DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PANEL 15 AUGUST 2011
Case No: 1101043FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)
Proposal: ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT DWELLING FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING AND CREATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS
Location: 10 HOLLOW ROAD RAMSEY FORTY FOOT PE26 2YA
Applicant: MR AND MRS WALKER
Grid Ref: 531180 287998
Date of Registration: 15.06.2011
Parish: RAMSEY
RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION
1.1 This application relates to a single storey bungalow that occupies a large curtilage at the end of a row of properties on the southern edge of Hollow Road and opposite the Forty Foot drain. The bungalow sits on land at a level of approx. 2m AOD and is currently unoccupied and in need of modernisation. Adjacent to the site is a row of two storey houses.
1.2 The footprint of the bungalow is within Flood Zone 2 and the garden is within Flood Zone 3 ‘high probability’ as shown by the Environment Agency flood zone map. The Huntingdonshire District Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment identifies the site as within Flood Zone 1 ‘low probability’.
1.3 The proposal is to demolish the existing bungalow and replace it with a two storey chalet style dwelling that would be sited in the same position within the site. It would be served by a new vehicle access off Hollow Road and a new driveway leading to two parking spaces would be laid to the side of the proposed dwelling. The footprint of the dwelling would measure approx. 9m across the front elevation with a maximum depth of approx. 11.5m. The eaves and ridge heights would measure approx. 3.3m and 6.9m above ground level respectively. The finished floor level of the proposed dwelling would be set at 2.5m AOD.
1.4 The proposal is identical to that refused planning permission by Officers acting under delegated powers in May 2011, under ref. 1100570FUL. Ramsey Town Council had recommended approval of that planning application, but had omitted to give material planning reasons to support its recommendation.
1.5 A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted.
2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE
2.1 PPS1: “Delivering Sustainable Development” (2005) contains advice on the operation of the plan-led system.
2.2 PPS3: “Housing” (2011) sets out how the planning system supports the growth in housing completions needed in England.
2.3 PPS23: “Planning and Pollution Control” (2004) is intended to complement the new pollution control framework under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and the PPC Regulations 2000.
2.4 PPG13: “Transport” (2011) sets out the objectives to integrate planning and transport at the national, strategic and local level and to promote more sustainable transport choices both for carrying people and for moving freight.
2.5 PPS25: “Development and Flood Risk” (revised 2010) sets out Government policy on development and flood risk. Its aims are to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas of highest risk. Where new development is, exceptionally, necessary in such areas, policy aims to make it safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, reducing flood risk overall.
For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.
3. PLANNING POLICIES
Further information on the role of planning policies in deciding planning applications can also be found at the following website: http://www.communities.gov.uk then follow links Planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Information and Guidance, Planning Guidance and Advice and then Creating and Better Place to Live
3.1 East of England Plan - Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008) Policies viewable at http://www.go-east.gov.uk then follow links to Planning, Regional Planning then Related Documents
ENV7 – Quality in the Built Environment – requires new development to be of a high quality which complements the distinctive character and best qualities of the local area and promotes urban renaissance and regeneration
3.2 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) Saved policies from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 are relevant and viewable at http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk follow the links to environment, planning, planning policy and Structure Plan 2003.
None relevant
3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995) Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95
H31: “Residential privacy and amenity standards” – Indicates that new dwellings will only be permitted where appropriate standards of privacy can be maintained and adequate parking provided.
En25: "General Design Criteria" - indicates that the District Council will expect new development to respect the scale, form, materials and design of established buildings in the locality and make adequate provision for landscaping and amenity areas.
CS8: “Water” – satisfactory arrangements for the availability of water supply, sewerage and sewage disposal facilities, surface water run-off facilities and provision for land drainage will be required.
3.4 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002) Saved policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002)
HL5 – Quality and Density of Development - sets out the criteria to take into account in assessing whether a proposal represents a good design and layout.
3.5 Policies from the Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2009 are relevant and viewable at http://www.huntsdc.gov.uk click on Environment and Planning then click on Planning then click on Planning Policy and then click on Core Strategy where there is a link to the Adopted Core Strategy.
CS1: “Sustainable development in Huntingdonshire” – all developments will contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development, having regard to social, environmental and economic issues. All aspects will be considered including design, implementation and function of development.
