DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 24th MAY 2021
Case No: 20/02542/FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)
Proposal: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DETACHED BUNGALOW TO BE REPLACED WITH TWO STOREY DETACHED DWELLING HOUSE
Location: HUMMINGBIRD 52 COMMON LANE HEMINGFORD ABBOTS PE28 9AW
Applicant: MR NEIL MUSPRATT
Grid Ref: 527647 271437
Date of Registration: 17.12.2020
Parish: HEMINGFORD ABBOTS
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE
This application is referred to the Development Management Committee (DMC) as the Officer recommendation of approval is contrary to Hemingford Abbots Parish Council's recommendation of refusal.
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION
1.1 Planning permission is sought for the demolition of an existing detached bungalow to be replaced with two storey detached dwelling house. No changes are proposed to the existing access to the site.
1.2 The site is addressed 52 Common Lane, Hemingford Abbotts and is a rectangular shaped plot with an approximate 26m frontage and depth of approximately 142m. The site is presently developed with a single storey bungalow which has a front setback of approximately 32m and allows limited views to penetrate through the site to the vegetated river on the northern boundary of the site, a single storey detached garage has been constructed on the western boundary and the site has quite extensive planting in the front setback which screens views of the dwelling from Common Lane.
1.3 The site intersects a waterway on the northern boundary and the application site, whilst the entirety of Common Lane is within the Hemingford Abbots Conservation area. The site itself is in proximity to a Grade II listed buildings (No. 35 Common Lane on the south side of Common Lane and No.29). The rear portion of the site, which is undeveloped is located within Flood Zone 2 of the SFRA 2017 flood mapping.
1.4 For clarity: 29 Common Lane has not been removed from Historic England's list of Listed Buildings and as such the dwelling on site is still to be treated as a Listed Building when assessing planning applications, despite the original building having been destroyed by fire. Should the owner apply to have it de-listed this situation would be reassessed.
1.5 To the east of the site is a double storey dwelling with a single projecting gable on the façade. The main gable runs horizontally across the site with a deep front setback and planting used to soften the built form. To the west of the site is a double storey dwelling with a single projecting gable, the dwellings has been designed in an arts and craft style. The dwelling is constructed approximately 1m from the shared boundary with the subject site.
1.6 Common Lane comprises a mixed character with a variety of dwelling types and styles. A significant number of dwellings are quite substantial in terms of scale and form with a majority of dwellings two storey in height - almost without exception these substantial dwellings are set in large to very large plots. The streetscape has a leafy character with many plots having well established hedging along the frontage. The rear parts of the plots which connect to the waterway comprise of well-established vegetation with a relatively dense make up of trees evident throughout the neighbourhood.
1.7 The proposed dwelling will sit on the footprint of the bungalow to be demolished and will also extend back no further than the rear of the dwelling at No. 54 Common Lane. The rear of the property will have a single storey element approximately 5.8 metres deep. The distance from the boundary with No. 54 Common Lane will be a minimum of 3.5 metres (to the front of the shared boundary) extending to 3.75 metres (to the rear of the shared boundary). The distance from the boundary with No. 50 Common Lane will be a minimum of 2.0 metres (to the front of the shared boundary) reducing to 1.65 metres (to the rear of the shared boundary).
1.8 The separation distance between No. 54 and No. 52 will be between approximately 4.6 and 5.2 metres.
2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE
2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (19th February 2019) (NPPF 2019) sets out the three objectives - economic, social and environmental - of the planning system to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The NPPF 2019 at paragraph 10 provides as follows: 'So that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 11).'
2.2 The NPPF 2019 sets out the Government's planning policies for (amongst other things): • delivering a sufficient supply of homes; • achieving well-designed places; • conserving and enhancing the natural environment; • conserving and enhancing the historic environment.
2.3 Planning Practice Guidance and the National Design Guide 2019 are also relevant and are material considerations.
For full details visit the government website National Guidance
3. PLANNING POLICIES
3.1 Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 (Adopted 15th May 2019) • LP1: Amount of Development • LP2: Strategy for Development • LP4: Contributing to Infrastructure Delivery • LP5: Flood Risk • LP9: Small Settlements • LP11: Design Context • LP12: Design Implementation • LP14: Amenity • LP15: Surface Water • LP16: Sustainable Travel • LP17: Parking Provision and Vehicle Movements • LP25: Housing Mix • LP30: Biodiversity and Geodiversity • LP31: Trees, Woodland, Hedges and Hedgerows • LP34: Heritage Assets and their Settings
3.2 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) and Guidance: • Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPD (2017) - sections 2.1, 3.2, 3.7, 3.8 and 4.4 • Huntingdonshire Townscape and Landscape Assessment SPD 2007 • Developer Contributions SPD 2011 • Cambridgeshire Flood and Water SPD 2017 • Huntingdonshire Tree Guidance Note 3 • December 2020 Annual Monitoring Review regarding housing land supply.
3.3 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 2015 (Amended)
3.4 The Hemingford’s Conservation Area Character Statement 2008
Local For full details visit the government website Local policies
4. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 20/00233/TRCA - Removal of Trees in a Conservation Area - Deemed Acceptable by the Tree Officer 13.5.2020
4.2 20/00364/FUL for Demolition of existing detached bungalow to be replaced with two storey detached dwelling house, REFUSED dated 06.11.2020
5. CONSULTATIONS
5.1 Hemingford Abbots Parish Council (HAPC) - recommends refusal of this application: HAPC considers the main issue to be the adverse effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area of Common Lane within the Hemingford Abbots Conservation Area.
HAPC notes the reduction in the main roof height, and the width of the building giving an increased space between the western neighbour of 54 Common Lane. However, HAPC would like to see further reductions in width so as to increase the space between boundaries on both sides. HAPC considers the proposed building is still over dominant in shape, scale and form. HAPC considers the proposed building continues to disrupt the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and fails to conserve the distinctiveness of the village. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy LP34 of HLP2036.
