Development Management Committee 18November 2019

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 18 NOVEMBER 2019

Case No: 19/00759/OUT (OUTLINE APPLICATION)

Proposal: ERECTION OF TWO DWELLINGS WITH GARAGES, NEW ACCESS AND ASSOCIATED WORKS.

Location: LAND NORTH OF LINGDALE PAXTON HILL GREAT PAXTON

Applicant: GRB HOMES AND MRS J LOE

Grid Ref: 520613 263287

Date of Registration: 10.04.2019

Parish: GREAT PAXTON

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE

This application is referred to the Development Management Committee (DMC) as Great Paxton Parish Council support the application contrary to the officer recommendation of refusal.

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The 0.7 hectares application site is located to the south of the main settlement of Great Paxton, on the main thoroughfare from the village to St Neots. The site is rectangular in shape and the land slopes down from the main dwelling known as ‘Lingdale’ towards the neighbouring property known as ‘Trees’, which is a bungalow to the north of the site. To the rear/ west of the site the land slopes down toward the mainline railway, which is the main route for all rail traffic from the north, via Peterborough to London Kings Cross.

1.2 Lingdale comprises a bungalow with domestic orchard and grassed land dating from the 60’s with boundaries fairly well screened by hedges and bounded to the west by the mainline railway. There is an existing tree belt along Paxton Hill.

1.3 Currently there is no access to the application site; the main dwelling ‘Lingdale’ is served by a direct access from the main road (the B1043).

1.4 The wider area comprises agricultural fields, with some trees and hedges delineating fields.

1.5 The proposal is for outline consent for the erection of two dwellings, with all matters reserved for future consideration other than access. The proposal also includes a proposed new footway running to the east, to provide pedestrian access to the village of Great Paxton.

1.6 The site is located within a loose ribbon of sporadic residential development south of the defined limits and built framework of the village of Great Paxton. The site is not within a Conservation Area and is not adjacent to any listed buildings.

1.7 The application is supported by the following documents: • Site location plan • Indicative site plan • Design, Access, Supporting Planning and Cultural Significance Statement • Acoustic report • Arboricultural Implications Assessment, Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan • Ecology survey • Wheeled bin UU

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 is also relevant and a material consideration.

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: Strategy for Development • LP2: Strategy for Development • LP4: Contributing to Infrastructure Delivery • LP5: Flood Risk • LP9: Small Settlements • LP10: The Countryside • LP11: Design Context • LP12: Design Implementation • LP14: Amenity • LP15: Surface Water • LP16: Sustainable Travel • LP17: Parking Provision and vehicle movement • LP25: Housing Mix • LP30: Biodiversity and Geodiversity • LP31: Trees, Woodland, Hedges and Hedgerow

3.2 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) and Guidance: • Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPD 2017 • Huntingdonshire Townscape and Landscape Assessment SPD 2007 • Developer Contributions SPD 2011 • Cambridgeshire Flood and Water SPD 2017 • Huntingdonshire Tree Guidance Note 3 • Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) 2010 • British Standard 8233: 2014 ‘Guidance on Sound Insulation and noise reduction for buildings’ • Huntingdonshire District Council Annual Monitoring Report Part 1 (Housing) (October 2019) • RECAP CCC Waste Management Design Guide (CCC SPD) 2012

Local For full details visit the government website Local policies

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 0400976FUL – Erection of dog boarding kennels – Refused 08.06.2004

4.2 0503573OUT – Outline application for the erection of 3 dwellings – Refused 25.05.2006

4.3 0500504FUL - Erection of dog boarding kennels – Refused 29.03.2005

4.4 0701275OUT - Erection of two/three dwellings (and footpath) – Refused 25.06.2007 and subsequent planning appeal dismissed by letter dated 02.06.2008

