 08/12/2015 00REFUSE 02/02/2016 Formation of shared Ystradgynlais HOUS vehicular access to rear including parking and 62 & 64 Station Road turning area Swansea

SA9 1NX

Llys Awel P/2014/0931 08/09/2014 00REFUSE 03/02/2016 Certificate of lawfulness CLA1 for a breach of condition namely the use of dwelling as a Llanfechain dwellinghouse without complying with SY22 6XE Condition No.1 attached to planning permission M23279 (Agricultural Occupancy Condition) (Resubmission) The Rhiw P/2015/1241 11/12/2015 00CONSENT 03/02/2016 Demolition of ground Llanafanfawr HOUS floor bathroom and erection of a two storey extension and bridge Builth Wells link to garden LD2 3NA

Page 104 6 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Bryntirion P/2015/0991 14/10/2015 00CONSENT 04/02/2016 LBC: Erection of rear LBC extension Winllan Road Llansantffraid

SY22 6AH

Maesperthi Caravan Park P/2015/1061 30/10/2015 00CONSENT 04/02/2016 Change of use of land Penegoes FULL for proposed extension to existing caravan park - 20 additional static Machynlleth caravan pitches, associated parking, new SY20 8UN junction off highway, access track, and spectic tank.

CRUD YR AWEL P/2015/1096 10/11/2015 00CONSENT 04/02/2016 First Floor extension MILFORD HOUS over the existing garage inc internal works to the existing house

SY16 3HD

3 Lledfair Place P/2015/1151 14/12/2015 00CONSENT 04/02/2016 Demolition of existing HOUS sunroom & single storey extension to the side elevation and roof Machynleth extension to the rear and side elevation SY20 8DL

Land at Varchoel Hall P/2015/1157 26/11/2015 00CONSENT 04/02/2016 Erection of an Guilsfield FULL agricultural building to accommodate dairy cow cubicles and Welshpool formation of a slurry storage lagoon and all SY21 9PY associated works

Page 105 7 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Trannon Caravan Park P/2015/0963 30/09/2015 00CONSENT 05/02/2016 Change of use from Trefeglwys FULL agriculture to extension of existing caravan park and associated works Caersws

SY17 5PU

land at Pen Y Clun P/2015/1015 22/10/2015 00CONSENT 05/02/2016 Siting of 2 log cabins to Van FULL provide holiday accommodation and associated works Llanidloes

SY18 6NU

Cnwch P/2015/1163 20/11/2015 00CONSENT 05/02/2016 Erection of an Llanbister Road FULL agricultural building for free range egg production and Llandrindod Wells associated works LD1 6UG

Land opposite P/2015/1210 11/12/2015 00REFUSE 05/02/2016 Erection of 2 dormer Ystradgynlais OUT bungalows, formation of vehicular access and Glannant Terrace associated works Swansea (outline) SA9 1BG

Reads Petrol Station P/2015/1223 11/12/2015 00CONSENT 05/02/2016 Proposed change of FULL use from petrol filling station to hand car Heol Pentrerhedyn wash Machynlleth

SY20 8DN

Page 106 8 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Plas Nantymeichiad P/2015/0593 22/06/2015 00CONSENT 08/02/2016 Construction of new FULL access and driveway Llanfyllin

SY22 5NA

Ty Hamon P/2015/1038 14/12/2015 00CONSENT 08/02/2016 Construction of a hydro Carno FULL electricity scheme to include a turbine house and all associated Caersws works SY17 5JS

White House P/2015/1045 28/10/2015 00CONSENT 08/02/2016 Section 73 application Aberedw REM to remove condition no 3 attached to planning permission R4356/A Builth Wells (restriction of car port use) LD2 3UW

Golwg yr Eglwys P/2015/1104 01/12/2015 00CONSENT 08/02/2016 Erection of a 3 bay HOUS timber framed workshop Canon's Lane (retrospective) Presteigne

LD8 2HE

Cerniog Isaf Barn P/2015/1106 16/12/2015 00CONSENT 08/02/2016 Erection of a garage Carno HOUS Caersws

SY17 5JP

Page 107 9 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Land adjoining Unit 11 P/2015/1221 14/12/2015 00CONSENT 08/02/2016 Engineering operations Leighton FULL together with change of use of land to form a Leighton Centre stallion exercise ring Welshpool and erection of fencing SY21 8LU

2 Moat Lane P/2015/1256 21/12/2015 00CONSENT 08/02/2016 Erection of a two storey HOUS extension to dwelling Caersws

SY17 5SE

PLOT A WOODLANDS P/2015/1084 15/12/2015 00CONSENT 09/02/2016 Proposed Dwelling FULL FORGE ROAD MACHYNLLETH

SY20 8EG

Grandstand P/2015/1162 15/12/2015 00CONSENT 09/02/2016 Siting of 3 additional Trefeglwys FULL static caravans and associated works Caersws

SY16 5PU

Land at Hafod Fach P/2015/1194 07/12/2015 00CONSENT 09/02/2016 Borrow pit for the Llaithddu FULL extraction of minerals to construct an access track Llandrindod Wells

LD1 6YS

Page 108 10 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Upper Dollwynhir P/2015/1230 15/12/2015 00CONSENT 09/02/2016 Erection of a general Llanyre FULL purpose agricultural storage building Llandrindod Wells

LD1 6ET

Ynys y Bont P/2015/0941 24/09/2015 00CONSENT 10/02/2016 Full: Conversion of Aberbran FULL existing buildings and construction of new buildings, to include Brecon associated works and installation of package LD3 9NL treatment plant, to create falcon breeding facility

Pant Glas P/2015/1117 04/12/2015 00CONSENT 10/02/2016 Section 73 application Talerddig REM to vary condition no 5 of M24292 (holiday occupation) Llanbrynmair

SY19 7AJ

Land at Aberffrydlan P/2015/1153 16/12/2015 00CONSENT 10/02/2016 Erection of an 11kv Llanwrin FULL electricity substation in association with proposed wind turbine Machynlleth and all associated works SY20 8NA

Land at Wern Farm P/2015/1156 16/12/2015 00CONSENT 10/02/2016 Erection of an 11kv Foel FULL electricity substation in association with proposed wind turbine Welshpool and all associated works SY21 0NY

Page 109 11 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Garthh Vaughan P/2016/0023 06/01/2016 00CONSENT 10/02/2016 Erection of building for Cyfronydd FULL storage of machinery & fodder Welshpool

SY21 9EP

Ty Gwyn P/2015/1232 15/12/2015 00CONSENT 10/02/2016 Change of use of land Former Cerregwiber FULL to extend area of prevously aproved site tip of 10 log cabins for Llandrindod Wells holiday use (PR333802) to allow for greater space for each cabin

Coed Cae P/2015/1236 16/12/2015 00CONSENT 10/02/2016 Approval of reserved Cwm Belan RES matters in respect of outline permission P/2014/0806 - erection Llanidloes of rural enterprise dwelling, detached SY18 6RF garage and associated works.

Tyn Y Llidiart P/2015/1253 21/12/2015 00CONSENT 10/02/2016 Erection of a single HOUS storey extension

SY17 5QP

Old School P/2015/1064 26/11/2015 00CONSENT 11/02/2016 Change of use of office FULL (B1a) to retail A1 and new access New Street Machynlleth

SY20 8AT

Page 110 12 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Plot 27 Development Adj P/2015/1159 21/12/2015 00CONSENT 11/02/2016 Erection of 2no 3 Bronllys Court Bronllys FULL bedroom dwellings with detached single garages

LD3 0LF

Mill House P/2015/1175 18/12/2015 00REFUSE 11/02/2016 Section 19 application Three Cocks REM to vary conditions 2 & 3 of planning permission P/2015/0338, The Brecon development shall be carried out strictly in LD3 0SW accordance with the plans received 20th April 2015 and additional plans received 9th June 2015 Gaerfawr Holding P/2015/1201 10/12/2015 00CONSENT 11/02/2016 Erection of a building Guilsfield FULL for use as a residential annexe ancillary to Gwreiddyn Lane existing dwelling Welshpool (including demolition of storage building) SY21 9DT

Broadheath Farm P/2015/1240 18/12/2015 00CONSENT 11/02/2016 Erection of livestock FULL building Presteigne

LD8 2HG

Upper Aston P/2015/1118 07/12/2015 00CONSENT 12/02/2016 Two storey extension to HOUS provide additional sitting Old Quarry room and first floor Pentre bedroom and shower , room Churchstoke

SY15 6TA

Page 111

13 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Lower Farm - Barn P/2015/1140 18/12/2015 00CONSENT 12/02/2016 Conversion of barn into Discoyd FULL residential including change of use & demolition of two Presteigne agricultural buildings & construction of a double LD8 2NP garage, installation of sewrage treatment plant and associated works.

The Hermitage Res Home P/2015/1214 09/12/2015 00CONSENT 12/02/2016 Demolition of existing FULL conservatory and replacement with new Salop Road extension to provide Welshpool new front entrance and internal rearrangement SY21 7EP

Spinney P/2015/1243 21/12/2015 00CONSENT 15/02/2016 Demolition of existing HOUS garage and construction of a single storey side extension with timber Llansanffraid deck SY22 6TF

Land to east of Bleddfa P/2015/1261 23/12/2015 00CONSENT 17/02/2016 Section 73 application Bleddfa REM to vary conditions 3,4 & 12 of planning permission Knighton P/2015/0843 to alter time restrictions to 70 LD7 1NY days

Land adjoining Dolafon P/2015/1270 30/12/2015 00REFUSE 17/02/2016 Outline (all matters Manafon OUT reserved) erection of a single bungalow Welshpool

SY21 8BL

Page 112

14 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Plot South of Clatterbrune se P/2015/1257 24/12/2015 00CONSENT 18/02/2016 Erection of a single Farmhouse FULL storey dwelling, detached garage and all associated works. Presteigne

LD8 2LB

Land off Fisher Road P/2015/1262 23/12/2015 00CONSENT 18/02/2016 Erection of a building FULL for storage and distribution (class B8 Offa's Dyke Business Park use) with 3 storey office Welshpool accommodation, erection of an electricity SY21 8JF substation building and all associated works

Page 113 15 This page is intentionally left blank PTLRW23 - 2016

Penderfyniad ar yr Apêl Appeal Decision

Ymweliad â safle a wnaed ar 30/11/15 Site visit made on 30/11/15 gan Iwan Lloyd BA BTP MRTPI by Iwan Lloyd BA BTP MRTPI Arolygydd a benodir gan Weinidogion Cymru an Inspector appointed by the Welsh Ministers Dyddiad: 20 Ionawr 2016 Date: 20 January 2016

Appeal Ref: APP/T6850/A/15/3133184 Site address: Land South West of Tansomalia, Felindre, Knighton, Powys, LD7 1YR The Welsh Ministers have transferred the authority to decide this appeal to me as the appointed Inspector.  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Chris Matthews ER & GT Matthews and Son against the decision of Powys County Council.  The application Ref P/2014/1149, dated 29/10/2014, was refused by notice dated 15/07/2015.  The development proposed is erection of a pullet rearing unit with associated feed bins, hardstandings and access arrangements and improvements.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural matters

2. The planning application is submitted in outline with access, appearance, layout and scale considered at this stage.

3. The Welsh Government has issued a direction on 29/09/2015 that the proposal is not an environmental impact assessment development within the meaning of the 1999 Regulations (as amended).