HAPC finds the proposed eastern and western elevations, both of c 23 m length with c20 m of those lengths at two storey height, to be excessively dominant and to the disadvantage of both 50 and 54 Common Lane. These long stretches of continuous brickwork emphasise the solid, unremitting bulk of the proposed building. Bothe elevations, but particularly the western elevation, will be visible from Common Lane.
The proposed materials of dark brick and tiles further contribute to the dominance of the proposed building over its neighbours, and its lack of sympathy with the rural atmosphere of Common Lane as identified in its Conservation Area Character Assessment.
HAPC notes that the Design and Heritage Statement and other documents with the application make comparison to other large properties and their proximity to neighbouring boundaries in this western part of Common Lane. HAPC notes that this part of Common Lane was only included in the Conservation Area in 2008. (HAPC strongly supported the extension of the Conservation Area.) Suggestions in the Design and Heritage Statement that the size, design and siting of buildings that pre- date 2008 can be used as precedents, is contradictory to the requirement that a new building in a Conservation Area should seek to enhance and conserve those features of the heritage asset as have been identifies in its Character Assessment. The designation of the western end of Common Lane as a heritage asset has effectively 'raised the bar' and HAPC now looks for a higher standard of design and (again) quotes form the Inspector's dismissal of an appeal at 57 Common Lane in 2012 Ref: APP/H0520/A/12/2175616 (Planning Application 1200443FUL): I have taken full account of the extensions, garages and other developments that have been granted planning permission in the vicinity of the site. The cumulative effect is now leading to a greater sense of urbanisation and loss of the distinctive rural quality of the village. I understand the Parish Councils concern that the nature of Common Lane is being changed for the worse. To allow the proposal would perpetuate this trend and further erode the significance of the heritage asset.
HAPC notes that, contrary to the statement in the Design and Heritage Statement, that there is a Listed Building in close proximity to 52 Common Lane. The Grange, 35 Common Lane is Listed Grade II. (Thatched Cottage, 29 Common Lane, is also Listed Grade II, but this is an anomaly as the Listing refers to the old house that was totally destroyed by fire c1993, and not its replacement in 2000)
5.2 HDC Conservation Team - No objection. Concerns relating to the impact of the previously refused scheme have been overcome.
5.3 HDC Trees and landscaping - There were no objections to the previous application (subject to condition). The further survey work (since previous application) has been carried out and submitted - see the PEA and Bat Report by Applied Ecology dated May 2020 and received on 11th May 2020. This document is acceptable and can be approved and its recommendations secured by condition. The latest Site Plan [-1100 rev C] has reduced the area of hardstanding and Trees Officer has no objection - although I understand that HDC Urban Design and Conservation colleagues may still have concerns. However, from a landscape point of view I am satisfied, but still require that any consent includes a condition for Hard and Soft Landscape Works.
5.4 HDC Tree Officer - I have reviewed the Landscape Officer's comments made in relation to the most recent application and note his views and suggested conditions. I concur with his assessment and support his views on the suggested conditions required. We should look to secure a Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement as pre-commencement conditions along with any ecological and or landscape conditions he advised.
5.5 CCC Archaeology Team - We have reviewed the above referenced planning application and have no objections or requirements for this development.
5.6 HDC Environmental Health - No issues to raise.
5.7 The Wildlife Trust - The ecological report by Applied Ecology dated May 2020 covers all the relevant issues and makes appropriate avoidance, mitigation and enhancement recommendations. If planning permission is granted, the recommendations in chapter 4 should be secured through the use of appropriately worded planning conditions.
5.8 HDC Urban Design Team - The revised application (compared with previously refused scheme) is supported in design terms. Condition all materials - manufacture and product name required for the facing brick and roof tile. Confirm brick bond and mortar colour. Confirm window RAL colour, means of opening and reveal depth. Confirm colour and location of flues and vents/extracts and meter boxes. Confirm colour and material of entrance and garage doors. Confirm verge detail, and colour of fascias and rainwater goods.
5.9 CCC Highways Team - A previous application was submitted and refused under application number 20/00364/FUL. It should be noted that the previous application was not refused on highways grounds. I can see no highways differences between the previous application and that now submitted. With the above in mind, comments from application number 20/00364/FUL still remain valid. 'The proposal is for the demolition of an existing bungalow and the erection of a two storey 5 bedroom dwelling. The access has already been established as suitable for residential use. The applicant is proposing a large area to manoeuvre in to allow the occupant to enter and exit in a forward gear. The applicant is proposing a hardstanding surface for the driveway, however it should be noted that block paving is not acceptable within the public highway. The access should be sealed and drained away from the highway for the first 5m. I am happy to deal with this via a condition.
6. REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 Comments received from 2 Meadow Lane on 11.2.21: Summary: -The height of the property will obstruct the view, contrary to the design guide. Detrimental to the conservation area. -Over development of the site, creating an avoidable congested street scene. -Scale & Density. Far too large for the width of the plot with a 23x8.5m wall, presented to neighbours. -Visage/appearance. Other than being a band from the 80's, the visage presented (Fade to Grey) currently is neutral & sympathetic, offering views from Common Lane to the river, Houghton Meadow & the few remaining mature trees. This design is too large, of no architectural merit, would have a significant & detrimental impact on neighbours & there is no good reason to approve.