4.5 18/70099/PENQ – Erection of 2 or 3 bungalows and construction of new access – HDC response dated 21.06.2018 (Pre Local Plan to 2036 adoption) noted that a proposal for three bungalows would not be supported in this countryside location due to harm to the character and appearance of the area. However, the response also explained that until the Development Plan housing supply policies are updated, HDC would consider recommending approval for two bungalows and a new access in a revised layout subject to the provisos set out above

4.6 18/70196/PENQ – Proposals for 2 bungalows and construction of new access – HDC response dated 18.12.2018 noted that a scheme for two modest bungalows could be visually acceptable, whilst the tilted balance applies, subject to details. It was noted that the scheme was an improvement on the previous enquiry but required further improvement to avoid harm to the character and appearance of the area.eg revise the layout and provide more information about the bulk and design of two bungalows. The brief window of opportunity for the principle of two dwellings to be accepted whilst the emerging local plan was not yet adopted was clearly set out.

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Great Paxton Parish Council (21.05.2019)copy attached – No objections, but noted that the Highway/Local Planning Authorities should ensure that access to/from the new properties was safe with good visibility in both directions given that vehicles at that location would either be joining/leaving the busy and fast trafficked B1043 at Paxton Hill. The Parish Council also asked that the new properties should align with the building line of existing development on that side of Paxton Hill.

5.2 Great Paxton Parish Council (14.10.2019) copy attached - No comment to make on the amended plans.

5.3 HDC Environmental Health – No objections subject to conditions.

5.4 HDC Tree Officer –No objections.

5.5 HDC Highways – No objections, subject to conditions.

5.6 HDC Landscape Officer – Objections as the site is set within the countryside, in line with the Appeal Decision for 07021275OUT. This conclusion is reinforced by the adoption of the Local Plan to 2036.

5.7 HDC Urban Design – Objections to the principle of the proposals. Requests amendments to illustrative plans and confirmation of floor levels.

5.8 Wildlife Trust – No objections subject to a condition. 6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 One letter of support has been received from Councillor West, stating that the delivery of two dwellings would be beneficial to the village.

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 Local Plan to 2036 • Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Minerals and Waste Development Plan Core Strategy • St Neots Neighbourhood Plan • Godmanchester Neighbourhood Plan • Huntingdon Neighbourhood Plan • Houghton and Wyton Neighbourhood Plan

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 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, para 2 confirms that it is a material consideration and significant weight is given to this in determining applications.

7.5 The main issues to consider in assessing this application are whether there is any conflict with Development Plan policies. If there is any conflict, whether the application can be considered to be in accordance with the Development Plan when taken as a whole. If the application is not in accordance with the Development Plan, whether there are any material considerations, including the NPPF (2019), which indicate that planning permission should be granted. With this in mind the following issues are assessed below: • Principle of Development; • Sustainability; • Design and layout; • Visual amenity; • Residential amenity; • Flood risk and drainage; • Ecology; • Highway safety; and • Infrastructure Requirements and Planning Obligations.

Principle of Development 7.6 In terms of national planning policy, paragraphs 59 and 61 of the NPPF seek to significantly boost and deliver a wide choice of homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.

7.7 Policy LP9 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 states that within Smaller Settlements (including Great Paxton)a proposal that is located within the built-up area will be supported where the amount and location of development proposed is sustainable. It is also noted that a proposal for development on land well- related to the built-up area may be supported where it accords with the specific opportunities allowed through other policies of this plan. The application site is not allocated for development within Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036.

7.8 The extents of the settlements' built-up areas are not defined on maps, but are to be judged on a site-by-site basis. A definition of the ‘Built up Area’ is contained within the adopted Local Plan, alongside implementation guidance. This guidance states that the built-up area includes “individual plots and minor scale development opportunities which would provide infill and rounding off opportunities on land which is physically, functionally and visually related to existing buildings, taking account of any environmental development constraints subject to the exclusions below”. One of these exclusions (sites which are excluded from the built-up area) includes “isolated properties or areas of ribbon and fragmented development which are physically and visually detached from the main built form”. It is noted that development should avoid areas of intervening countryside being included within the built-up area properties which are physically and visually detached and should be excluded.