4. The Council has indicated it is mindful to withdraw its reasons for refusal on lack of information on ecology and living conditions on the basis that a manure management plan and ammonia tests have been provided with the appeal and that Natural Resources Wales (NRW) would not object to the development. I have been provided with a copy of NRW’s response with the appeal and it no longer objects to the development subject to suitable safeguards by planning conditions and under other non-planning regulatory requirements which the development would require to meet.

5. In the light of this information the Council states that the development would not adversely impact on the amenities of occupants of neighbouring properties and is minded to withdraw its objection. Residents are concerned about several matters which are considered below and living conditions is one such issue. However, in light of NRW’s response ecology is no longer a contested point.

Page 115

Appeal Decision : APP/T6850/A/15/3133184

Main Issues

6. The main issues are;

 the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and

 the effect of the proposal on highway safety, and

 the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupants of nearby properties in relation to odour, and

 whether there are material considerations sufficient to outweigh any conflict with local and national planning policies.

Reasons

Character and appearance

7. The appeal site is a large sloping field south-west of Felindre situated in a secluded valley with wooded slopes. The view south-west of Tansomalia near the appeal site is quite steep wooded hillsides falling suddenly to the valley floor with Deuddwr Brook which is lined by trees on one side, and the minor County road on the other, adjacent to the site, and culminating in Warren Hill at the head of the valley. The road proceeds between Warren Hill and Black Mountain joining the B4356 to the south. The valley road also joins the B4355 at Felindre which travels on the south side of the River Teme.

8. The appeal field is bound by hedgerows and slopes down from Square Wood at around 350m to 296m at the County road. The 300m contour line runs roughly adjacent to the location of the proposed building which would be situated just below the existing electricity power line. The proposed building would be some 103m by 20m with an eaves height of 2.8m and a ridge height of 5.6m. The proposal includes two feed bins, control room, hard-standings and the widening of the existing access to a 33m wide opening. The existing farm is situated at Killowent some 1km to the north of the appeal site.

9. The Council refers to LANDMAP and is described as ‘Upland Valleys south of Kerry’ visual and sensory aspect area, which comprises small tributary valleys and an attractive and coherent landscape. The landscape is described as upland valley landform with well-defined patters of small scale fields and diversity of land cover. This aspect area is valued as high.

10. The appellants have indicated that it would not be practical to locate the proposed building at Killowent because of the problems associated with heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) obtaining access to the farm. As a result the appellants have sought to find an alternative location which is suitably separate from residential properties in the area. In all likelihood a separate building of this size would inevitably be located away from the farm but within the farm holding.

Page 1162

Appeal Decision : APP/T6850/A/15/3133184

11. However, the immediate area surrounding the appeal site is characterised by its tranquillity and high scenic quality. Built development comprises of farmsteads, farm buildings and individual properties generally situated adjacent to farm tracks and the County road. These are predominantly situated within pockets of established landscaping or have taken advantage of the local topography. The proposed building would be a stand-alone building of significant size and scale. In my view, it would profoundly change the appearance of the valley and would dominate the immediate area, since it would be situated above the road and above established hedgerows. I consider that notwithstanding the practical difficulties of siting the building on farmsteads owned by the appellants this proposal would harm the high scenic quality of this secluded valley and the quiet tranquillity of the area, because of the intensity of the proposed farming practice. It would sit above the hedgerows given present topography and would be viewed as one long building. There are several footpaths in the area along the ridges to the east (Glyndwr’s way) and to the south of the site at Cwm-yr-hob. Receptors on footpaths are generally regarded as having a high sensitivity to change, and views by receptors on the paths looking down the valley would be prolonged for a significant duration. Whilst some of these views would be obscured by trees there are also paths which descend the slope near Tansomalia. In my view the magnitude of change as a consequence of the development would be significant and the impact would be substantial.

12. The development would therefore conflict with policies GP1, ENV2, EC1, EC9 and EC10 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (UDP) in so far as these relate to the issue of character and appearance. Policy EC10 permits large scale poultry units only where they comply with policy EC1. Policy EC1 in part considers the environmental and landscape impacts of a development, access arrangements and polluting effects. Policies GP1, ENV2 and EC9 broadly require development to be harmonious and sensitive to the character of the landscape.

13. A large opening would be formed in the hedgerow to create the access and turning circle for HGVs. I therefore consider that the combination of these factors outlined above the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area.

Highway safety

14. The proposed altered access to the appeal site is some 2km from the B4355 at Felindre. The junction visibility at Felindre would be improved to 90m. The appellants indicate that this is shown on a location plan, but this has not been provided. Nevertheless, the Council have not specifically addressed this point in submissions.

15. The County road leading to the site from Felindre is single vehicle width with some passing places. The appellants have provided a traffic count indicating that the road is lightly travelled with some 84 movements per day. The appellants have indicated that additional movements associated with the proposal would amount to 2.28 vehicles per day an increase of 2.7% on current usage. The traffic movements associated with the use is calculated as 52 one-way flows per annum, equating to 104 two-way flows per annum. Despite concerns from local residents about the size of vehicle associated with the use and the width of the carriageway and passing places, the Council has not indicated that the increased flow of traffic is unacceptable or that the highway network is unsuitable.

Page 3117

Appeal Decision : APP/T6850/A/15/3133184

16. The Council’s objection concerns the available turning radius into the site, the details of the access, gradient, the location of gates and the available space within the site to turn a HGV and the visibility at the site entrance. The appellants have provided with the appeal a plan showing tracking movements. The Council is concerned about the availability of space on the southern boundary hedge for turning HGVs and the tight radius turn into the site and the turning circle together with a reduced visibility splay of 70m. However, the appellants have indicated that the matter could be addressed by planning condition as it is merely an engineering design detail.

17. I accept that this could be a matter covered by planning condition and the radius turn could be re-engineered and improved. Visibility beyond 70m could be met due to the alignment of the road. From the proposed access looking towards the direction of Felindre the road rises so that visibility extends beyond 70m. In the opposite direction visibility could be taken to the centre of the single vehicle width carriageway beyond the 70m mark. I do not consider that the concern raised is an impediment to highway safety. I note the concerns from residents but the increase in vehicles associated with the use is slight and the road is not restricted to exclude HGVs and such vehicles are currently free travel on the road.

18. I do not consider that the proposal would harm highway safety and UDP Policies GP4, EC1 and EC10 are not undermined in so far as these relate to the issue of highway safety.

Adequacy of the information in relation to living conditions

19. The manure management plan shows the areas where manure would be spread, but in the light of information provided by a resident one field near the property’s borehole would have to be excluded. The appellants have confirmed that this could be conditioned as part of the development. In the light of this information I consider that adequate information has been provided. The Council has indicated that with certain safeguards through the imposition of conditions there is no substantive objection to the development on amenity grounds and that the proposal complies with UDP Policy GP1. In the light of the available evidence now provided I have no reason to disagree with that conclusion.

Other considerations

20. The appellants have provided evidence from profit and loss accounts that the farming enterprise needs to diversify because there has been a significant downturn in the economic fortunes of farming lamb as a product and there is a downward trend in the single farm payment. The 2015 projection records a significant fall in the farm’s income from 2014 as a consequence of these two factors. The appellants have decided to diversify to poultry and egg production. It is considered that with this proposal the farm would return a profit and would be sustainable long-term. National planning advice supports a thriving and diverse agricultural industry and encourages development to facilitate economic growth and prosperity.

21. I consider that this issue should be given significant weight.

Page 1184

Appeal Decision : APP/T6850/A/15/3133184

Conclusions

The overall planning balance

22. I have concluded in favour of the appellants in relation to other considerations, living conditions and highway safety. However, these factors individually and in combination do not outweigh the significant harm that would be caused by the proposal to the character and appearance of the area. I conclude that the planning balance is against allowing the development.

23. For these reasons, the appeal should be dismissed. Iwan Lloyd

INSPECTOR

Page 5119

This page is intentionally left blank

Penderfyniad ar yr Apêl Appeal Decision

Ymchwiliad a gynhaliwyd ar 13-15/10/15 Inquiry held on 13-15/10/15 Ymweliad â safle a wnaed ar 13/10/15 Site visit made on 13/10/15 gan Janine Townsley LLB (Hons) by Janine Townsley LLB (Hons) Arolygydd a benodir gan Weinidogion Cymru an Inspector appointed by the Welsh Ministers Dyddiad: 29/01/16 Date: 29/01/16

Appeal A: APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 Site address: Mellowcroft, Llandegley, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 5UF. The Welsh Ministers have transferred the authority to decide this appeal to me as the appointed Inspector.  The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.  The appeal is made by Mr Edward McIntosh against an enforcement notice issued by Powys County Council.  The Council's reference is E/02/15.  The notice was issued on 12 March 2015.  The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning permission the unauthorised change of use of the land from agricultural use to a mixed use comprising agricultural use, allotment use, permanent residential use, use as a campsite, use for education, use for alternative therapy and recreation use and use for the siting of items listed in schedule 1 attached to this decision.  The requirements of the notice are as set out in schedule 2 attached to this decision.  The period for compliance with the requirements is nine calendar months.  The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2) (a), (b) and (f) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. Summary of Decision The appeal succeeds in part only. Otherwise the appeal fails and the enforcement notice as corrected and varied is upheld as set out below in the Formal Decision.

Appeal B: APP/T6850/C/15/3016574 Site address: Mellowcroft, Llandegley, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 5UF. The Welsh Ministers have transferred the authority to decide this appeal to me as the appointed Inspector.  The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.  The appeal is made by Mr Edward McIntosh against an enforcement notice issued by Powys County Council.  The Council's reference is E/03/15.  The notice was issued on 12 March 2015.  The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning permission the unauthorised erection of a treehouse, single storey addition, balcony and external stairway situated at or about 3 on the attached plan; a classroom, associated decking and external stairway situated at or about 6 on the attached plan; a single roomed timber structure situated at or about 7 on the attached plan; a jetty situated at or about 15 on the attached plan; footbridges situated at or about 16 on the attached plan; excavation works to create two ponds

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 121

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

at or about 17 on the attached plan; and erection of a wind turbine at or about 26 on the attached plan.  The requirements of the notice are as set out in schedule 3 attached to this decision.  The period for compliance with the requirements is nine calendar months.  The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2) (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. Summary of Decision: The appeal succeeds in part only. Otherwise the appeal fails and the enforcement notice as corrected and varied is upheld as set out below in the Formal Decision.