Comments received from 2 Meadow Lane on 17.2.21 Summary:
- Detrimental to the street scene and to the conservation area. - Over development of the site, creating an avoidable congested street effect. - Over-bearing/out-of-scale and out of character in terms of appearance. - The height of the property will obstruct the view, contrary to the design guide. Although there have been minor changes from the previous application, the scale and appearance of this design is detrimental to the street scene and the neighbouring properties. -Visual Impact/Appearance. The changes to the proposed front elevation have made the design even less attractive. The two side elevations are particularly unattractive, with a volume of brick and tiles presented to the neighbouring properties, also affecting the view from Common Lane. The nature of how deep this house is, has a significant detrimental visual impact. The density study is simplistic and does not consider variables, such as height, design, placement and plot topology. The current bungalow offers a very good break between larger properties and the proposed design creates a crammed effect. -The Heritage Statement assesses that the daylight assessment 'proved' to be acceptable, even though that survey is open to interpretation and does not include shadow plots, as these are deemed by the report to be of limited use as interpretation of the plots is subjective. The Heritage Statement is very dismissive of comments made by neighbouring properties/HDC and subsequently, the changes to the previous application are minimal. A well-designed property reduced in size by c30% would suit this plot and not negatively impact neighbours. This application creates overdevelopment, a congested street scene, cramming both boundaries, and is out of character. The size, height and proximity to adjoining properties would severely impact what is currently an appropriate level of development.
Comments received from 52 Common Lane: Summary: -Design/Scale. If the new design were intended, as one assumes it was, to reduce the visual bulk of the property, whilst actually minimally reducing it on Plan, it has miserably failed. By using the dark red brick and dark roofing materials, it has in fact intensified its visual bulk. In addition, the side views of the proposed property - which the neighbours will have to look at - to me resemble a warehouse. The roof lines also appear ill designed and out of proportion and in essence this design in my view has no architectural merit whatsoever, especially when sitting alongside the Arts and Crafts house at no.54 and the other mixed design houses in Common Lane and the rest of the village. -Impact on Conservation Area/Street scene. I therefore still contend that the size and design of this property on a narrow plot is still detrimental to the Conservation area, the impact on the street scene, the effect on the neighbouring property of 54 Common Lane, and still provides no views through and beyond, with no satisfactory separation from its neighbours. The streetscape has a "leafy" and "rural character". The village is not of Urban character.
- Loss of Trees. The reference in this re-submission that it does not require the removal of any trees is of no surprise as these had already been removed just prior to this application. This had a detrimental effect on the river views and the adjacent meadow. I am given to understand that rather than the statement contained in the Heritage Statement, that in fact for whatever reason, HDC ran out of time, and on the due expiry date, tree fellers immediately went in to decimate the population of 19 mature trees. How this happened in the middle of a conservation area is beyond me. This application should have been determined alongside the development application as requested I believe at the time by the Parish Council. The removal of these mature trees was detrimental to both the current street scene and the view from the river and Houghton meadow behind the property. Trees take many years to mature and new plantings should replace those that were removed, and this should be a requirement of any future development, as it is clear these were removed to make way for this large development.
An application should be considered, approved or refused on its merits i.e. its size, design, and the impact on the conservation area, street scene and neighbouring properties, and not on either family requirements of an individual or otherwise.
I therefore continue to support a property of this existing single storey type with a suitably enhanced size, which would be more acceptable to both this plot, the Conservation Area, the street scene, its neighbours and the village needs.
Comments from The Stilts, Meadow Lane. Summary: -Character of Area/Street Scene. The Heritage statement (HS) makes several concerning points, particularly the observation that there is a "misunderstanding of the character & sense of place of Common Lane". The PC & neighbours in HA are best placed to comment on the sense of place & all that is wrong with this application. The HS also disputes "the built form is penetrated by views through to the river on the northern boundary of plots" & claims "There is no view of the river along Common Lane at any point". During recent floods, the water was clearly visible through 52 Common Lane & provided a very good view of the river. No52 may have architectural deficiencies, but it offers a break with larger houses & views to the river
-Scale/Form/Design. Santander defined the property as uninhabitable & it is deemed that there is just cause for the development. Maybe so, but not one 6 times the size of the existing bungalow. There is no just cause to approve this. No52 may not offer enjoyable architecture, but it is wrong to dispute the observation of a 'neutral contribution'. The new design is underwhelming in architecture yet overwhelming in scale. The replacement building does not offer 'A unique replacement two storey dwelling creating a more harmonious streetscape & enrich the sense of place'. The Density study provided is subjective & simplistic. If its point was to prove that in places, Common Lane has dense development, that does not support this application.
Comments received from 1 Braefield. Summary: Having carefully looked at the new application for 52, Common Lane I am saddened to say all my original objections still stand. This, hardly modified version, of the application states it has narrowed the proposed dwelling by 1 meter and that the height has been reduced such that it is only 200 mm higher than the adjacent buildings. If this were true then it's hardly a massive change. However, the architects appear to have forgotten to take into account the large "roof light" which looks as though it will stand 600 mm above the roof height, making the building almost 3 feet higher than its surrounding neighbours. In simple terms, the building is too large and too overbearing for the width of the plot. A detailed reading of the proposal shows that 3 windows fail the "Daylight and Sunlight" requirements and that the arboricultural survey does not contain a conclusion. It is also stated in the Design and Access Incorporating Heritage Statement that no trees are at risk due to the development. This is disingenuous in the extreme as the trees have already been removed in preparation for this planning application. If this development is to achieve my support the building needs to be downsized by around 20%. Without such a downsizing Common Lane will continue to lose its diverse building heritage which is still an important part of this village.