7.9 The applicant’s supporting Design, Access, Supporting Planning and Cultural Significance Statement states in paragraph 2.3 that the site “is outside the settlement boundary of Great Paxton village itself”. It is clear therefore that at the time of submission the applicants accepted the site was outside the built up area of the village. However, at the time of submission the Local Plan was not adopted and the tilted balance was engaged. The Local Plan was adopted on 16 May 2019 and thus provides an up to date development plan with which to assess the proposals.

7.10 The application site is considered to fall within the definition of being outside the built up area of the village and more closely related to the surrounding countryside, with this rural character reinforced by the lack of a pedestrian footway and national speed limit of the B1043. Development on the site would extend the area of ribbon and fragmented development which is physically and visually detached from the main built form. The site is not considered to comprise an individual plot / minor scale development opportunity that would provide infill and rounding off, given the character and form of development in the locality along this part of Paxton Hill.

7.11 Policy LP10 states that development within the countryside will be restricted to the limited and sporadic opportunities as provided for in other policies of the plan. Amongst other requirements, development must protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and not give rise to noise, odour, obtrusive light or other impacts that would adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the countryside by others.

7.12 The proposed dwellings do not meet any of the exception criteria set out in the local policies (see Policy LP10) regarding development in the countryside, such as an agricultural need or exceptional design quality.

7.13 Lingdale and the Trees are relatively isolated in terms of its roximity to other buildings in the context of this area, and stand in substantial plots. Development on the application site would extend this scattered form and ribbon development significantly beyond the built up area of the village and into the surrounding countryside. The proposals would not relate well to the basic structure of the village and would consolidate the straggling form of development along Paxton Hill, therefore detracting from the visual amenity of the countryside.

7.14 As noted above, there is relevant planning history at the application site. On two previous occasions (2005 and 2007) permission has been sought for residential development and has been refused. The 2007 refusal was appealed and subsequently dismissed. In the Inspectors decision letter dated 2 June 2008, it was noted in paragraph 10 that “I find the built-up framework excludes the appeal site due to its siting and location .... Although it appears like a ribbon of development, I consider the appeal site is situated amongst sporadic settlement dispersed along Paxton Hill.” Paragraph 11 continues “I saw a difference in character between the more built-up areas and the site’s rural setting… I disagree that the site would be perceived as being part of the village’s framework… as a matter of fact and degree I find that the site is located within the countryside.” The Inspector notes in paragraph 12 “I disagree that the site would be suitable for residential infilling due to its siting… The proposal would consolidate built development and it would be visually prominent. Development here would be seen as the settlement’s extension into open countryside.” Paragraph 13 notes “Extending the built- up framework into this part of the countryside would, in principle, be harmful to the character and setting of Great Paxton.. it would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the countryside”.

7.15 With regard to the footway proposed as part of the 2007 proposals, the Inspector stated “I note the appellant’s willingness to provide a public footpath linking the site to the existing network. This would provide an opportunity for residents to walk or cycle. However, I am concerned about the site’s location on a busy road with limited street lighting within its vicinity.”

7.16 Whilst the current proposals have been submitted 11 years after the last appeal decision, the last appeal was dismissed on clear, valid and justifiable reasons. It is considered that whilst there has been a material change in Development Plan policy with the adoption of the Local Plan in May 2019, there are no significant changes on the ground that would alter the previous Inspector’s views regarding development on this site and, in terms of the principle of development, that it is unacceptable due to the effect on the character and appearance of the countryside. 7.17 The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to polices LP9 and LP10 (criterion b) of the Local Plan to 2036 (2019).

Sustainable Development: 7.18 The presumption in favour of sustainable development requires proposals to achieve economic, social and environmental gains to satisfy the NPPF; as such a balancing exercise has to be undertaken to weigh the benefits of the scheme against its disadvantages.