Application for costs

At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by Mr Edward McIntosh against Powys County Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Background - Enforcement Notice (EN)A & EN B

1. The development subject to appeal is described by the appellant as a “holistic retreat” which includes sleeping accommodation and facilities for visitors to the site. Regular events are also held, some of which last in excess of one day and therefore involve overnight stays at the site. There are a number of timber structures on site for use by visitors, some of which are used for overnight accommodation. There is a classroom structure which is used for education purposes and a treehouse which provides office and reception type facilities. The EN’s list a number of other structures on site, all of which are stated by the Council to relate to the use of the land for the operation of the retreat. The land is also used for the siting of a residential motor home and touring caravan in which the appellant and his family reside. There is no objection to the use of the site as a holistic retreat in principle by the Council.

2. Within his written evidence and orally at the inquiry, the appellant has expressed concern over perceived bias from the case officer in dealing with these appeals and associated planning application. This is not a matter which has concerned me in addressing the planning merits of these appeals.

Procedural Matters - EN A & EN B

3. This decision relates to two appeals which have been made in relation to two enforcement notices. Both relate to the same site but differ insofar as one relates to the alleged material change of use of the site as set out in EN A and the other to certain alleged building operations as set out in EN B.

4. A ground (d) appeal has been made in relation to EN B. The appellant’s case is that the structures referred to in EN B are immune from enforcement action since they had been completed in excess of four years prior to the date of the notice. This is dealt with in this decision under the ground (d) appeal. No ground (d) appeal has been made in relation to EN A and there is nothing in the evidence to suggest the change of use of the land enforced against under EN A commenced over 10 years prior to the serving of the notice. In this regard, I have taken into account the Council’s submissions on the application of case law1 that irrespective of any finding of immunity as a result of the ground (d) appeal on EN B, that the structures referred to in EN B would still be required to be removed from site when complying with the

1 Somak Travel Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Brent L.B.C [1987] J.P.L 630 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 1222

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

steps required in EN A. The appellant agreed at the inquiry that the structures form part of the use of the site. It is clear to me that the structures referred to in EN B were constructed with the intention of serving the use of the site as a retreat, albeit the bridges were also, according to the appellant’s evidence, intended to support the agricultural use of the site. For this reason, I consider a finding in the appellants favour in relation to the ground (d) appeal made against EN B would not have any effect on the requirement to remove the structures in compliance with the steps set out in EN A.

5. At the inquiry the Council sought an amendment to both notices by removing reference to two pools on the appeal site. The appellant agreed to this proposal. I am satisfied that the removal of reference of these features would not have an impact on the overall construction of the ENs and I shall vary the notices accordingly. Given that the appellant’s ground (b) appeal on EN A relates only to these pools, with the agreement of the appellant, I confirmed at the inquiry that I should treat the ground (b) appeal as withdrawn.

6. During the inquiry, the appellant stated that the EN’s failed to specify which of the fences and footbridges on site they related to. The response of the Council was that whilst the notices referred to fences and footbridges in plural, the EN plans identify only one area of fencing and one bridge, these being the fencing at point 25 of the plan attached to EN A and the bridge at point 16 on the plan attached to EN B. Section 173 (2) of the Act states that a notice complies with subsection (1)(a) if it enables any person on whom a copy of it is served to know what those matters which appear to the local planning authority to constitute a breach of planning are. The notice is clear that the remedial steps required are to remove the fences from the land and demolish and remove from the land the footbridges and the EN cross references the plan which refers to a single area of fencing and a single footbridge. I consider the breach would be better described by referring to footbridge in the singular and therefore I shall correct the notices accordingly.

7. Similarly, there was some confusion expressed at the inquiry due to the various descriptions used within the evidence of the building described as a single roomed timber structure. The appellant’s supplementary grounds of appeal document refer to the cedar shack (originally canvas shack) being identified as the timber structure located at or about point 7 on the plan. The appellant has therefore understood the matters considered to constitute a breach of planning control and what steps are required to remedy this. Consequently I consider that no injustice has been suffered by the appellant and the EN is sufficiently precise and clear.

8. Whilst there is no ground (c) appeal made in relation to EN A, the appellant’s representations assert that there has been no breach of planning control in relation to the use of the land for camping use with the siting of tents, for the siting of a marquee and for allotment use with associated sheds and polytunnel. This issue was raised during the course of the inquiry and I do not consider there would be any injustice caused to the parties by considering this as effectively a ground (c) appeal.

9. EN A refers to the siting of a yurt. It is common ground between the parties that this structure had been removed from the land at some point prior to the Council officer’s visit to the site in April 2015. I satisfied that this element of the EN has been complied with.

10.Both ENs refer to the inadequacy of information submitted to the Council to be able to assess the foul drainage arrangements to serve the development as a reason for

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 3123

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

issuing the notice. Following the submission of further details in relation to drainage proposals, the Council’s environmental health department and Natural Resources Wales confirmed details could be suitably controlled by condition. As a result of this, the Council has confirmed there are no longer any objections in relation to this issue and I shall proceed on this basis.

Decision

EN A

The appeal on ground (c)

11.The ground of appeal is that there has not been a breach of planning control. There is no express ground (c) appeal in relation to EN A, however, it is clear that the appellant’s evidence is that the use of the land as a campsite as part of the mixed use enforced against and the use of the land for the siting of a marquee on a seasonal basis are temporary uses and therefore benefit from permitted development rights. It is also clear from the appellant’s evidence that his case is that the use of land for allotment use and the siting of a polytunnel and allotment sheds does not amount of development.

Use of the land as a campsite and the siting of a marquee.

12.The appellant says that that tented camping has occurred only sporadically, generally for use by retreat visitors and volunteers during summer months and there is no evidence before me to contradict this assertion. Similarly, the appellant’s position is that the marquee is used only for additional shelter during events. There appears to be no dispute between the parties that the marquee is removed from the land after each use. Following the site visit the Council expressed concern that yellowing of the grass was seen in the area the marquee was last sited. The Council felt this was suggestive of a longer period of use. I acknowledge the appellants response to this that it can take some time for grass to retain full colour following a period of being under cover and I do not consider that this factor is in itself is sufficient to challenge the appellants evidence that both the use of the land for camping and the siting of the marquee has occurred for in excess of 28 days in each calendar year. Schedule 2, Part 4 Class B of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 provides for the use of land for any purpose for not more than 28 days in any calendar year and for the provision on the land of any moveable structure.

13.However, it is clear that the camping use and the use of the marquee are intrinsically related to the alleged mixed use of the site; for the operation of the retreat. This is a change of use of land which has been operating on a permanent, year round basis. The camping use and the siting of the marquee occur each year as part of the retreat use. They therefore form integral parts of an ongoing mixed use rather than each being a separate temporary use of land for a period of up to 28 days in each consecutive calendar year. For this reason I find that the use of land is permanent in nature and therefore does not benefit from permitted development rights relating to the temporary use of land. The appeal on ground (c) in relation to the camping use and use for the siting of a marquee fails.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 1244

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

The allotments, sheds and polytunnel

14.The Council’s position is that the growing of food for personal consumption amounts to a leisure use as opposed to an agricultural use. Ms Richards in her statement of evidence makes reference to case law2 to support the Council’s position that the allotments on the appeal site comprise a material change of use of the land since their use by members of the community renders the nature of the use as leisure. Whilst the case law referred to was not produced in evidence, it seems the Council has failed to draw a distinction between use of land for leisure purposes akin to a domestic garden, and use of land for the growing of fruit and vegetables for the purposes of consumption which falls within the statutory definition of agriculture3 to include “…horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing…”. The allotments in this case are offered as a free resource for the use of local residents and the fact that users may gain some enjoyment from the process of growing fruit and vegetables, albeit principally for their own personal consumption does not, in my view, take the use out of the statutory definition. For this reason, the polytunnel and allotments and by implication the sheds and which are used in conjunction with the allotments, do not amount to development. For this reason there has been no breach of planning control and the ground (c) appeal insofar as it relates to the allotments, allotment sheds and polytunnel is allowed and I will amend the notice to take this into account.

EN B

The Appeal on Ground (c)

The timber bridge at point 16 of the plan

15.The appellant’s case is that permission is not required to build the timber bridge as its purpose is to facilitate safe movement around the land for agricultural use.

16.The appellant’s evidence is that the bridge was constructed both for the purposes of agriculture and to facilitate movements around the site for visitors using the retreat. The bridge has a wooden base which the appellant asserts would allow passage by a tractor. There is no evidence before me which would lead me to doubt this assertion. Notwithstanding that, the low level of agricultural activity on site and the addition of willow handrails to the bridge lead me to conclude that the bridge has been designed and used principally for guests to traverse the site.

17.The appellant has not stated upon what legal basis he considers the construction of the bridge would not require planning permission. Section 55 (2) (e) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that the use of land for the purpose of agriculture does not amount to development, however, this relates to the use of land as opposed to the construction of structures. In any event, the appellant states that the bridge is used for both agricultural purposes and for the benefit of guests traversing the site. There are no permitted development rights which may apply to the construction of the bridge. On this basis the appeal on Ground (c) in relation to the timber bridge fails.

2 Crowborough Parish Council v Secretary of State

3 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s. 336 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 5125

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

The jetty

18.Although not referred to within the appeal document, the appellant’s evidence states as with the bridge, that the jetty does not require planning permission. He does not set out the legal basis for his position. The reasons set out in paragraph 18 above apply also to the jetty, that is, that no permitted development rights exist for its construction. Consequently, the implied Ground (c) appeal in relation to the jetty must also fail.

The Appeal on Ground (d)

19.The ground of appeal is that at the date the notice was issued, no enforcement action could be taken. In order to succeed on this ground it would be necessary for the appellant to demonstrate that the uses alleged took place for a period of in excess of four years before the EN was issued. The burden of proving this lies with the appellant and the relevant evidential test is the balance of probability.

20.The Council relies on the “second bite provisions”. An enforcement notice was served on the appellant in relation to the appeal site in 2013 (the 2013 EN). This alleged the change of use of the land from agriculture to a mixed use of agriculture, siting of mobile homes for residential purposes and use as a campsite, education and alternative therapy facility and the unauthorised erection of timber buildings/structures and a yurt. In this case, the facts of the allegation differ insofar as the current EN’s refer to breaches which are not contained within the 2013 EN. The current EN’s include a greater number of components than the 2013 EN, some of which are not merely a more accurate or detailed description of those in the 2013 notice. This includes the erection of a wind turbine and the siting of a container and static caravan for domestic storage purposes. EN A and B provide a more accurate description of the nature of uses and operations on site at the time those two notices were issued. Whilst the Council may have anticipated enforcing against the whole of the development in 2013, this was evidently not achieved through the 2013 EN which was withdrawn. I conclude that s 171B(4)(b) of the 1990 Act does not apply in this case.

21.In order to succeed under ground (d), the appellant must therefore demonstrate that the development referred to in EN B was substantially complete over four years prior to the date of the EN. The relevant date in this case is 12th March 2011.

Treehouse

22.The parties agree that the structure referred to in both notices as the treehouse has evolved over time to its current form. It currently comprises a two storey element which wraps around a tree with an external stairwell, first floor balcony area and a single storey addition to the rear which appears to have been constructed on stilts. The appellant recalled in evidence that the original structure around the tree and external stairway were built in 2007. Since that date it is agreed between the parties that since that time further work has been carried out. The appellant states that the single storey extension was added in 2012, this comprises a single ground floor room. He states that a seating area and balcony was added some time later.