Comments on behalf of Four Winds (54 Common Lane) -The width and scale is not reflective of the existing character of the street. Spacing between buildings is considered an important part of the neighbourhood and the revised development has not incorporated appropriate spacing to the adjoining dwellings which conflicts with, and is harmful to, the rural character of the streetscape. -The proposed dwelling will retain a similar setback as the existing dwelling of approximately 30m which will partly assist in reducing the visual impact of the new development, however, it is noted that the narrow width of the plot (in the context of the width of the dwelling proposed) will contribute to a cramped form of development as the dwelling will take up the majority of the width of the site which conflicts with the low density of the streetscape as highlighted within the submitted density study. -It is acknowledged that there are examples of housing development which has a larger building footprint, however, each case should be judged on its individual planning merits having regard to the site and surrounding area, and in the context of development on the immediate adjoining boundaries it is considered the substantial increase in building width and overall footprint will present as an overly cramped and bulky form of development which is unsympathetic to the local character of the neighbourhood. -The adjoining plots have both been developed with substantial two storey rear wings, however, each dwelling only has one projecting gable on the façade. -The proposed dwelling has two wide projecting gables on the façade which varies from dwellings on adjoining plots, this design has contributed to a presentation to Common Lane that is overly wide and bulky design which forms a poor relationship to the more slender and proportionate single gable projections of the dwellings of adjoining plots. -The dwelling will be two-storey for the entire length of the building and it is considered that the western side elevation will overbear on the adjoining property and has not appropriately considered the context of the adjoining development on the site. Common Lane is defined by its leafy and rural character mixed with substantial dwellings. The built form is penetrated by views through to the river on the northern boundary of plots which, in conjunction with deep setback assists in reducing the visual impact of dwellings along the streetscape which the proposed dwelling does not reflect or contribute to. -The proposed two storey dwelling would be sited between 2.9m and 3.1m away from the shared boundary with 54 Common Lane, and between 1.2 and 1.5m from shared boundary with 50 Common Lane. The proposed dwelling would be approximately 8.6m in overall height. The two-storey height runs approximately 17m along the side elevation and it is considered a dwelling of this scale located in proximity to the shared boundaries would result in a stark and overbearing form of development that would result in significant harm to the residential amenity of the adjoining dwelling, 54 Common Lane. -In summary, it is considered the current proposal does not address the previous objections and this would cause harm to the significance of the conservation area and the locality, contrary to the provisions of paragraphs 193, 194 and 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies LP12 and LP34 of the Local Plan to 2036. Furthermore, due to its still substantial scale, proximity and relationship the proposed replacement property would be harmful to the amenity enjoyed by our clients resulting in an unacceptable unneighbourly impact. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy LP14 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 and Government advice in the National Planning Policy Framework, which lays great stress upon the importance of good design and specifically paragraph 130 that states that poor design should be refused. For the above reasons it is considered the replacement dwelling needs to be significantly reduced in scale to be more neighbourly and respect the character and appearance of the area.
Comments received from: 50 Common Lane in support: Summary: I support the Application which I consider accords with NPPF (2019), and HDC Local Plan to 2036 (2019) taking due account of The Hemingfords Character Assessment ((2008) and permitted developments since)
-Scale and Density. There are some 270 dwellings in the village (excluding those south of A1307). The planned density of development is actually less than over 90% of these, including those in Common Lane, about the same as those on the North side of Common Lane West of Meadow Lane, and substantially less than those in Meadow Lane - the main routes followed by visitors. -Visage/Appearance. The existing bungalow (built in 1956) is the second smallest property in Common Lane, out of keeping with the surroundings and inappropriate to the size of the plot and its location. The River is not visible from Common Lane except when it floods the Meadow. As is clear the proposed 'gap' between the adjoining houses (including this) accords with that in the majority of houses west of Meadow Lane and is greater than most of those in Common Lane and the village generally. The redesign provides a variation in style which complements the area and the Conservation Status with roof levels in line with adjoining similar properties. The property stands well back from Common Lane, is and will be screened by mature trees and does not affect the views from Hemingford Meadow. As Daylight and Sunlight report makes clear the effect is minimal. The proposed style and design of this application is in keeping with other properties along Common Lane but sufficiently different to provide an interesting contrast. The materials to be used, coupled with established trees and shrubs, will enhance the street scene. I believe it will have a positive effect on the Conservation area rather than adverse. It will replace a small, outdated and unattractive property, one of many once so prevalent in the village (which did nothing to enhance the area) almost all of which have been replaced by large, modern houses. Peoples needs have changed since the existing bungalow was built in the fifties. The size of the property proposed is also in keeping with many others on Common Lane. It is well set back from the road and the front garden is of a greater depth than most others along the lane. The plot is well able to accommodate a dwelling of this size, unlike so many others in the near vicinity and elsewhere in the village. Quite a few of these houses occupy a much greater percentage of the plot than is being proposed here. This makes negative comments about the plans being too large invalid. Its facade is attractive in its presentation and forms an adequate contrast to other properties along the Lane and is arguably more attractive than some. Much is made of the view to the river between properties on Common Lane. In fact, it isn't possible to view the river between houses anywhere along this stretch. The plans comply with BRE guidelines. With an angled roof it will offer a greater view of the skyline and trees behind. The height of the roof is lower than the properties either side, numbers 50 and 54. The roof light makes no noticeable difference in height being of glass and transparent.
Officer summary of the above neighbour comments objecting to the application: o The scale form and design of the dwelling o Appearance of massing/overbearing o Loss of trees o Visual impact on street scene and character of the Conservation Area. o Density o Loss of bungalow/housing need o Light Study o Other matters: Comments relating to non-planning considerations including number of occupants, personal references to life style and any potential financial gain are not material planning considerations.
Officer summary of the above comments from supporters: o Accords with NPPF (2019), and HDC Local Plan to 2036 (2019) taking due account of The Hemingfords Character Assessment ((2008) and permitted developments since) o Scale and density and design in keeping with street scene and neighbouring dwellings. o Location of dwelling in keeping o Daylight and Sunlight report makes clear the effect is minimal. o Views cannot be seen to the river o The plans comply with BRE guidelines. 7. ASSESSMENT
7.1 When determining planning applications, it is necessary to establish what weight should be given to each plan's policies in order to come to a decision. The following legislation, government policy and guidance outline how this should be done.