Environmental Sustainability 7.19 The environmental issues are assessed in the following sections of this report.

7.20 It is considered that the proposals will result in significant visual harm to the character and appearance of the area. The development of this site would result in development outside the built up area of Great Paxton which would extend existing ribbon development and thus constitute an encroachment of built development in the countryside, which would cause adverse harm to the intrinsic rural character and appearance of the surrounding area.

7.21 Agricultural Land Classification provides a framework for classifying land according to the extent to which its physical or chemical characteristics impose long term limitations on agricultural use. The classification is well established and provides an appropriate framework for determining the physical quality of land at national, regional and local levels. Grade 1 is excellent quality agricultural land and Grade 5 is land of very poor quality. Grade 3 constitutes about half of the agricultural land in England and Wales, is subdivided into two subgrades - 3a and 3b.

7.22 The NPPF (2019) advises in paragraph 170 that the economic and other benefits of best and most versatile agricultural land (BMV land) should be taken into account and footnote 53 advises that where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality. Annex 2 of the NPPF defines BMV land to be land in Grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification.

7.23 The Council's mapping system classifies the application site as Grade 3 agricultural land. It is considered that the loss of agricultural land is largely inevitable if housing is to be provided within this rural district and as such has to be considered in the planning balance. In this regard, it is accepted that the proposal would lead to loss of BMV land, however due to the size of the site (approximately 0.74 ha), it is not considered that the proposed development is 'significant' in the context of the para. 170 of the NPPF (2019) when taking into account the threshold for consultation with Natural England is 20ha of BMV land proposed for development.

Economic sustainability 7.24 The provision of 2 dwellings would give rise to employment during the construction phase of the development, and has the potential to result in a modest increase in the use of local services and facilities nearby, both of which will bring about some benefits to the local economy. There will also be Council Tax receipts arising from the development.

Social sustainability 7.25 It is acknowledged that due to the rural nature of this part of the district, there would be a modest increase in the use of the private motor car related to this development. Great Paxton has only a few services. Whilst the proposals include for a new 1.8m wide footpath from the application site to the village, there would still only be limited opportunities for sustainable travel given the level of services within Great Paxton, thus any future residents would rely on private vehicles to access basic amenities. In addition, this footpath is adjacent a busy road with limited street lighting in its vicinity.

7.26 The site appears to have no significant constraints to preclude development and is deliverable. It would also increase the supply of market housing. There is a district identified need for private housing and whilst the weight this need can be given is lessened given the NPPF compliant supply of housing, there would be a net benefit in social terms. Whilst the Council can demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land, the provision of market housing on the application site would amount to a benefit in terms of providing a greater flexibility to the supply of housing.

Other Matters

Design and layout: 7.27 An illustrative masterplan has been submitted demonstrating the quantum (2 dwellings) and potential arrangement of these detached units with garages on the site, together with parking and turning space. The proposal for 2 dwellings would result in a net density of approximately 37 dwellings per hectare.

7.28 The submitted Design, Access, supporting planning statement and statement of cultural significance explains that the dwellings will be of a style, scale and materials of development nearby in keeping with the character and appearance of the area.

7.29 A single vehicular access is proposed from Paxton Hill into the site. Some removal of tree and hedgerow is required to accommodate the access and the existing ditch will need to be culverted. A new pedestrian connection to the village is proposed as part of the proposals, which includes a 1.8m wide footpath running along the western and then eastern side of Paxton Hill with a crossing point. The proposed footpath extends approximately 175m to the north of the application site and would improve the options for safe walking and cycling for future occupiers to the village of Great Paxton.