CS3: “The Settlement Hierarchy” – identifies Ramsey Forty Foot as a smaller settlement in which residential infilling will be appropriate within the built up area.
3.6 Policies from the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010 are relevant.
C1: “Sustainable Design” – development proposals should take account of the predicted impact of climate change over the expected lifetime of the development.
C5: “Flood Risk and Water Management” – development proposals should include suitable flood protection / mitigation to not increase risk of flooding elsewhere. Sustainable drainage systems should be used where technically feasible. There should be no adverse impact on or risk to quantity or quality of water resources.
E1: “Development Context” – development proposals shall demonstrate consideration of the character and appearance of the surrounding environment and the potential impact of the proposal.
E2: “Built-up Areas” – development will be limited to within the built-up areas of the settlements identified in Core Strategy policy CS3, in order to protect the surrounding countryside and to promote wider sustainability objectives.
E9: “Travel Planning” - Proposals should not give rise to traffic volumes that exceed the capacity of the local or strategic transport network, nor cause harm to the character of the surrounding area.
E10: “Parking Provision” – car and cycle parking should accord with the levels and layout requirements set out in Appendix 1 ‘Parking Provision’. Adequate vehicle and cycle parking facilities shall be provided to serve the needs of the development.
H7: “Amenity” – development proposals should safeguard the living conditions for residents and people occupying adjoining or nearby properties.
3.7 Huntingdonshire Townscape and Landscape Assessment 2007 identifies the site as within the Fen Margin landscape.
3.8 Huntingdonshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2010 is also relevant and identifies the site as within Flood Zone 1.
3.9 Huntingdonshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2007 part 2 is also relevant.
3.10 Circular 03/99 covering foul drainage is also relevant.
4. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 1100570FUL – identical proposal for the replacement of the existing bungalow with a chalet style dwelling, refused permission under delegated powers on 26th May 2011.
5. CONSULTATIONS
5.1 Ramsey Town Council – recommend approval (copy attached)
5.2 HDC Environmental Health – site is situated on a former brick and tile works and therefore the land could be contaminated. A site investigation will need to be undertaken to derive a risk assessment and where necessary a remediation strategy.
5.3 Environment Agency – no objection, recommend the finished floor level of the dwelling is set no lower than 2.18m AOD.
6. REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 None received.
7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
7.1 The main issues to consider are the principle of development, the acceptability of the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the locality, impact on neighbour amenities, parking and highway safety, foul and surface water drainage, flood risk and land contamination.
Principle:
7.2 Irrespective of location, the replacement of an existing dwelling with another is normally satisfactory in principle, subject to other material considerations. In any event, this site is considered to be within the built-up area of Ramsey Forty Foot. The existing bungalow was reportedly occupied until the death of the previous owners and it appears to be in a reasonably sound, but untidy condition. There is no evidence to suggest its use as a dwellinghouse has been abandoned. The principle of the proposal is therefore acceptable subject to other material considerations.
Impact on the character and appearance of the locality:
7.3 The existing bungalow is considered to fall within the built-up area of the village and not within the countryside. Therefore planning policies which exert greater control over the scale of replacement dwellings in the countryside are not applicable to this proposal. As such there is no objection in principle to a replacement two storey dwelling.
7.4 The existing bungalow is a simple and unassuming building that occupies a reasonably prominent position on the eastern approach to the village. It is relatively exposed in long distance views, where it is read with and largely dwarfed by, the adjacent pair of equally simple two storey ‘Fen’ style cottages that sit close to the southern edge of Hollow Road. In these views, it is the existing adjacent ‘Fen’ style cottages that are considered to set the architectural context for the redevelopment of this site and replacement of the existing bungalow.
7.5 In this regard, the proposed chalet style dwelling is wholly out of keeping with the prevailing character of the immediate locality. In design terms it is considered to be too complex and fussy in form with an overly modern and suburban appearance. The reasonably deep plan form and deep flanks of the proposal are considered to have a significant massing effect in this prominent edge of settlement location and in views looking east from the countryside beyond. For these reasons the proposal would be unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the locality. There is no objection to either the ridge height of the dwelling which is marginally lower than the adjacent properties or the position of the proposed dwelling within the plot.