7.2 As set out within the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (Section 38(6)) and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Section 70(2)) in dealing with planning applications the Local Planning Authority shall have regard to have provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations. This is reiterated within paragraph 47 of the NPPF (2019). The development plan is defined in Section 38(3)(b) of the 2004 Act as "the development plan documents (taken as a whole) that have been adopted or approved in that area".
7.3 In Huntingdonshire the Development Plan consists of: • Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 (2019) • Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Minerals and Waste Development Plan Core Strategy (2011) • St Neots Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2029 • Godmanchester Neighbourhood Plan (2017) • Houghton and Wyton Neighbourhood Plan (2018) • Huntingdon Neighbourhood Plan (2019)
7.4 The statutory term 'material considerations' has been broadly construed to include any consideration relevant in the circumstances which bears on the use or development of the land: Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2011] EWHC 97 (Admin); [2011] 1 P. & C.R. 22, per Lindblom J. Whilst accepting that the NPPF does not change the statutory status of the Development Plan, paragraph 2 confirms that it is a material consideration and significant weight is given to this in determining applications.
7.5 The main matters for consideration are: • The Principle of Development • Design, Visual Amenity and the impact upon the Character of the Area and Heritage Assets • Impact upon Residential Amenity • Highways Safety, Parking Provision and Access • Biodiversity • Flood Risk • Trees • Other issues
The Principle of Development 7.6 The proposal is for the replacement of an existing bungalow with a larger, two storey dwelling. Policy LP 9 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 defines Hemingford Abbots as a Small Settlement.
7.7 The policy states a proposal that is located within the built-up area of a Small Settlement will be supported where the amount of development is sustainable in relation to the level of service and infrastructure provision within the settlement, there are opportunities for users of the proposed development to access everyday services and facilities by sustainable modes of travel including walking, cycling and public transport and the effect on the character of the immediate locality and the settlement as a whole.
7.8 Hemingford Abbots has access to a village hall, a public house and playing fields and also access to other facilities in neighbouring Hemingford Grey including a Post Office, shop and Primary School and sports fields as well as having access to the town of St Ives.
7.9 The development is considered to accord with parts a and b of Policy LP 9 of Huntingdonshire' Local Plan to 2036 as it is located within the built-up area of the settlement.
Design, Visual Amenity and the impact upon the Character of the Area and Heritage Assets 7.10 Paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states planning decisions should ensure that developments will, amongst others, function well and add to the overall quality of the area, is visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout, appropriate landscaping and is sympathetic to local character including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting.
7.11 Paragraph 130 of the NPPF states that the character and quality of an area and the way it functions and should take account of any local design standards or style guides in plans or supplementary planning documents.
7.12 In addition, where the design of a development accords with clear expectations in plan policies, design should not be used by the decision-maker as a valid reason to object to development.
7.13 Part c of Policy LP9 of the Local Plan to 2036 sets out that a proposal that is located within a built-up area of a Small Settlement will be supported where the amount and location of the development proposed is sustainable in relation to the effect on the character of the immediate locality and the settlement as a whole.
7.14 Local Policy LP11 sets out the mechanisms for achieving high standards of design for all development, particularly those that will significantly add to, or create new communities and will be supported where it is demonstrated that it responds positively to its context and has drawn inspiration from the key characteristics of its surroundings, including natural, historic and built environment.
7.15 Local Policy LP12 states new development will be expected to be well designed based upon a thorough understanding of the constraints and appraisal of the site's context, delivering attractive, usable and long-lasting buildings and spaces. A proposal will be supported where it can demonstrate that it contributes positively to the areas character and identity, successfully integrates with adjoining buildings, the routes and spaces between buildings, topography and landscape.
7.16 Local Policy LP34 of the Local Plan states that great weight and importance is given to the conservation of heritage assets and their settings. The statutory presumption of the avoidance of harm can only be outweighed if there are public benefits that are powerful enough to do so. A proposal within, affecting the setting of, or affecting views into or out of, a conservation area should preserve, and wherever possible enhance, features that contribute positively to the area’s character, appearance and setting as set out in character statements or other applicable documents.
7.17 Common Lane is characterised by a wide variety and mixed character of domestic dwellings set back from the road in long plots leading to the river. The streetscape is leafy in character with deep front setbacks allowing for extensive planting in the front of dwellings which contributes to the rural nature of the streetscape.
7.18 Plan 19116-1310 revision F shows the proposed dwelling in the context of the street scene and its relationship with the dwellings of No. 50 and No. 54 Common Lane.
7.19 A recent site visit in January 2021 clarified that there are limited views through to the river to the northern boundary of the site when standing immediately adjacent to the front elevation of the property, however these views are interrupted by the existing planting to the front of the property when the site is viewed from Common Lane affording minimal views through to the river.
7.20 The site intersects a waterway on the northern boundary and the application site, is within the Hemingford Abbots Conservation Area. The site itself is in proximity to two Grade II listed buildings (no. 35 Common Lane on the south side of Common Lane. And No.29). 7.21 For clarity, 29 Common Lane has not been removed from Historic England's list of Listed Buildings by the owners and as such the dwelling on site is still to be treated as a Listed Building by HDC when assessing planning applications. The original building was apparently destroyed by fire in approximately 1993 and was rebuilt in a similar style. Should the owner apply to have it de-listed this situation would be reassessed.
7.22 No planning history exists for the rebuilt dwelling and its large swimming pool extension and historical records show what appears to be a much smaller dwelling.