7.30 HDC Urban Design have been consulted on the proposals and support the proposed new footpath to the village as this improves pedestrian access to and from the site. It is confirmed that the siting of the dwellings on the site is acceptable in design terms, although the garage of plot 1 should be located to the side of the dwelling and that this is paired between the units and the extent of the hard standing/driveway reduced in front of Plot 1. It is noted that whilst landscaping is not being considered as part of the outline application additional tree planting adjacent to the boundary with Lingdale to soften the proposed 1.8m high CBF and 3m acoustic fence is required. Urban Design also commented that whilst scale and appearance will be considered as part of a future reserved matters submission, the DAS indicates the proposed units will be single storey in height which is acceptable in design terms. However, the GFFLs including on the illustrative masterplan show the ground levels of Plot 1 will be approximately 0.86-1.21m above existing ground levels whilst Plot 2 will be 0.33-0.46m above existing ground levels, it is unclear why such a significant GFFL is required for Plot 1.

7.31 As this application has been submitted in outline form with all matters reserved other than access no amendments to the illustrative layout plan or additional information have been sought, as this would be determined at reserved matters stage.

7.32 Overall it is considered that the illustrative masterplan demonstrates that the quantum of development proposed could be satisfactorily accommodated within the application site. Principle of development aside, the scale, layout and appearance, landscaping and full impact of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area are not under consideration at this stage. This will be determined at reserved matters stage.

Visual Amenity: 7.33 The sporadic residential development of Paxton Hill clearly defines the area as outside the built up framework of Great Paxton itself.

7.34 The Council’s Landscape Officer has been consulted on the proposals and has raised objections to the scheme.

7.35 The erection of two dwellings on this site is considered to consolidate development in the countryside and therefore detracts from its visual amenity and does not recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, contrary to Policy LP10 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036.

Residential Amenity: 7.36 The NPPF (2019) and Policy LP14 of Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036 seek to protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and ensure a high standard of amenity for future occupiers of new developments.

7.37 This application has been submitted in outline form, will all matters reserved except access, therefore the illustrative masterplan submitted for the site is indicative only.

7.38 Giving consideration to the distance of the site to the nearest existing neighbouring properties which are located to the north and south of the site, it is considered that the proposed use of the site for residential purposes will be compatible. Thus a suitably designed scheme could be accommodated and this would be assessed at reserved matters stage.

7.39 With regard to the amenities of future occupiers of the site, the application is accompanied by a Noise Assessment to determine its suitability for residential development due to its location bordering the East Coast Mainline.

7.40 The submitted assessment describes the site as being located in a quiet rural location with a background sound level of around 43dB LA90 during the day and around 36dB LA90 during the night, but due to it being close to the railway, the average ambient sound levels are much higher; 60dB LAeq during the day and 51dB LAeq during the night with a maximum sound level regularly exceeding 70dB LAmax around 10 times during the night. Acoustic modelling has shown that with acoustic fences, the outdoor sound levels can be as low as 55dB LAeq, however, for rural areas it is expected outdoor levels to be 50dB LAeq or less. The report describes the acoustic glazing required to meet with the guidance contained within BS8233.

7.41 As this is an outline application, internal room layouts have not been determined. It is however proposed that a ventilation system would need to be installed and that living-rooms and bedrooms be located on the eastern façade; away from the railway.

7.42 HDC Environmental Health have been consulted on the proposals and raise no objections, subject to conditions relating to the submission of a noise mitigation scheme and ventilation scheme.

7.43 Overall, it is considered that the proposed use of the site would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the amenities of future occupiers of the land subject to the imposition of conditions. In this regard the development is considered to accord with the NPPF (2019) and policy LP14 of Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036. Flood risk and drainage: 7.44 The application site is in Flood Zone 1 as confirmed by the SFRA 2017, which means it has a low probability of flooding. No details have been submitted at this stage with regards to flood risk and drainage.

7.45 The proposals are therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy LP5 of the Local Plan to 2036 (2019).

Ecology: 7.46 Paragraph 170 of the NPPF (2019) states that ‘the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment including by ‘minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures’.