23.In the Council’s evidence, reference has been made to the constantly evolving nature of the treehouse. Whilst the structure has been informally named “The Folly” it is clear that over time, a purpose of the structure has evolved, and the appellant

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 1266

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

acknowledged in evidence at the inquiry that the structure as it now appears is complete. In submissions, the Council has referred to case law4 in this regard. In the light of the evidence given by the appellant, it seems that when the treehouse was first commenced, the appellant did not have in mind how the building might evolve. That is not to say he never intended the building to be complete and put to some useful purpose. The appellant acknowledged that when the treehouse was commenced, it was a platform suspended in the trees which may have collapsed. Taking into account all of the evidence, I consider that whilst the appellant may not have had a clear idea of the end appearance and use of the treehouse when the structure was commenced, he did not consider the structure complete until the ground floor extension and balcony were added at some time after 2012. For that reason I conclude that the treehouse was not substantially completed within four years prior to the date of EN B and for that reason, the ground D appeal in relation to the treehouse fails.

Classroom

24.The Council states that the first time Council officers saw the classroom was in 2012. Notwithstanding this, according to the appellant’s evidence, works to construct the classroom were commenced in 2008. The grounds of appeal state that the building was complete but with a tarpaulin roof in 2009 and a cedar shingle roof was added in 2010 meaning the structure was complete and being used by the end of the summer 2010. This was confirmed under cross examination. There appears to be no dispute of these dates by the Council and there is nothing before me to suggest this is incorrect and therefore, on that basis, I find the classroom had been substantially completed in excess of four years prior to the date of the EN. To that extent, the appeal made in relation to EN B on ground D meets with success.

Single Roomed Timber Structure

25.The appellant stated in evidence that the cedar shack (also referred to in evidence as the canvas shack and in the EN as the single roomed timber structure), was built in 2009 and the appellant stated in his appeal form that it was built in 2009 and re clad and renamed as the cedar shack in 2012. I understand the appellant’s case is that the structure was considered complete and was being used as overnight accommodation from 2009 and that the original canvas covering still exists beneath the cedar cladding. The issue is whether the structure was substantially completed prior to the addition of the cladding in 2012. The structure was initially covered in canvas and was in use as such and therefore it appears that the appellant originally intended that to be the finish of the structure. The Mellowcroft handbook refers to a recent addition of a “new (waterproof) roof” but since the appellant’s evidence is that the structure was in use by guests and volunteers from 2009. I am satisfied with the appellant’s explanation was this was a replacement roof and was water tight. I consider that the addition of the cedar cladding amounted to an improvement to an already completed structure and for this reason, I consider on the balance of probabilities it was completed in 2009. Therefore the appeal made in relation to the single roomed timber structure on ground (d) in relation to EN B should succeed.

4 Sage v secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others [2003] 1 W.L.R 983 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 7127

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

Jetty

26.There is little evidence in relation to the construction date of the jetty, although the appellant stated in evidence that it was built in approximately 2008, and then completely replaced in approximately 2013. Without clear details of how the replacement was carried out, the appellant has failed to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the jetty as enforced against had been completed four years prior to EN B for this reason the ground (d) appeal in relation to the jetty fails.

Footbridge

27.The appellant’s evidence is that all footbridges on site were built in approximately 2006/7 and all have been improved with handrails and the addition of non-slip surfaces within the past four years. There is nothing in the Council’s evidence to dispute this. Whilst the Council’s position is that the addition of non-slip surfacing and handrails means the structure referred to in EN B is not immune from enforcement action, on the appellant’s evidence, the footbridges were in use from 2007 and were used both on foot and by tractor. On this basis I consider the addition of non-slip surfacing and handrails to be improvements to an already completed structure. I am satisfied, therefore, on the balance of probabilities that the appeal in relation to the footbridge referred to in EN B should meet with success.

Wind Turbine

28.The wind turbine, according to the appellant in the supporting documents to the appeal form has been attached to the power house since it was built in 2007, and has been used to generate off grid power since. The Council states that the wind turbine does not appear in photographs taken by Council officers until 2014. That, however, is insufficient to amount to a challenge to the appellant’s evidence and in the absence of any contrary evidence, I conclude the appellant has established on the balance of probabilities that the appeal made in relation to EN B under ground (d) should succeed.

The Appeals on ground (a) - EN A and EN B

Main Issues

29.Ground (a) appeals have been made both in relation to the change of use of the site subject to EN A and in relation to the development comprising structures as detailed in EN B. From the evidence submitted in writing and at the inquiry, I consider that there are three distinct areas of dispute pertaining to the ground (a) appeals which apply to both appeals and for this reason, I will deal with both ground (a) appeals together in this section. Accordingly, I have identified the main issues as the following:

 The effect of the development on the safety and convenience of users of the adjacent highway network;

 The need for reports on the presence or otherwise of protected species;

 Whether the development would justify the establishment of a rural enterprise dwelling under the tests set out in national and local policy.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 1288

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

Highways

30.The appeal site is accessed off the A44, a single carriageway approximately 1 mile away from the village of Llandegley. The site is accessed via a private track from the A44. In the area of this junction the highway centreline is marked by double white lines (dashed relating to north bound traffic) restricting overtaking to one side of the highway since the forward visibility for drivers is below the minimum required for safe overtaking. The A44 has the appearance of a rural road at this location and the speed limit along the road is 60 mph.

31.The evidence before me makes reference to guidance contained within three publications: the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) which applies to trunk roads, the Manual for Streets (MfS) which applies to residential streets and Technical Advice Note 18 Transport (TAN18). The parties disagreed as to the applicability of DMRB and MFS to this appeal, however both appeared to agree on the applicability of the guidance contained within TAN 18. In this respect there was a consensus that table A of annex B of TAN 18 was appropriate for ascertaining the required stopping sight distance(SSD). In these circumstances I consider the guidance contained within annex B of TAN 18 applies in this case and I have determined the appeal accordingly.

32.During the course of the inquiry, Mr Von Weber acting as highways witness for the appellant and Ms Brown, The Council’s highways officer, met on site in order to reach a consensus as to the width of the site access track from the A44 and the stop and sight distances when leaving the site. As a result of this meeting, two agreed documents were prepared by them entitled “Visibility from the access” and Access widths”. These were submitted to the inquiry as evidence.

Width of access track

33.The appellant considers that he is the legal owner of the access track leading from the A44 to the appeal site and whilst he had not, at the date of the inquiry, received confirmation of this, there is nothing before me to suggest his abilty to use and maintain the track is impeded. The agreed drawing entitled ”Access widths” shows an available width of 7.2 metres at the site entrance. This narrows to 4.35 metres at a distance 4 metres back from the junction with the A44 and to 2.8 metres at 12 metres back from the junction. I heard evidence in relation to the width of the access track and the availability of space adjacent to the highway for two cars to pass. It is clear to me that where the access track meets the highway there would be sufficient space for two cars to pass. This would not be the case for all of the track, however, I am satisfied that the access track in its current form would allow for two cars to pass next to each other for a distance of in excess of 4 metres back from the A44. This, I consider would be sufficient to ensure no compromise to highway safety since there would be no need to have vehicles waiting to turn into the site on the A44. Should the appellant be able to establish ownership of the track, it may be the case that further works could be carried to increase the width of the access at certain points and this would further improve accessibility to the site.

Visibility when leaving the appeal site

34.Policy GP4 Powys Unitary Development Plan 2001-2016 (UDP) provides that permission for development proposals will be dependent on, inter alia, adequate provision for highway access including visibility.

35.In June 2015 the appellant undertook a speed survey. The speed of 200 vehicles travelling along the A44 in both directions were surveyed. From the data they www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 9129

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

calculated the 85th percentile speed to be 53 mph. The readings were taken over a seven day period and although the time of each individual reading was not collated, in evidence Mr Von Webber confirmed that generally all recordings were taken between the hours of 9am and 4 pm. Whilst these figures provide only an indication of average speeds taken during the course of the survey, the results accord with my observations whilst on site.

36.There is disagreement between the parties as to what the X distance should be. The X distance in this case is, the distance measured back from the junction with the A44, up the access track towards the site. The appellant’s position is that an X distance of 2 metres would be appropriate in this case, however, the advice within TAN 18 is clear, that a minimum X distance of 2.4 metres should normally be used in most situations and that a reduction to 2 metres may be considered in some very lightly trafficked and slow speed situations.5 The appellant’s speed survey results have an 85th percentile speed of 53 mph. Whilst lower than the speed limit of the road, it cannot be described as a slow speed. Similarly, there is no evidence before me to show that the A44 at this location is very lightly trafficked and whilst I observed that the road at this point does not appear to be particularly heavily used, I did observe a number of cars passing. For these reasons, I consider an X distance of 2.4 metres is appropriate in this appeal.

37.The agreed document “Visibility from the Access”6 sets out the relevant Y distance calculation, that is the distance at which forward visibility is available in both directions for vehicles egressing the site taken from the X point. Whilst there was some disagreement between the parties as to whether the Y measurement should be taken to the edge or the centre of the carriageway, I am mindful of the advice contained within TAN 18, which states it is ordinarily taken from the kerb line. In any event adopting the appellant’s preferred method of measuring to the centreline would not have such an effect on the visibility available, so to accord with the distances set out in Table A.

38.Using an X distance of 2.4 metres, and by reference to the agreed document entitled visibility from the access, the SSD to the north is 18.3 metres and 39.8 metres to the south. This is in contrast to the recommended SSD in Table A of annex B of TAN 18 which advises 160 metres in both directions. On the evidence presented there is also a shortfall in the forward visibility figures along the A44 to see cars turning into the site.

39.In an attempt to address the visibility from the access, the appellant made requests to the highways authority to carry out thinning works to the hedges either side of the site access. The Council’s position is that there is no basis upon which they would carry out works to thin the hedge bordering the A44 in the vicinity of the site junction. I have nothing before me to suggest that there would be any requirement for the Council to carry out such work.

40.I acknowledge that the junction between the A44 and the appeal site is an existing access. Both parties have attempted to assess the traffic movements which would be reasonable in association with the existing lawful agricultural use. Ms Brown for the Council explained that the existing use of the site would be expected to generate 2-3

5 Paragraphs B.5 and B.6

6 Prepared by Mr Von Webber and Ms Brown during the course of the inquiry. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 13010

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

trips per day to allow for animals to be checked etc. This would amount to amounting to 2190 traffic movements per annum.

41.TAN187 encourages a realistic assessment of traffic impact when considering development associated with farm diversification, with a view to reconciling traffic issues with the benefits of encouraging diversification. The appellant’s business plan estimates 4076 trips per annum. In evidence, Ms Brown considered this to be a very significant increase in traffic movements. The Council has expressed some concern that the figures provided are unrealistic but in the absence of any objectively derived figures it is possible only to surmise what the increase in vehicle movements may be. In any event, I consider the nature of the use as proposed would inevitably result in some periods of significant additional vehicular use of the access, particularly during the holding of events.