7.23 To the east of the site is a double storey dwelling with a single projecting gable on the façade. The main gable runs horizontally across the site with a deep front setback and planting used to soften the built form. To the west of the site is a double storey dwelling with a single projecting gable, the dwellings has been designed in an arts and craft style. The dwelling is constructed approximately 1m from the shared boundary with the subject site.
7.24 Common Lane comprises a mixed character with a variety of dwelling types and styles. A significant number of dwellings are quite substantial in terms of scale and form with a majority of dwellings two storey in height including the properties of No. 50 and No. 54 to either side of the existing bungalow.
7.25 Almost without exception these substantial dwellings are set in large, to very large plots. The streetscape has a leafy character with many plots having well established hedging along the frontage. The rear parts of the plots which connect to the waterway comprise of well-established vegetation with a relatively dense make up of trees evident throughout the neighbourhood.
7.26 The proposed dwelling will sit on the footprint of the bungalow to be demolished. In addition, although the footprint is to be extended it will not be beyond the rear elevation of the dwelling at No. 54. The rear of the property will have a single storey element approximately 5.8 metres deep.
7.27 The proposed development will result in an increase in footprint and the addition of a first-floor, but this is not unusual in relation to other properties along Common Lane. This footprint includes the integral double garage and account is taken of the existing footprint of the outbuildings that are to be replaced as part of this development.
7.28 The distance from the boundary with No. 54 Common Lane will be a minimum of 3.5 metres to the front of the shared boundary extending to 3.75 metres to the rear of the shared boundary. The distance from the boundary with No. 50 Common Lane will be a minimum of 2.0 metres to the front of the shared boundary reducing to 1.65 metres to the rear of the shared boundary. The separation distance between No. 54 and No 52 will be between approximately 4.6 and 5.2 metres.
7.29 For clarity it is noted that HAPC identify that over 20 metres of two storey elevations will face neighbouring properties. However, this figure appears to include the dual pitch roof section that is placed centrally to the rear over the single storey rear extension. Given the distance of this element from neighbouring properties of over 10 metres it is considered this element would have limited impact on neighbours to either side. It is closer to approximately 17.2 metres of two storey side elevations that will be presented to the neighbouring properties, as illustrated on Site Plan 19116 - 1101 rev B.
7.30 This application has been assessed in relation to the previously refused planning application 20/00364/FUL in order to demonstrate how the new proposal has sought to address concerns previously raised.
7.31 The overall building height proposed under application reference 20/00364/FUL was 8.6m with a building footprint of approximately 440sqm. The proposal was refused for two main reasons: 1: as a result of the layout, massing and depth of the proposal that would fail to relate to the more spacious form of development in the vicinity, resulting in less than substantial harm to the established character and appearance of the conservation area. And 2: for an unacceptable level of overbearing and overshadowing impacts to No. 54 Common Lane.
7.32 A key concern raised on the refused application related to the height and width of the feature gables, given these were considered to dominate the front elevation and amendments were required to both the width and height to reduce their prominence to create more slender feature gables.
7.33 Concerns was also raised relating to overlooking to the first floor bedroom in No. 50 from the proposed bedroom 3 window and overshadowing impacts to a first floor bedroom window on the side elevation of No. 50 which failed to achieve recommended minimum VSC and daylight distribution levels in accordance with the BRE Daylight and Sunlight: A guide to good practice, 2011, second edition.
7.34 By comparison under the current application (20/02542/FUL): The revised scheme is 1metre narrower in plan form (18,400mm) but retains the same 23,000mm depth as the previous proposal, the amendment to the width of the unit has resulted in increasing the setback from neighbouring boundaries either side by a further 600mm (to 3,500-3,750mm) from No. 54 to the west and a further 400-500mm (to 1,650mm to 2,000mm) from No. 50 to the east.
7.35 The overall ridge height has been reduced by 200mm (to 8.4m), with the eaves height reduced by 1050mm - 1750mm (to 3.6m - west gable to No. 54 and 4.3m - east gable to No. 50). As a result of these changes the windows on the side elevations at first floor level (relating to en-suite windows, bedroom 3 windows, bedroom 1 his and hers dressing room windows) now comprise rooflights.
7.36 The front elevation has also been amended and feature gable projections reduced in width and height. The western gable adjacent to No. 54 has reduced to 6.34m width with 7.93m ridge height and features a hipped roof (previously this had 7.16m width with 8.6m ridge with no hipped roof). The eastern gable adjacent to No. 50 has reduced to 5.0m width with 7.63m ridge height and features an asymmetric pitched roof (previously this eastern feature gable matched the height and proportions of the western feature gable). Other properties along Common Lane that feature gable projections include No. 54, No.58, No. 43, No. 41a and No. 27, to name but a few.
7.37 The materials pallet has also been amended to red brick with stone window surrounds and clay roof tiles, similar to No. 58 Common Lane.
7.38 In conclusion, these changes are welcomed and improve the overall proportions of the dwelling, as the feature projecting gables on the front elevation no longer dominate, whilst the lower ridge and eaves heights improve the scale relationship with Nos. 50 and 54 either side. The introduction of rooflights to all windows on the side elevations removes any previous overlooking impacts to neighbouring units.
7.39 Comments from Urban Design: Amended scheme and comparison with 20/00364/FUL: The revised scheme is 1m narrower in plan form (18400mm) but retains the same 2300mm depth as the refusal, the amendment to the width of the unit has resulted in increasing the setback from neighbouring boundaries either side by a further 600mm (to 3500-3750mm) from No. 54 to the west and a further 400- 500mm (to 1650mm to 2000mm) from No. 50 to the east.
7.40 The overall ridge height has been reduced by 200mm (to 8.4m), with the eaves height reduced by 1050mm - 1750mm (to 3.6m - west gable to No. 54 and 4.3m - east gable to No. 50). As a result of these changes the windows on the side elevations at first floor level (relating to en-suite windows, bedroom 3 windows, bedroom 1 his and hers dressing room windows) now comprise rooflights.