7.47 The application proposals are supported by a Phase 1 Ecology Statement which explains that the orchard is of some limited ecological interest but is not considered to be a high value example of this habitat type due to the lack of veteran trees and the low ecological value of its close?mown amenity grassland ground layer. The broad?leaved semi?natural woodland, although not ancient, is of significant ecological value within the context of the site. The report also confirms that other than the likely presence of nesting birds, the protected species interest of the site was limited to the potential presence of roosting bats within an oak tree as being of Moderate bat roost potential.

7.48 With regard to recommendations, the report confirms that where possible, the strip of woodland on the eastern side of the site should be retained, protected and expanded with additional native tree and shrub plantings during development. In addition the hedge on the northern site boundary should also be retained and if it is not possible to retain the mature oak tree with woodpecker holes, then this should be subject to an above ground survey from a cherry picker to evaluate in more detail the possible presence of bats prior to felling. Clearance of all suitable bird nesting habitat must take place outside of the bird breeding season or, if during the breeding season, immediately after a check by an experienced ornithologist that verifies nesting bird absence from the site. An enclosed bat box is recommended to be included into an external south facing wall at eave height on each of the new dwelling homes as a biodiversity enhancement.

7.49 The Wildlife Trust have been consulted on the proposals and confirm that there are no objections to the proposals, subject to a condition to secure the recommendations within the report. The Trust have however noted that the site includes orchard habitat, and although it is not a high value example, it is still of biodiversity value and the loss of areas of this habitat will need to be mitigated through planting of new native trees and shrubs within the final layout. They also note that the majority of the strip of woodland along the eastern boundary should also be retained, as described.

7.50 It is considered that the impacts of the proposed development on biodiversity would be minimised such that it would not have a significant adverse impact on biodiversity and would ensure the provision of measures to achieve net gains. The proposed development would accord with paragraph 170 of the NPPF (2019) and policy LP30 of Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036.

Highway Safety: 7.51 Paragraph 108 of the NPPF (2019) advises that in assessing applications for development, it should be ensured that ‘appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be – or have been – taken up, given the type of development and its location’ and that ‘safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users’, and that any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.

7.52 Paragraph 109 goes on to state that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.

7.53 Policy LP16 of Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036 encourages sustainable transport modes.

7.54 The main consideration (in terms of access and highway matters) is whether there would be any severe adverse impacts on highway safety or on the transport network, as a result of traffic flows arising from the proposed development. In determining whether the development would have severe residential cumulative impacts or adverse highway safety impacts, Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) as Local Highway Authority has been involved in detail in the proposals.

7.55 As noted, the application has been submitted with all matters reserved other than access. The proposals are supported by a detailed plan of the access to serve two dwellings.

7.56 The proposals also include a footway running along Paxton Hill towards the village of Great Paxton, where there are limited services available. The details and location of this footway (1.8m wide on the western and eastern side of the highway with appropriate visibility at a crossing point) have been agreed with County Highways.

7.57 The access proposed demonstrates suitable access geometry and vehicle to vehicle visibility (2.4 metres x 160 metres), in accordance with the speed of the road, and for the development proposed. 7.58 With regard to parking provision for the development, whilst indicative details are shown on the submitted plan, full details would be submitted and considered at the reserved matters application stage. It is however anticipated that the site can accommodate the maximum quantum of development sought with sufficient car and cycle parking provision.

7.59 From a pedestrian safety perspective, as the site is outside the village limits and remote from the existing footway network, the new footway provides for a safe connection to the village.

7.60 With regard to the footpath proposed, it is considered that this is necessary and fairly and reasonably related to the development proposed. However as noted above, the previous Inspector raised concerns over a footpath in this location on a busy road with limited street lighting.

7.61 County Highways have been consulted on the proposals and raise no objections, subject to conditions relating to details for the off-site footway link, off-site highway improvement works, no gates across the access, access width, visibility splays and access drainage measures.

7.62 It is considered that a safe means of access could be achieved for the development and the traffic generated by the proposal would not have a severe impact upon the highway network. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 109 of the NPPF (2019), the development should not be refused on transport grounds. The proposed development complies with the NPPF (2019) and policy LP16 of Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036.