42.Taking the above into account, I consider that the proposed use of the site as a holistic retreat would generate more traffic than the current lawful use of the site. In evidence, the applicant stated that the site could lawfully be put to use for events such as car boot sales and this would generate a significant amount of traffic. However, given there has been no proposal for the hosting of such events, I do not consider that such uses are reasonably likely and for this reason I have given limited weight to this consideration.

43.The lack of any recorded accidents on the A44 in the vicinity of the junction to the appeal site in the past 10 years is a material factor, but it is not sufficient to wholly rely on that factor when determining whether a proposed access is acceptable or not in terms of highway safety. There is nothing in TAN 18 to suggest this is the case.

44.I have taken into account whether improvements to visibility could be achieved by means of conditions. A letter from the owners of the adjacent land was handed in to the inquiry but it arrived at a very late stage of the proceedings and therefore did not afford the Council the opportunity to comment on or question the extent of works which would be offered. Therefore, it is not possible to make an assessment as to whether the proposed works would facilitate adequate visibility. For this reason, on the basis of the evidence before me I am not satisfied that works to improve visibility can be achieved and for this reason, it would not be appropriate to impose conditions requiring works to the hedges.

45.Overall, whilst taking into account the fact that this is an existing access and noting the lack of any recorded accidents in the area, I consider the shortfall in visibility from the access onto the A44 is significant and fails to accord with the guidance as set out in TAN 18. This accords with my observations on site that the hedges either side of the access impede visibility when egressing the site. As a consequence of this, the proposal would fail to respect the safety and convenience of users of the A44 at this location resulting in a significant increase in risk to highway safety. Thus it would fail to accord with policy GP 4 of the UDP.

Ecology

46.The Council considers that the ground (a) appeals should fail, since the appellant has taken inadequate steps to establish whether otters and water voles are using the site. The guidance within Technical Advice Note 5, Nature Conservation and Planning (TAN

7 Paragraph 4.14 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page11 131

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

5), states that where a survey is required by an authority, the survey should be completed and any necessary measures to protect the species should be in place through conditions and/or planning obligations before the permission is given.

47.Both otter and water vole are legally protected species. Otter is a European protected species. In relation to otters, information gained by the Council from Local Records Centres Wales show four records of otter within 2 km of the appeal site between 1991 and 2002. There are also recorded sightings of water voles.

48.I have been referred to the publication; Otters: Guidelines for Developers. This advises that otters are mainly nocturnal and occupy large home ranges, up to 40km along a river for male otter, a wide variety of habitats and feed mainly on fish. They can travel some distance from a water source in the right circumstances.

49.Whilst there is no guidance specific to Wales available in relation to Water Voles, I have been provided with guidance issued by Natural England entitled Water Voles – the Law in Practice Guidance for planners and developers. The advice states that water voles are rarely seen and therefore surveys should be carried out on the basis of characteristic signs.

50.Mr Box, on behalf of the Council, carried out a desk based study to inform his written evidence. This was followed by an addendum report prepared following a site visit which was held shortly before the inquiry. This confirms the conclusion in his main report that insufficient information was submitted to enable the Council to assess the ecological impact of the development on species, particularly otters and water voles. Mr Box’s evidence is that there are habitats within the appeal site which have the potential to support the presence of otter. These include the watercourse, the fish pond, the wildlife pool, the marshy grassland, the wet meadow and the rough grassland. He also states that there are features that could provide a range of potential resting sites for otters. The fish pond would offer easy foraging opportunities and otters could be attracted via the stream passing through the site which has connectivity with Mithill Brook and the river Ithon. Both are designated as SSSI and SAC for which otter is included in the citation. In relation to water vole, the evidence on behalf of the Council states that the stream, as described within the appellant’s phase 1 report, is considered to fall within the habitat ranges in which water vole would feasibly occur.8

51.Dr. Botting, on behalf of the appellant, carried out a Phase 1 Habitat Survey which concluded no suitable habitat for otter exists on site and little exists for water vole. He states that whilst theoretically otter can be found anywhere in mid Wales, the appeal site would not be suitable habitat for otter as it is not wet enough, the stream is small and the stock of fish would not provide a sustainable food source. However, taking into account the evidence of the Council, I am satisfied that whilst the site may not offer a suitable habitat for otters to live in, there are features on site which could attract otters to pass through, feed and rest as part of their home range. Dr Botting stated in evidence that he had not been told that there had been a request from the Council for a survey to be carried out.

52.Given the past recorded sightings of both otter and water vole in the locality, the citations relating to otter and the potential of certain features on site to attract both otters and water voles to use the site, I consider it is not unreasonable for the Council

8 Para 3.30 Statement of Evidence of Mr. Box www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 13212

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

to have requested a survey to confirm the presence or otherwise of otters and water voles. Without such survey, it is not possible to assess compliance with policy ENV 7 of the UDP which requires that where protected species are affected by a proposal, the appellant would be required to conform with any statutory protection provisions.

53.I consider the nature of the use of the site is such that at times there would be larger groups of people present with the potential for disturbance to any protected species which may be on site. This was acknowledged by the appellant’s witness, Dr. Botting, at the inquiry. A finding that protected species are present on a site is not necessarily fatal to the development. It is not the intention of the law to prevent all development in areas used by protected species. However, legal protection does require that due attention is paid to the presence of otters and appropriate action is taken to safeguard otters and the places they use for shelter or protection. Without a survey it is not possible to firstly, confirm whether protected species are on site and secondly, detail how they are using the site. Without this information it is not possible to consider a package of protective measures.

54.Mr Box’s addendum report concluded that the underside of the classroom structure on site provides an environment which would be capable of providing a resting site for otters. For this reason, compliance with the EN would require the submission of a report to finally determine the presence of otters and if found present, a license would need to be sought prior to compliance with the ENs. In this regard, I note the submissions made by the Council that any refusal to issue such a permit by Natural Resources Wales would amount to a good defence to any prosecution which may arise. For this reason, I do not consider any variation of the steps required under the notices is necessary.

55.Taking all of these considerations into account, I consider that without a survey, it would not be possible to identify measures to ensure the protection of otters and water voles. In this regard the development would fail to comply with the advice contained within TAN 5.

Rural Enterprise Dwelling

56.The appellant made reference to a historic residential use of the site. Whilst no evidence was presented relating to this, there were anecdotal accounts at the inquiry In any event it is clear that the last residential use of the site was a very long time ago. For the avoidance of doubt, I conclude there is nothing before me to persuade me that the residential use of the site is lawful.

57.The appeal site is situated outside of any settlement boundaries and is therefore within the open countryside for the purpose of development plan policies. UDP policy HP6 sets a presumption against new housing in the open countryside which does not comply with the affordable housing policies, unless it relates to agricultural or forestry uses or in connection with a suitable rural enterprise. The policy requires that rural enterprise dwellings will be subject to criteria to establish a functional need and financial viability. Technical Advice Note 6 Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (TAN6) states that one of the few circumstances in which new isolated residential development in the open countryside may be justified is when accommodation is required to enable rural enterprise workers to live at, or close to, their place of work. The TAN sets out the criteria to establish when a new dwelling on a new rural enterprise may be justified. These are considered in further detail under the relevant headings below.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page13 133

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

58.The Council accepts that the proposal falls within the TAN 6 definition of a rural enterprise and that the permission sought for residential use is in connection with the rural enterprise9. The evidence from the Council states that the appellant is seeking a temporary permission for a rural enterprise dwelling, however this does not reflect the development which is subject to enforcement action, nor does the appellant’s evidence appear to be seeking anything other than a permanent rural enterprise dwelling. Notwithstanding this, TAN 6 advises that there may be circumstances where it would be appropriate to test the evidence submitted in support of a rural enterprise dwelling for a period of up to three years by granting a temporary permission.

59.The appellant and his family currently reside in a mobile home and touring caravan and therefore, the ground (a) appeals seek consent for this.

The functional test

60.In order to satisfy the functional test, the appellant must demonstrate a need for a resident worker to be present at most times to ensure the proper functioning of the site. In evidence, the appellant explained there are a number of reasons why it is felt a full time worker should be permanently on site. Examples were given of medical emergencies which occurred late at night when he was able to take control of the situation until the emergency services arrived. He also pointed to sustainability reasons to avoid travel to and from the site and for security following incidents of attempted thefts and to provide instruction and advice to visitors. I heard evidence that the need to have a presence on site at most times results also from the remoteness of the site coupled with particular features of the business which have health and safety concerns. The appellant gave examples of a number of responsibilities including the need to ensure the safe operation of log burners in the timber structures, to ensure no one uses the hot tub if they have consumed alcohol, the operation of the outdoor baths (often a night time experience), to check the site and ensure all fires are settled down at the end of each evening and to ensure no guests are alone or vulnerable in this isolated, off grid location. The appellant also explained that heating for the hot tub and showers are provided by a vintage rayburn which needs to operate constantly. He stated that most guests would be unlikely to be able to operate this equipment independently.

61.The Council’s evidence is that the development could function without a full time presence on site. I was referred to a previous appeal decision10 as authority that a functional need cannot be established where instructions and signage would be suffice to allow guests to operate facilities on site independently. However distinctions can be drawn between the appeal proposal and the example given which related to a holiday park. In the present case, the off grid and isolated nature of the site, is not akin to a modern caravan site with more conventional means of heating and energy supply. Therefore, whilst I accept the Council’s arguments that a functional need cannot be established for the purposes of security alone or to avoid a commute from an off site address, my overall conclusion is that someone needs to be present on site at most times or the enterprise would not operate effectively. The appellant also expressed a view that due to his and his wife’s involvement in the development, they form an integral part of the experience and he felt guests would

9 Set out in paragraph 4.3.2 of TAN 6

10 APP/A2280/A/14/2217544 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 13414

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

simply visit if they were not resident on site. I consider this is an additional factor which adds further weight to my conclusion that the functional need as set out in TAN 6 is met.

The time test

62.TAN 6 requires evidence of the labour requirements of the enterprise. A business plan has been prepared by the appellant and this sets a time and motion study showing the hours required for the successful running of the enterprise. Doubt has been expressed by the Council as to the reliability of figures put forward by the appellant in support of the time test. This is because the time allocated for tasks such as administration and cleaning are constant throughout the year showing no fluctuation for a reduction in time during winter or off peak seasons. I accept that whilst the enterprise may be seasonal as acknowledged in the business plan, time may still be required to be spent in these activities. However, the time allocated, 60 hours per month administration and 30 hours per month cleaning, has not been fully justified by the appellant; no explanation has been provided as to why administrative tasks need to be carried out on site. Constant monthly hours are also recorded for the maintenance of structures, driveways and paths, maintenance of the ten wood burners, fire wood, maintenance of electrics and renewables and end of day fire safety checks. No explanation has been offered as to why all of these features require as much time to run the enterprise during off peak periods. Further, the figures provided appear to be a projection of the hours anticipated as opposed to a record of the time actually worked. I therefore conclude that the appellant has failed to fully evidence the labour requirements of the enterprise and in this regard fails to meet the test set out in TAN 6.