7.41 The front elevation has also been amended and feature gable projections reduced in width and height. The western gable adjacent to No. 54 has reduced to 6.34m width with 7.93m ridge height and features a hipped roof (previously this had 7.16m width with 8.6m ridge with no hipped roof). The eastern gable adjacent to No. 50 has reduced to 5m width with 7.63m ridge height and features an asymmetric pitched roof (previously this eastern feature gable matched the height and proportions of the western feature gable).
7.42 The materials pallet indicated has also been amended to red brick with stone window surrounds and clay roof tiles similar to No. 58 Common Lane.
7.43 Overall, these changes are welcomed and improve the overall proportions of the dwelling, the feature projecting gables on the front elevation no longer dominate, whilst the lower ridge and eaves heights improve the scale relationship with Nos. 50 and 54 either side. The introduction of rooflights to all windows on the side elevations removes any previous overlooking impacts to neighbouring units.
7.44 The revised daylight assessment (Right of Light consulting dated 16/12/2020) indicates window No. 21 (first floor bedroom window) still falls short of recommended Vertical Sky Component levels (achieving a before/after ratio of 0.75 against a target of 0.8). The Daylight Distribution for this window also falls short of recommended levels (making a before/after ratio of 0.77 against a target of 0.8). However, this impact is significantly less than the previous proposals which resulted in a before after VSC ratio of 0.71 and Daylight Distribution before/after ratio of 0.67. The revised proposals are considered to have a limited impact on light to this window and is considered acceptable in design terms.
7.45 Window 36 achieves just 1% below the recommend winter sunlight target of 5% however, results show retained levels of sunlight over the whole year would be good (30% against a target of 25% average probable sunlight hours) and is therefore acceptable.
7.46 Details of the external materials and architectural details shall all be secured by condition including: -fascia brick, -roof tile, -brick bond and mortar colour, -window colour (including means of opening and reveal depth) -colour and location of flues/vents/extracts and meter boxes, -colour and material of entrance and garage doors, -verge detail and colour of facias/rainwater goods.
7.47 The 1990 Act gives local planning authorities a general duty to preserve Listed Buildings and to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Conservation Areas (s.66 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990). The National Planning Policy Framework 2019 states that local planning authorities need to take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets (Para 192).
7.48 It is considered that the proposed scheme has overcome the previous reason for refusal in that the development will no longer result in less than substantial harm with no public benefit, by virtue of the change in the overall proportions of the dwelling including that the feature projecting gables on the front elevation no longer dominate, and the lower ridge and eaves heights improve the scale relationship with Nos. 50 and 54 either side. The proposed materials are more sympathetic and details of all the external materials can be secured by condition to ensure the materials are sympathetic to the character of the Conservation Area and the street scene. The new dwelling will be of a similar scale and form to other properties on the Lane and will also be in keeping with the street scene by virtue of its location within the plot. The development, as a result of these amendments to the previous scheme, will have a neutral impact on the character and setting of the Conservation Area.
7.49 The development will also have a neutral impact on the Listed Buildings of No. 35 and No. 29 Common Lane by virtue of their separation distance and the natural screening by local trees.
7.50 Overall, the proposal is considered to respond positively to its context within the surrounding built form and contributes positively to the areas character and identity. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Policies LP11 and LP12 and LP34 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 and the NPPF (2019) in this regard.
Impact on Residential Amenity 7.51 Policy LP14 of the Local Plan to 2036 states a proposal will be supported where a high standard of amenity is provided for all users and occupiers of the proposed development and maintained for users and occupiers of neighbouring land and buildings. A site visit was carried out by the case officer during the consultation period of the application.
7.52 Previous concerns raised on Planning Application 20/00364/FUL regarding overlooking and appearance of bulk have been addressed by the change in the roof scape with low eaves and roofscapes that pitch away from the neighbouring properties. In addition, the introduction of roof lights in the roofscapes address previous concerns regarding overlooking.
7.53 The revised daylight assessment (Right of Light consulting dated 16/12/2020) indicates window No. 21 (first floor bedroom window) still falls short of recommended Vertical Sky Component levels (achieving a before/after ratio of 0.75 against a target of 0.8). The Daylight Distribution for this window also falls short of recommended levels (making a before/after ratio of 0.77 against a target of 0.8). However, this impact is significantly less than the previous proposals which resulted in a before after VSC ratio of 0.71 and Daylight Distribution before/after ratio of 0.67. The revised proposals are therefore considered to have a limited impact on light to this window and is considered acceptable in design terms.
7.54 Window 36 achieves just 1% below the recommend winter sunlight target of 5% however, results show retained levels of sunlight over the whole year would be good (30% against a target of 25% average probable sunlight hours) and is therefore acceptable.
7.55 It is recommended Permitted Development Rights in accordance with of Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A to H inclusive of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) be removed in the interests of neighbour amenity and to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area given the proximity to neighbouring properties and sensitive nature of the site.
7.56 Overall, it is considered that a high standard of amenity would be provided for all users of the development and maintained for neighbours. The development is considered acceptable in terms of overshadowing, overlooking, overbearing impact, loss of privacy, loss of light and would not have a significant detrimental impact upon residential amenity. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy LP14 of the Local Plan to 2036 and paragraph 127(f) of the NPPF (2019).
Highways Safety, Parking Provision and Access 7.57 Policy LP17 of the Local Plan to 2036 seeks to ensure that new development incorporates appropriate space for vehicle movements, facilitates access for emergency vehicles and service vehicles and incorporates adequate parking for vehicles and cycles.