Infrastructure Requirements and Planning Obligations: 7.63 Statutory tests require that S106 planning obligations must be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. S106 obligations are intended to make development acceptable which would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms.

7.64 The application is accompanied by a satisfactory completed unilateral undertaking dated 3rd May 2019 for the provision of wheeled bins in accordance with the Developer Contributions SPD (2011) and Policy LP4 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 (2019).

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): 7.65 As this planning application is for a minor development, 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.

7.66 The proposals are therefore considered to be in compliance with policy LP4 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 (2019).

Conclusion: 7.67 The NPPF has at its heart the presumption in favour of sustainable development (para 11) and requires the approval of development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay. The presumption in favour of sustainable development requires proposals to achieve economic, social and environmental gains; as such a balancing exercise has to be undertaken to weigh the benefits of the scheme against its disadvantages.

7.68 The three components of sustainability have been assessed above, but are summarised below.

7.69 The proposal would result in environmental harm as the proposal would not accord with development plan policies that seek to restrict development in the countryside. Whilst the proposal would marginally increase the supply of housing, the Council can demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land, therefore the provision of 2 market dwellings on the application site is afforded very limited weight. The proposals result in development outside the built-up area of the settlement, in conflict with policies LP9 and LP10 (criterion b) of the Local Plan to 2036 (2019).

7.70 It is acknowledged that proposal would make some contribution to the economic and social dimensions of sustainability in economic benefits through job creation in the construction industry (short term) and additional spent of future households in the local economy. The proposals would also contribute towards the environmental and social sustainability of the proposals as a new footpath is proposed from the application site to the village. However, it is not considered that the provision of the footpath results in sustainable development as there are limited services and facilities available in Great Paxton and there will still be a reliance on the private car.

7.71 In conclusion, the principle of residential dwellings on this site within the open countryside would be contrary to planning policy and the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036. The dwellings would not be required for the efficient management of agriculture, forestry or horticulture enterprises and would represent an unsustainable form of development. As such, and in the light of National Guidance, Development Plan Policies and other material considerations, planning permission should be refused for the development as proposed. Whilst the provision of the new footpath weighs in support of the proposals, the significant adverse impact of the development caused by the harm to the open and rural character and appearance of the area and encroachment of development into the countryside at this location would outweigh the modest social and economic benefits of two market dwellings and the new footpath in this location. 8. RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE for the following reason

Reason 1. The proposed residential development of two dwellings would represent a significant encroachment of built development in the countryside and extend the existing ribbon and fragmented development along Paxton Hill, which would cause adverse harm to the intrinsic rural character and appearance of the surrounding area. The development would therefore be contrary to the NPPF 2019 paragraph 170b and policies LP9 and LP10 (criteria b) of Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036 (Adopted 15th May 2019).

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 Laura Fisher Senior Development Management Officer 01480 388365 From: [email protected] Sent: 21 May 2019 17:21 To: DevelopmentControl Subject: Comments for Planning Application 19/00759/OUT

Planning Application comments have been made. A summary of the comments is provided below.

Comments were submitted at 5:20 PM on 21 May 2019 from Mrs Christine Brandon.

Application Summary Address: Land North Of Lingdale Paxton Hill Great Paxton Erection of two dwellings with garages, new access and Proposal: associated works. Case Officer: Laura Fisher Click for further information

Customer Details Name: Mrs Christine Brandon Email: [email protected] Address: 18 Crowhill, Godmanchester, Huntingdon PE29 2LP

Comments Details Commenter Town or Parish Council Type: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Stance: Application Reasons for comment: Comments: In general terms, Great Paxton Parish Council has no objection to this application. However, Councillors requested the Highway/Local Planning Authorities to ensure that access to/from the new properties was safe with good visibility in both directions given that vehicles at that location would either be joining/leaving the busy and fast trafficked B1043 at Paxton Hill.