The financial test

63.TAN 6 requires evidence that the enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis. The figures produced for the year 2014-2015 show that the net profit for the year did not generate a full time wage. Whilst the projected figures for 2018-2019 show a full time wage being drawn, the Council is concerned this is dependent on an increase in revenue through additional visits. There is no tangible evidence that this is likely to happen. Whilst the TAN does not require evidence of an actual drawing of a wage, it does require that the business show a reasonable prospect of providing a market return for all operators, in this case, the appellant and his wife. In the absence of any firm explanation of how the revenue would increase to allow for the drawing of a full time wage, it is not possible at this stage to confirm the enterprise is financially sound.

64.I have taken into account the evidence given at the inquiry by Ms Ellis, an employee of Business Wales, who has been engaged by the appellant to appraise his business plan. I heard that there are a number of features of the enterprise which demonstrate a reasonable prospect of producing a profit in the near future including multiple income streams and an avoidance of reliance on subsidies which may be available. Whilst these are positive features, they do not establish how or when the business might reasonably be expected to be profitable. Ms Ellis acknowledged that her remit was to assess the feasibility of the enterprise for sustainability but not by reference to the tests set out in Tan 6 in order to justify a rural enterprise dwelling.

65.I empathise with the appellant’s measurement of the success of the business in terms other than simply financial, a sentiment which is clearly shared by the significant interested party support at the inquiry promoting the community benefits of the

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page15 135

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

enterprise. The Council submits that TAN 6 is not concerned with unconventional or subsistence enterprises, however, there are factors which show that the enterprise is not entirely philanthropic. The business plan distinguishes elements of the enterprise which produce revenue and those which are community resourcing. I note the refused planning application11 proposed to increase the range and number of accommodation options on site. In terms of the level of investment in the enterprise, from the evidence, it was clear that the appellant has invested most if not all of his personal money into the enterprise, through the purchase of the land and the development of the land since the date of purchase. I consider these factors demonstrate a firm intention to develop the enterprise.

66.The Council has expressed concern that the enterprise would not be able to financially support the construction of a permanent rural enterprise dwelling of the size indicated by the appellant. Whilst I note these concerns, the deemed application for consent relates to the development being enforced against, in this case, the residential occupation of a mobile home and touring caravan. The motorhome and caravan are already on site and therefore would not have any cost implications. Their continued residential use would not detract from the appellant’s ability to meet the financial test.

67.Overall therefore, whilst there are factors which demonstrate a firm intention to develop the enterprise, the lack of evidence to support the prospects of the business to financially support the workers within a reasonable timeframe means that the financial test is not fully met in this case.

The other dwelling test

68.In terms of alternative accommodation, the appellant argues that despite regular searches for suitable rental accommodation there is nothing which is available within a 10 mile radius of the site. In his evidence at the inquiry, the appellant explained that he would find it difficult to live in conventional housing due to the amount of time he had spent living at Mellowcroft. This would add further to his difficulties in finding alternative accommodation.

Conclusion on the rural enterprise dwelling appraisal

69.From the evidence before me, whilst the continued residential occupation of the site in conjunction with the rural enterprise would satisfy other planning requirements such as appropriate siting to minimise the impact on the wider environment, the evidence submitted by the appellant is not sufficient to fully meet the financial test set out in TAN 6. Further, whilst I have considered whether a temporary permission would be appropriate in this case, however, whilst further evidence to support the financial test may be available within the period covered by such a permission, I consider a temporary permission would not be appropriate since the time test has not been satisfied..

Conclusion on the ground (a) appeals

70.For the aforementioned reasons, I conclude that both ground (a) appeals should fail.

11 P/2015/0186 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 13616

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

The appeals on ground (f) - EN A and EN B

71.This ground is that the steps required by the notice are excessive. The purpose of the notices is to remedy the breach of planning control which has occurred. The appeals as made do not set out any alternative or lesser steps which could be taken to remedy the breach of planning control. Rather it is asserted by the appellant that all of the steps required to be taken are excessive and inappropriate. These arguments would be better suited to the ground (a) appeals.

72.At the inquiry I addressed the potential for the breach of planning control and injury to amenity being addressed by requiring the cessation of the change of use alone. This would effectively result in the various structures referred to in the EN’s remaining on site. Ms. Richards stated that this would not address the breach of planning control and, in closing submissions, the Council submitted that leaving all structures on site would make enforcement more difficult. It was also submitted that in the absence of the use there would be no warrant in retaining the structures. I acknowledge this concern and consider that to enforce against a use and not the structures would result in situation where many of the structures would have no purposeful use in the absence of permission for the use sought by the appellant. Taking this into account, and in the absence of any other arguments from the appellant of any lesser steps that could be taken I consider that the ground (f) appeals should fail.

Human rights and the best interests of the child –EN A and EN B

73.As the steps set out in EN A require the cessation of the residential use of the site, this would result in an interference with the family’s rights as set out in article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as enshrined in the Human Rights Act. Compliance with EN A would effectively render the appellant, his wife and daughter homeless. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant’s arguments that the costs of renting a home in the local area would be significantly more expensive that remaining on site in the motor home, and I note the family’s preference to avoid conventional housing, I am satisfied that alternative accommodation could be secured within the compliance period of nine months. For this reason I am satisfied that any interference with the family’s convention rights would be proportionate to the need to adhere to planning law and policy so that there is no violation of human rights.

74.I am aware that incorporated into my obligations under Article 8 are the obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child including Article 3. The needs of the child affected by the ENs is a primary consideration and the Children’s Act 2004 requires that in discharging my functions I must have regard to safeguarding and promoting the welfare and well-being of the child. The appellant’s daughter is not yet old enough to attend school. She has, however, commenced pre- school activities in the local area. I heard evidence at the inquiry that the child is settled in her home in on the appeal site and that a move away from the site into a house would have an unsettling effect on her since she has no experience of living without the space and facilities she has enjoyed at Mellowcroft. Against this, there would be no disturbance to her education since she is not yet of school age, and although pre-school activities have commenced, these have not been in place for a significant period and are facilities which are intended to be transitory. The best interests of the child are to have consistent care and no lasting interference with her development. There would be no disturbance in the care available to the child since her parents would move with her. I am satisfied that the best interests of the child would not be compromised in this case. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page17 137

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

Conclusion -Appeal A

75. For the reasons given above, I conclude the appeal should succeed in part only insofar as it relates to the allotment use of the land and the use of the land for the siting of the polytunnel and allotment sheds where the appeal under ground (c) has been successful. Otherwise, I will uphold the EN with correction variation and refuse to grant planning permission on the other part.

Conclusion- Appeal B

76. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed in part only insofar as it relates to the erection of the classroom, the erection of the single roomed timber structure, the erection the footbridge and the erection of the wind turbine where the appeal under ground (d) has been successful. Otherwise, I will uphold the EN with correction and variation and refuse to grant planning permission on the other part.

Formal decision - Appeal A

77. Pursuant to paragraph 5of this decision, I direct that the EN be corrected by deleting the whole of point xxxi) of paragraph 5.

78. Pursuant to paragraph 6 of this decision, I direct that the EN be corrected by the replacement of “footbridges” with “footbridge” at point (xxx) of paragraph 5.

79. I allow the appeal on ground (c) insofar as it relates to the use of the land for allotment use, use for the siting of four sheds for allotment use and a polytunnel.

80.I direct that the EN be varied by the removal of reference to the allotment use at paragraph 3 of the EN and by deleting the whole of points i) and viii) of paragraph 3 and points i), vii) and xiv) of paragraph 5.

81. Subject thereto, I dismiss the appeal and uphold the enforcement notice as corrected and refuse to grant planning permission on the application deemed to have been made under section 177 (5) of the 1990 Act as amended. Formal decision –Appeal B

82.Pursuant to paragraph 5 of this decision, I direct that the EN be corrected by deleting the whole of point (vi) of paragraph 3 and the whole of point vi) of paragraph 5.

83.I allow the appeal on ground (d) insofar as it relates to: the classroom, associated decking and external stairway described in the EN as being situated at or about 6 on the plan attached to the EN; the footbridge described in the EN as being situated at or about 16 on the plan attached to the EN; the single roomed timber structure described in the EN as being situated at or about 7 on the plan attached to the EN; and the wind turbine described in the EN as being situated at or about 26 on the plan attached to the EN. 84.I direct that the EN be varied by the removal of reference to those structures referred to in paragraph 82 above by deleting the whole of points (ii), (iii), (v) and (vii) of paragraph 3 and points ii), iii), v) and vii) of paragraph 5 of the EN. 85.Subject thereto, I dismiss the appeal and uphold the enforcement notice as corrected and varied insofar as it relates to: the erection of a treehouse, a single storey addition, balcony and external stairway situated at or about 3 on the attached plan; a jetty situated about 15 on the attached plan; and a footbridge situated at or about 16 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 13818

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

on the attached plan. I refuse to grant planning permission on the application deemed to have been made under section 177 (5) of the 1990 Act as amended in respect of the erection of a treehouse, a single storey addition, balcony and external stairway situated at or about 3 on the attached plan; a jetty situated about 15 on the attached plan; and a footbridge situated at or about 16 on the attached plan.

Janine Townsley

Inspector

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page19 139

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr E. MacIntosh

He gave evidence himself and called:

Dr. J Botting

Mr K Von Weber BEng(Hons) LvW Highways CMILT

Ms C Ellis Business Wales

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Ms. C Parry of Counsel she Instructed by Powys County Council Solicitor called

Ms A. Richards BA Msc MRTPI Senior Planning officer Powys County Council Mr J Box BSc PhD CEnv FLS DIEEM FCIWEM Technical Director, Atkins Limited

Ms. A Brown HNC Highways Development Control Officer Powys County Council

INTERESTED PERSONS:

All spoke in support of the appeals

Adam Layzell

Tiffany Villiers

Matthew Rising

Simon Anderson

Robin Price

Derek Turner

Freya Strangman

Idris Strangman

Philippa Hedger

Mr Finch

Jane Stevens

Janice Rees

William Parsons

John Poole

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 14020

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

Documents submitted at the inquiry

1. Chronology prepared by the appellant

2. Extracts from Manual for Streets

3. Diagram relating to access widths jointly submitted by the appellant and the Council

4. Diagram relating to visibility from the access jointly submitted by appellant and the Council

5. Letter from Mr and Mrs Johnson dated 15/10/15

6. Email from Alison Brown to George Lloyd dated 12/10/15

7. Email from Alison Brown to Martyn Bowen dated 12/10/15

8. Extract JPL case comment on Somak Travel Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Brent LBC [1987] J.P.L. 630 (QBD)

9. Judgment: Sage v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2003] UKHL 22

10.Approved Judgment: Elizabeth Collins v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Fylde Borough Council [2013] EWCA] Civ 1193

11.Judgment: Marie Hughes v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Sedgemoor District Council [2012] EWHC 3743 (Admin)