7.58 Cambridgeshire County Council as the Local Highways Authority have reviewed the proposals and have no objection subject to conditions.
7.59 Policy LP17 of the Local Plan to 2036 and the Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2017) seek the provision of secure and covered cycle parking on the basis of 1 space per bedroom. The proposed garage is approximately 6m x 6m and will provide parking for 2 vehicles and cycle storage to the rear in accordance with Policy LP17. In addition, two permanent parking spaces have been identified to the front of the site. These should be secured in perpetuity by condition.
7.60 Subject to conditions the proposed development is considered to accord with Policy LP17 of the Local Plan to 2036.
Trees 7.61 The works for the removal of trees under tree application 20/00233/TRCA - were deemed acceptable by the Tree Officer on 13.5.2020. These works have taken place prior to the submission of this application. No works are proposed on site to the remaining trees however in order to protect these trees for the duration of the works it is recommended a condition is set to secure an up to date Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement.
7.62 Subject to conditions the proposed development is considered to accord with Policy LP31 of the Local Plan to 2036.
Biodiversity 7.63 Policy LP30 of the Local Plan to 2036 requires proposals to demonstrate that all potential adverse impacts on biodiversity and geodiversity have been investigated. Policy LP30 of the Local Plan to 2036 also requires development proposals to ensure no net loss in biodiversity and provide a net gain in biodiversity where possible.
7.64 The Wildlife Trust have considered the submitted Ecological Survey and have advised that the ecological report by Applied Ecology dated May 2020 covers all the relevant issues and makes appropriate avoidance, mitigation and enhancement recommendations. The recommendations in chapter 4 should be secured by condition.
7.65 Subject to conditions the proposed development is considered to accord with Policy LP30 of the Local Plan to 2036 and the NPPF (2019) in this regard.
Flood Risk 7.66 National guidance and Policy LP5 of the Local Plan to 2036 seek to steer new developments to areas at lowest risk of flooding and advises this should be done through application of the Sequential Test, and if appropriate the Exceptions Test.
7.67 The proposed dwelling is situated in Flood Zone 1 Based on the Environment Agency Floods Maps and the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2017). The rear boundary is approximately 85 metres from the proposed development and although located in Flood zones 2 and 3, this area of the site is to remain undeveloped as part of the application.
7.68 The proposed development is therefore considered to accord with Policy LP5 of the Local Plan to 2036 and the NPPF (2019) in this regard.
Accessible and Adaptable Homes 7.69 Policy LP25 of the Local Plan to 2036 requires proposals that include housing to meet the optional Building Regulation requirement M4(2)" Accessible and adaptable dwellings" unless it can be demonstrated that site specific factors make this unachievable.
7.70 The applicant/agent has confirmed via email dated 13.01.2021 that the proposed development is designed in accordance with and will be built in accordance with the M4(2) standards.
7.71 A condition will be imposed upon any consent to ensure that the development is built in accordance with these standards and that they are maintained for the life of the development.
Water Efficiency
7.72 Policy LP12 of the Local Plan to 2036 requires proposals that include housing to comply with the optional building regulation for water efficiency, as set out in Approved Document G.
7.73 The agent has confirmed via email dated 13.01.2021 that the proposed development is designed in accordance with and will be built in accordance with the LP12 (j) standards.
7.74 A condition will be imposed upon any consent to ensure that the development is built in accordance with these standards and that they are maintained for the life of the development.
Other Issues 7.75 Loss of the bungalow - no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the replacement of a bungalow with a two- storey dwelling will have a detrimental impact on the housing mix along Common Lane. In addition, the development is to accord with Policy LP25 in that it will be designed to Building Regulation M4(2) for accessible and adaptable homes.
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL):
7.76 The development will be CIL liable in accordance with the Council's adopted charging schedule; CIL payments will cover footpaths and access, health, community facilities, libraries and lifelong learning and education.
Bin UU:
7.77 The applicant has confirmed that the site already has suitable provision of wheeled bins for the existing dwelling and these were visible on a site visit by the Officer such that a Unilateral Undertaking to secure the provision of wheeled bins is not required.
7.78 The material planning considerations raised by objectors have been addressed in the body of the report above including the scale, form and design of the dwelling, the appearance of massing/overbearing, the loss of trees, the visual impact on street scene and character of the Conservation Area, density, the loss of bungalow/housing need and the Light Study. There are no other material planning considerations which have a significant bearing on the determination of this application.
Conclusion: 7.79 With regards to the other matters the proposed development is considered to be compliant with relevant national and local planning policy as: - The proposed development would have no significant adverse impact on the overall character of the area due to its scale, bulk and massing. - The proposal would satisfactorily safeguard the amenities of neighbouring dwellings. - There are no overriding highway safety issues and the proposal is acceptable with regards to parking provision. - The proposal is acceptable with regards to biodiversity. - The proposal is acceptable in terms of flood risk.
7.80 There are no other material planning considerations which have a significant bearing on the determination of this application.
7.81 Having regard to applicable national and local planning policies, and having taken all relevant material considerations into account, it is therefore recommended that planning permission should be granted.
8. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL subject to conditions to include the following • Time Limit • Approved Plans • Details of external materials and architectural details • Details of Hard and Soft Landscaping • Removal of PD rights • Details of Biodiversity Method Statement • Tree Protection and AMS • Vehicular Access • Parking and turning • Levels • Compliance with LP12j (water efficiency) and LP25 (Building Regulation M4(2)) • Details bins/cycle storage
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 Kathy Render Senior Development Management Officer – [email protected]
Development Management Committee Scale = 1 :2,500 Application Ref: 20/02542/FUL o Date Created: 10/05/2021 © Crown copyright and database rights 2021 Location:Hemingford Abbots Ordnance Survey HDC 100022322
!
Key Listed Buildings Conservation Area The Site