The Parish Council also asked that the new properties should align with the building line of existing development on that side of Paxton Hill.

1 From: [email protected] Sent: 14 October 2019 12:38 To: DevelopmentControl Subject: Comments for Planning Application 19/00759/OUT

Planning Application comments have been made. A summary of the comments is provided below.

Comments were submitted at 12:37 PM on 14 Oct 2019 from Mrs Christine Brandon.

Customer Details Name: Mrs Christine Brandon Email: [email protected] Address: 18 Crowhill, Godmanchester, Huntingdon PE29 2LP

Comments Details Commenter Town or Parish Council Type: Customer made comments neither objecting to or Stance: supporting the Planning Application Reasons for comment: Comments: The Parish Council has no comment to make on the amended plans.

1 PLANNING CONSULTATION RESPONSE

Place & Economy To Laura Fisher Huntingdonshire District Council Highway Development Management Pathfinder House Cambridgeshire County Council West Highways Division St Marys Street Stanton House, Stanton Way Huntingdon Stukeley Road PE29 3TN Huntingdon Cambs PE29 6PY

App Reference: 19/00759/OUT Date IN : 11/09/19 Date Out : 20/09/19 Contact: Robin Hobbs

RE: Application description Proposal Erection of two dwellings with garages, new access and associated works Location: Land North Of Lingdale Paxton Hill Great Paxton

Following the provision of the latest plan (401/P/01 rev D) whereby the previous consultation requirements have been submitted. I also note that the searches team plan confirming highway location limits has not been provided, I would therefore request that the condition below requiring the agreed plans for the offsite works to be completed up to detailed engineering level, to be agreement in writing with the LPA be completed prior to any construction of the proposed dwellings.

So long as the above is agreeable I would have no objections to that submitted please append the following conditions to any consent granted

‘No development shall commence until a detailed engineering scheme for the offsite footway link, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA, and such a scheme shall include geometric layout, levels, forms of construction and drainage.”

Reason: to ensure that the highway network is adequate to cater for the development proposed. HDMC 31 Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the offsite highway improvement works shall be completed to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: to ensure that the highway network is adequate to cater for the development proposed.

HDMC 10 Notwithstanding the provision of Class A of Schedule 2, Part 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any order revoking, amending or re-enacting that order) no gates shall be erected across the approved access unless details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

HDMC 13 The access shall be a minimum width of 5m, for a minimum distance of 10m measured from the near edge of the highway carriageway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

HDMC 14 Prior to the first occupation of the development the vehicular access where it crosses the public highway shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with the Cambridgeshire County Council construction specification.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure satisfactory access into the site.

HDMC 16 Prior to the first occupation of the development sufficient space shall be provided within the site to enable vehicles to: a) Enter, turn and leave the site in forward gear b) Park clear of the public highway The area shall be levelled, surfaced and drained and thereafter retained for that specific use.

Reason: In the interests of satisfactory development and highway safety.

HDMC 19 Prior to the first occupation of the development visibility splays shall be provided in full accordance with the details indicated on the submitted plan No (401/P/01 rev D) The splays shall thereafter be maintained free from any obstruction exceeding 0.6m above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety. HDMC 26 The access shall be constructed with adequate drainage measures to prevent surface water run-off onto the adjacent public highway, in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent surface water discharging to the highway.

INFORMATIVES

Vehicular Access

HDMI 1 This development involves work to the public highway that will require the approval of the County Council as Highway Authority. It is an OFFENCE to carry out any works within the public highway, which includes a public right of way, without the permission of the Highway Authority. Please note that it is the applicants responsibility to ensure that, in addition to planning permission, any necessary consents or approvals under the Highways Act 1980 and the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 are also obtained from the County Council. Public Utility apparatus may be affected by this proposal. Contact the appropriate utility service to reach agreement on any necessary alterations, the cost of which must be borne by the applicant.

GREEN PAPERS FOLLOW