12.Judgment: The Queen on the Application of Lyons v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWHC 3652 (Admin)

13. Bundle of emails referred to in written evidence and submitted by appellant at close of inquiry and copied to Council

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page21 141

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

Schedule 1

i) siting of four sheds for allotment use( at or about 1 on the attached plan);

ii) siting of a motor home and a touring caravan for residential purposes (at or about 2 on the attached plan);

iii) use for siting of a yurt and associated decking for residential/recreational/educational/alternative therapy use (at or about 4 on the attached plan);

iv) siting of a container for storage in connection with residential/recreational/educational/alternative therapy use (at or about 5 on the attached plan);

v) siting of a drover’s cabin for residential/recreational/educational/alternative therapy use (at or about 8 on the attached plan);

vi) siting of a marquee on a seasonal basis situated when erected for the mixed use of residential/recreational/educational/alternative therapy use (at or about 9 on the attached plan);

vii) siting of a static caravan and its use for domestic storage purposes (at or about 10 on the attached plan);

viii) siting of a polytunnel (at or about 11 on the attached plan);

ix) siting of a shepherd’s hut (at or about 12 on the attached plan);

x) siting of a power house with solar panels mounted on the roof ( at or about 13 on the attached plan);

xi) siting of timber screens, roof, fencing and decking and earth bounded wood- fired baths with boiler and flue (at or about 14 on the attached plan);

xii) siting of an open fronted shed with seat (at or about 14 on the attached plan);

xiii) siting of a shed housing a compost toilet (at or about 19 on the attached plan);

xiv) siting of a portaloo (at or about 20 on the attached plan);

xv) formation of a stone circle and fire pit (at or about 21 on the attached plan);

xvi) siting of a recycling bin frame (at or about 22 on the attached plan);

xvii) siting and storage of an individual shed (at or about 23 on the attached plan);

xviii) Flat roofed shed with solar panels mounted on roof (at or about 24 on the attached plan;

xix) Fencing (at or about 25 on the attached plan).

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 14222

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

Schedule 2

i) Cease the use of the Land for allotments;

ii) Cease using the Land for residential purposes;

iii) Cease using the Land as a campsite;

iv) Cease using the Land for education or alternative therapy;

v) Cease using the Land for recreational use;

vi) Cease using the Land and buildings and items on the Land for storage purposes in connection with the uses stated within i)-v) above;

vii) Remove from the Land the sheds (situated at or about 1 on the attached plan) and cease siting them on the Land;

viii) Remove from the Land the motor-home and touring caravan (situated at or about 2 on the attached plan) and cease siting them on the Land;

ix) Remove from the Land the yurt and associated decking (situated at or about 4 on the attached plan) and cease siting them on the Land;

x) Remove from the Land the container (situated at or about 5 on the attached plan) and cease siting it on the Land;

xi) Remove from the Land the drovers cabin (situated at or about 8 on the attached plan) and cease siting it on the Land;

xii) Remove from the Land the marquee sited on a seasonal basis (situated when erected at or about 9 on the attached plan) and cease siting it on the Land;

xiii) Remove from the Land the static caravan (situated at or about 10 on the attached plan) and cease storing it on the Land and its use for domestic storage purposes;

xiv) Remove from the Land the polytunnel (situated at or about 11 on the attached plan) and cease siting it on the Land;

xv) Remove from the Land the shepherd’s hut (situated at or about 12 on the attached plan) and cease siting it on the Land;

xvi) Remove from the Land the powerhouse with solar panels mounted on the roof (situated at or about 13 on the attached plan) and cease siting it on the Land;

xvii) Remove from the Land the timber screened covered changing area and earth boundary wood-fired baths with boiler and flue (situated at or about 14 on the attached plan) and cease siting them on the Land;

xviii) Remove from the Land the open fronted shed with seat (situated at or about 18 on the attached plan) and cease siting it on the Land;

xix) Remove from the Land the shed housing a compost toilet(situated at or about 19 on the attached plan) and cease siting them on the Land;

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page23 143

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

xx) Remove from the Land the portaloo (situated at or about 20 on the attached plan) and cease siting it on the Land;

xxi) Remove from the Land the stone circle and fire pit (situated at or about 21 on the attached plan) and cease siting it on the Land;

xxii) Remove from the Land the recycling bin frame (situated at or about 22 on the attached plan) and cease siting it on the Land;

xxiii) Remove from the Land the individual shed (situated at or about 23 on the attached plan) and cease siting it on the Land;

xxiv) Remove from the Land the flat roofed shed with solar panels mounted on roof (situated at or about 24 on the attached plan) and cease siting it on the Land;

xxv) Remove from the land the fencing (situated at or about 25 on the attached plan) and cease siting it on the Land;

xxvi) Demolish and remove from the Land the treehouse, single storey addition, balcony and external stairway situated at or about 3 on the attached plan which is part and parcel of the unauthorised material change of use identified above.

xxvii) Demolish and remove from the Land the classroom, associated decking and external stairway situated at or about 6 on the attached plan which is part and parcel of the unauthorised material change of use identified above.

xxviii) Demolish and remove from the Land the single roomed timber structure at or about 7 on the attached plan which is part and parcel of the unauthorised material change of use identified above.

xxix) Demolish and remove from the Land the jetty (situated at or about 15 on the attached plan).

xxx) Demolish and remove from the Land the footbridges (situated at or about 16 on the attached plan).

xxxi) Infill the two ponds on the Land and cease their use for recreational purposes (situated at or about 17 on the attached plan).

xxxii) Remove from the Land the wind turbine (situated at or about 26 on the attached plan).

xxxiii) Demolish and remove from the Land any buildings or items that form part and parcel of the unauthorised material change of use.

xxxiv) Remove from the Land all waste, materials and other component parts resulting from compliance with the requirements above.

xxxv) Return the Land to a condition suitable for agricultural use.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 14424

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

Schedule 3

i) Demolish and remove from the Land the treehouse, single storey addition, balcony and external stairway situated at or about 3 on the attached plan;

ii) Demolish and remove from the Land the classroom, associated decking and external stairway situated at or about 6 on the attached plan;

iii) Demolish and remove from the Land the single roomed timber structure at or about 7 on the attached plan.

iv) Demolish and remove from the Land the jetty (situated at or about 15 on the attached plan;

v) Demolish and remove from the Land the footbridges (situated at or about 16 on the attached plan);

vi) Infill the two ponds (situated at or about 17 on the attached plan);

vii) Dismantle and remove from the Land the wind turbine (situated at or about 26 on the attached plan;

viii) Remove from the Land all waste, materials and other component parts resulting from compliance with requirements i) to iv) above.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page25 145

This page is intentionally left blank

Penderfyniad ar gostau Costs Decisions

Gwrandawiad a gynhaliwyd ar 13-15/10/15 Inquiry held on 13-15/10/15 Ymweliad â safle a wnaed ar 13/10/15 Site visit made on 13/10/15 gan Janine Townsley LLB (Hons) by Janine Townsley LLB (Hons) Arolygydd a benodir gan Weinidogion Cymru an Inspector appointed by the Welsh Ministers Dyddiad: 29/01/16 Date: 29/01/16

Costs application in relation to Appeals Refs: APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & APP/T6850/C/15/ 3016574

Site address: Mellowcroft, Llandegley, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 5UF.

The Welsh Ministers have transferred the authority to decide this application for costs to me as the appointed Inspector.  The applications are made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 174, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).  The applications are made by Mr Edward McIntosh for full awards of costs against Powys County Council.  The inquiry was in connection with an appeal against two enforcement notices alleging unauthorised change of use of the land from agricultural use to a mixed use comprising agricultural use, allotment use, permanent residential use, use as a campsite, use for education, use for alternative therapy and recreation use (EN A) and use for the siting of various listed items and unauthorised erection of a treehouse, single storey addition, balcony and external stairway; a classroom, associated decking and external stairway; a single roomed timber structure; a jetty; footbridges; excavation works to create two ponds; and erection of a wind turbine (EN B).

Decision

1. The applications for awards of costs are refused.

The submissions for Mr McIntosh

2. The costs applications were made by verbal representations during the inquiry. Reference was made to an award of costs made following the withdrawal of a previous enforcement notice (the 2013 notice). The applicant felt that he has still not been told the reasons for the withdrawal of the notice despite repeatedly asking for further information. Reference was also made to an application for planning permission, which sought to regularise the development subject to this enforcement appeal, and for additional works on site. The applicant felt the application was not dealt with impartially. Further reference was made to representations at the inquiry that the decision to commence enforcement action was taken prior to the gathering of evidence to support the decision. The applicant also stated that the Council has made a catalogue of errors which amounts to unreasonable behaviour. It was argued that

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 147

Costs Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

the actions of the Council have had financial implications for the applicant and his family and the appeals have been a waste of time and taxpayers money.

3. The applicant stated that inquiry time has been wasted by enforcing against features such as toilets, the seat, fencing and the jetty in the notices. He also stated that the Council submitted late evidence. Overall, the applicant concluded that enforcement action was unnecessary since the Council should have allowed the applicant to appeal the refused planning application. Finally, the applicant stated he felt the Council could have been more amenable to open dialogue to encourage a positive relationship between the parties

4. Full awards of costs are sought.

The response by Powys County Council

5. This was also made by verbal representations. The Council responded by stating that an award of costs should only be made if the conditions set out in the Welsh Office Circular 23/93 (the circular) are met, which provides various examples of what would comprise unreasonable behaviour. The applications for costs have not been made by reference to any of the paragraphs in the circular. The Council’s position is that the two enforcement notices enforce against matters in dispute; the breaches of planning control and with little evidence of immunity. The Council was entitled to serve the notices. It was asserted that each of the planning reasons for opposing the ground (a) appeal have been substantiated.

6. In relation to the costs awarded in the applicant’s favour following the withdrawal of the 2013 notice, the Council states that those costs have already been dealt with and that does not give rise to wasted costs in these proceedings.

7. The Council’s position is the decision to serve two enforcement notices relates to the extent of development on site and the need for clarity. It was argued that it is difficult to respond to general comments but it was felt there was good reason for the decision to take enforcement action and this decision was supported at the inquiry by the Council’s evidence. The Council concluded the reference to late evidence must relate to the addendum ecology report. It was argued there was no explanation by the applicant how that had increased inquiry time. Finally, the Council submitted the costs regime is designed to cover legal and technical costs, not costs relating to loss of business.

Reasons

8. The Circular advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.

9. Whilst I have found in favour of the applicant under some of the grounds of appeal, this has been after taking into account the written evidence submitted and the oral evidence presented at the inquiry. Evidence was presented by both parties and my findings are not as a consequence of any unreasonable behaviour on the part of the Council.

10. The applicant’s submissions in relation to the manner in which the Council handled his application for planning permission are not relevant to this application. The appeal against the enforcement notices was separate to the consideration of the planning

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 1482

Costs Decision APP/T6850/C/15/3014928 & 3016574

application and therefore, the actions of the Council in that regard is not something which can be considered as part of these costs applications.