7.6 It is noted that there are modern dwellings of varying designs further to the west of the site (such as Lakeview House and Green Apples), but these dwellings are set back in their plots and as such are largely screened in views on the approach to the village and in views looking west along Hollow Road.
7.7 The proposed vehicle access and turning area within the site is over- engineered for the purpose of serving a single dwelling, with a continuous width of 5m from the highway and this contributes to the overall visual harm caused by the proposal. Surface treatment of the driveway is not stated on the drawings.
Impact on neighbour amenities:
7.8 There would be sufficient space around the proposed dwelling to prevent its physical presence from having an unduly harmful overbearing impact or leading to a harmful loss of light/overshadowing impact on neighbouring properties.
7.9 In comparison to the bungalow the proposed two storey dwelling would lead to a greater degree of overlooking of neighbouring properties, but not to the extent that overlooking would be unacceptably detrimental to neighbour amenities.
Parking and highway safety:
7.10 The turning area provides for convenient/workable turning, notwithstanding concerns over its visual impact. Visibility along Hollow Road, which is subject to a 30 mph speed limit at the point of the proposed access, appears satisfactory, especially given the openness of the site frontage to the east. Hollow Road is likely to be lightly trafficked at this eastern extent. Parking for 2 vehicles as proposed is consistent with District parking standards.
Foul/surface water drainage:
7.11 A package treatment plant is stated as the means of foul water disposal and would be satisfactory in the absence of a mains sewer in accordance with the guidance given in circular 03/99. An Environment Agency permit may well be required.
Flood risk:
7.12 The proposed finished floor level at 2.5m AOD is higher than that recommended by the Environment Agency and is considered to be suitable mitigation against flood risk.
7.13 Government Guide in the form of PPS25 requires Local Planning Authorities to steer new development to areas at the lowest risk of flooding by applying the Sequential Test and Exceptions Test. However, the PPS25 practice guide (paragraph 4.40) acknowledges that the redevelopment of existing properties may leave applicants with no realistic option to develop elsewhere in areas at the lowest risk of flooding. On this basis PPS25 requires Local Planning Authorities to apply the Exception Test to show how the development has been made safe through its siting and design.
7.14 In applying the Exception Test it is noted that the proposed dwelling would be located on the highest part of the site with a floor level exceeding that of the existing dwelling and in doing so, the risk has been reduced as far as practicable and in accordance with Environment Agency advice. As such, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory in flood risk terms and it would conform to the Exception Test.
Contaminated land
7.15 A site investigation to assess the extent of any contamination and remediation where necessary could be secured by condition in accordance with PPS23 if the application was to be approved.
8. RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE for the following reasons
8.1 The design of the proposed chalet style dwelling with its overly complex form and massing effect of its deep flanks in views from the east would, along with the over engineered nature of the access and driveway, be wholly out of keeping with the character and appearance of this rural edge of settlement locality, which is characterised by simple traditional ‘Fen’ style cottages. As such it would be contrary to PPS1, policy ENV7 of the East of England Plan 2008, policy En25 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, policy HL5 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration 2002, policy CS1 of the Huntingdonshire Core Strategy 2009, policy E1 of the Huntingdonshire Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010 and part 2 of the Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPD 2007.
If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.
CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Mr Gavin Sylvester Assistant Development Management Officer 01480 387070
Development Management Panel Application Ref: 1101043FUL Location: Ramsey Date: 15th August 2011
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. HDC 100022322
Drain
D ra in
Pond
!
Broadall's Farm
n
i
n
i a
r
a
r
D
D
Pond
Sunny Cottage
Pond
B 1096
Drain
2.9m
HOLLOW ROAD F ir 1.8m s t C 1 10 o
t s t a e l g e T p
p e S h L s e a A o
The Elms k u m H e n s Alsaville o
a i e d d
e H
v e e Brickyard Cottages P e r t 2 o n w
G n e i
d 3 v
e
FB k
a
Pond L FB FB Pond Waterside
Drain
H n D i O r a L r L a O i n D W R O n i A a D r
D
D ra in
Drain
n i a r D Legend The Site ¯
Scale: 1:2500