11. Whilst I note the applicant’s assertions that the evidence to support the taking of enforcement action was gathered subsequent to the serving of the notice, there is no evidence before me to substantiate this allegation. A decision was taken by the Council to serve two enforcement notices to deal separately with the alleged change of use of the land and the building operations. However, I have no evidence before me to suggest that this resulted in any duplication of work or work over and above that if a single notice had been served.

12. The applicant argues that the enforcement action was unnecessary since he could have appealed against the refusal to grant planning permission. However, there is nothing to prevent the Council from commencing enforcement action when considering an application for planning permission which would effectively regularise the development enforced against. I heard in evidence that the Council had informed the applicant of its intention to serve further notices following the withdrawal of the 2013 notice. The applicant was successful in applying for an award of costs following the withdrawal of the 2013 notice and, therefore, these applications for costs cannot seek a remedy for an application which has already been allowed.

13. The applicant has referred to a catalogue of errors and the submission of late evidence made by the Council but has not detailed these complaints. Nor has he set out how this has amounted to unreasonable behaviour or led to unnecessary expense being incurred. Similarly, whilst I note the applicant’s comments in relation to the inclusion of certain features within the enforcement notices, such as the toilet and seat, these elements were not dealt with in any detail in the evidence and the applicant has not specified why the inclusion of these features amounts to unreasonable behaviour.

Conclusion

14. Taking all of this into account, the applicant has failed to demonstrate unreasonable behaviour by the Council by reference to the circular; furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated how the Council’s behaviour has led to unnecessary expense in the presentation of his appeals. Accordingly, awards of costs are not justified in this case.

Janine Townsley

INSPECTOR

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 3149

This page is intentionally left blank

Penderfyniad ar yr Apêl Appeal Decision

Dyddiad: 04/02/2016 Date: 04/02/2016

Appeal Ref: APP/T6850/A/15/3134574 Site address: New Street , Welshpool SY21 7SF The Welsh Ministers have transferred the authority to decide this appeal to me as the appointed Inspector.  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Humphreys against the decision of Powys County Council.  The application Ref P/2015/0624, dated 25/06/2015, was refused by notice dated 3/09/2015.  The development proposed is erection of detached house.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Main Issues

2. The main issues in this appeal are the requirements to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings or their settings under section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and the special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area under section 72(1) of the Act 1990.

Reasons

3. New Street is a narrow lane off Broad Street. Small stone cottages are located adjacent to the site opposite a Church building. Three storey early nineteenth century brick buildings are located on the Broad Street side of the site. Immediately next to the site either side are vehicle entrances. At the back of the site is a large utilitarian brick building which extends in depth from Broad Street. Opposite the site is a car park and The Cockpit. The Church, The Cockpit, Nos.1 and 2 New Street (brick three storey buildings) are Grade II listed buildings. The appeal site is a small gap site delineated by a stone wall. Planning permission has been granted in 2014 for one pair of semi-detached dwellings on the site. The site is situated in Welshpool Conservation Area.

4. New Street retains a close intimate relationship of buildings and a narrow street. There are also gaps in the layout of the street developed as a car parking area and vehicular accesses. Despite these features and a large brick building which extends in depth across the rear of the site, the predominant characteristic of the street is a linear arrangement of buildings situated behind the footway. This arrangement is characterised by residential properties presenting a pitched roof and wall to the street

Page 151 http://planninginspectorate.gov.wales/

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/A/15/3133184

with uniform and vertically aligned window pattern. The residential buildings are therefore broadly rectangular, excluding rear annexes, and vary according to the style, age, materials and scale of property. The unifying features are their position, orientation, rectangular form and alignment of window position and the narrowness of the space in the public street.

5. The institutional buildings present a different character with a gable façade to the street and a grandeur appearance. The large brick building to the rear does not provide the contextual pointers to a proposed residential development on the site. The Cockpit building is individual in style and appearance derived from its former function.

6. The proposed development does not draw the contextual factors from surrounding residential properties particularly because it does not address the street in a unified way as do other residential dwellings. It would present a chamfered two storey flat roof building with a balcony on top and a car parking space to the side. Secondly, the mono-pitch slab to the rear of the building provides a new feature in the street scene which is at odds with the linear residential development. The development is described as a modern dwelling, but in my view it does not address its context and would stand out as an entirely different form of building which would detract from the unifying residential features of the street, I have outlined above.

7. I note the appellants’ point that the site is neglected and unsightly. However, that in itself does not address the issue concerning the appropriateness of the proposed design in this street context. I note that the appellants’ have offered to utilise cedar/larch as a facing material instead of render. However, this suggestion does not address the earlier points on form and design.

8. I consider the proposal would conflict with policies ENV11, ENV14, SP3 and HP5(2) of the Powys Unitary Development Plan.

9. I conclude that the proposal would fail to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings or their settings under section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and would fail to preserve the appearance of the conservation area under section 72(1) of the Act 1990.

Conclusions

10. Whilst there is a recognised shortfall in housing land supply this factor is not given considerable weight where the development would otherwise conflict with the development plan. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and national policies and the planning balance is against allowing the development.

11. For these reasons, the appeal should be dismissed. Iwan Lloyd

INSPECTOR

http://planninginspectorate.gov.wales/ Page 1522

Penderfyniad ar yr Apêl Appeal Decision

Ymweliad â safle a wnaed ar 7/01/16 Site visit made on 7/01/16 gan Iwan Lloyd BA BTP MRTPI by Iwan Lloyd BA BTP MRTPI Arolygydd a benodir gan Weinidogion Cymru an Inspector appointed by the Welsh Ministers

Dyddiad: 11/02/2016 Date: 11/02/2016

Appeal Ref: APP/T6850/A/15/3135656 Site address: Birchy Bank, Aberhafesp, Newtown SY16 3HH The Welsh Ministers have transferred the authority to decide this appeal to me as the appointed Inspector.  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr G Davies against the decision of Powys County Council.  The application Ref P/2014/0966, dated 18/09/2014, was refused by notice dated 29/06/2015.  The development proposed is erection of a replacement dwelling, garage, installation of new septic tank and change of use of agricultural land to residential curtilage and associated works.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural matters

2. The appellant asserts that there is a prescriptive right of way over Spring Bank Lane to the property Birchy Bank and this is backed by sworn affidavits. The Council say whilst acknowledging the prescriptive right of way the access is not the historical residential access to the property. The Council asserts that the access connecting Spring Bank Lane constitutes a change of use to residential use from agriculture use and the formation of an access road. The Council maintain that the domestic curtilage of the property includes the land directly to the east and the property was accessed via a track running along Birchybank coppice. The consequence of which determined the Council’s view that the change of use of the disputed access would amount to a new residential access onto Spring Bank Lane and that it would unacceptably increase vehicular movements using a substandard junction onto to a Class 2 road in relation to visibility at that junction.

3. I make no formal determination on this issue under a Section 78 planning appeal. The appropriate course of action to determine the lawfulness of the disputed access is an application under Section 191/192 of the Act as amended. The materiality over the claim of lawfulness cannot be conclusively presumed under a planning appeal and I shall deal with the appeal on the basis of the planning application which indicates a material change of use of the land to residential curtilage which includes within the red line application the disputed access track for upgrading. The appellant has sought planning permission on this basis.

4. Interested parties dispute that the access is within the appellant’s ownership. Secondly, they dispute that Certificate B had been served upon them and that the

Page 153

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/A/15/3135656

correct procedures and protocols have been followed and so the planning appeal should be withdrawn. In addition, interested parties have submitted an application to the Land Registry to change the registration of the prescriptive right of way.

5. The planning appeal form includes those whom the appellant has served notice on under Certificate B. The planning application form also includes information that Certificate B was served on 18/09/2014 with those interested parties listed. I note that interested parties have responded to the application and appeal and therefore are aware and have made representations. As a result they have not been prejudiced and no injustice has been caused. The Applicant/appellant has submitted with the application a certificate B and on the basis of the wording of the Act as amended under Section 65(2) and Part 2 Articles 10, 11 and Part 4 Articles 21 and 22 of the Order 20121, he has complied with the requirements for the submission of a valid planning application/appeal. The dispute over land ownership and determination of the registration title of the prescriptive right of way is outside my jurisdiction of this planning appeal.

6. Revised plans were submitted with the planning application and I have considered these accordingly in the determination of this appeal.

Main Issue

7. There is one issue in dispute that is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.

Reasons

8. The proposal as presented involves a material change of use of the land to form a residential curtilage and within it the access track which would be upgraded. Notwithstanding the dispute whether this track is an existing track to serve the property the planning application includes this as part of the proposed development and is shown to be upgraded. The Council say that there would be a material increase in traffic along this track to serve the replacement dwelling. Given that the lawfulness of the use of the track has not been conclusively presumed for residential purposes, and a planning application has been submitted to develop the track, then it follows that there would be a material increase in traffic associated with the proposed replacement dwelling using the track and the junction with the Class 2 road. There is no dispute from the Council that the existing dwelling can be replaced or that it retains its lawful status as a dwelling house, but maintains that the residential access was passed Bryn-y-Fedw, Belleviste and alongside Birchybank coppice.

9. The junction with the Class 2 road with Spring Bank Lane is clearly deficient in visibility. The road is unrestricted and visibility is severely compromised by the hedgerows either side of the junction and the vertical alignment of the road. To the north the road slopes to a dip, to the south there is a slight dip and turn. At best visibility is some 23-25m in either direction. Traffic speeds have not been recorded but the road is relatively straight with dips and rises and therefore I observed that traffic was travelling in excess of 40mph. The national advice sight stopping distance for an unrestricted road is 215m, but even at 40mph the standard is 120m which is substantially more than the currently achieved visibility at this junction. The material increase in traffic associated with the proposal would give rise to danger to highway safety.

1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) Order 2012

Page 1542

Appeal Decision APP/T6850/A/15/3135656

10. The appellant compares the traffic generation associated with the proposed dwelling and the existing dwelling. However, this is predicated on using the Spring Bank Lane access, which for the reasons I have outlined have not been conclusively presumed. Therefore the comparison exercise is given limited weight. I note that there is no record of an accident at the Spring Bank Lane junction, but that in itself is not sufficient justification for the increased use of the sub-standard access by the occupants of the proposed dwelling.

11. I conclude that the proposal would harm highway safety, and would conflict with Policy GP4 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan. I note the concerns from the interested party that the existing dwelling is considered of historical interest and its demolition would be a loss to the built heritage. However, the Council has concluded otherwise that the existing dwelling as deteriorated such that the only viable option would be to replace the dwelling. The Council raise no objection to the replacement dwelling in terms of design and appearance. I also note that CADW did not consider the existing dwelling worthy of listing, but noted that the building is important locally. Overall, I would concur on balance with these conclusions, and I note that the Council did not object to its proposed demolition and replacement.

12. However, the planning balance indicates that the harm to highway safety outweighs other considerations, and the appeal should be dismissed. Iwan Lloyd

INSPECTOR

Page 3155

This page is intentionally left blank