DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 21 JUNE 2021
Case No: 20/01547/FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)
Proposal: THE ERECTION OF 3 DETACHED DWELLINGS, FOLLOWING THE DEMOLITION OF THE STABLES AND THE RE-USE OF THE EXERCISE YARD ASSOCIATED WITH THE DISUSED EQUESTRIAN USE.
Location: SALIX STUD AND LIVERY HAMERTON ROAD ALCONBURY WESTON PE28 4JD
Applicant: MR BAKER
Grid Ref: 517623 277360
Date of Registration: 15.09.2020
Parish: ALCONBURY WESTON
RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE
This application is referred to the Development Management Committee in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation as the Parish Council's recommendation of refusal is contrary to the Officer Recommendation of approval.
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION
1.1 This application seeks full planning permission for 3 detached chalet style dwellings on land to the rear of Salix House, Hamerton Road, Alconbury Weston. The land comprises a block of stables to the southern most part of the site (closest to Salix House) and to the rear of the stables a manege. The site has a lawful use as a livery with exercise area (the manege). The stables are proposed to be demolished. The site is surrounded to the east and north by open countryside, to the west by gardens to neighbouring residential properties and land containing another manege which is in the ownership of the adjacent residential property (76 Hamerton Road). To the south of the site is the existing Salix House and extant building plots for one of the three dwellings approved under 18/01946/FUL.
1.2 The proposed development would utilise the existing vehicular access off Hamerton Road which serves the existing livery yard, Salix House and will serve the approved development for three dwellings under 18/01946/FUL. It is proposed that a private drive would extend off the end of this existing access and turn at a right angle and continue along an east to west route across the site. Each of the proposed three dwellings would align along a parallel east to west line to the access with each having a its own vehicular drive leading to each property’s parking area. The rear of each of the dwellings faces north towards the open countryside and the rear private gardens for each dwelling extend out to the north.
1.3 Each of the proposed dwellings are of a very similar style but are each slightly different from one another. The main part of each dwelling has a dual pitched roof, the sloping parts facing the access drive to the south and rear gardens to the north. Plots 1 and 3 each have two hipped elements – one to the rear and one to the front and each have a single storey element to the side. The central plot (plot 2) is of a simpler form and has one central hipped element to the front. Each dwelling has a “plinth”, and all contain dormer windows to from the second floor located in the roof space. Each dwelling has a porch, and all contain a mix of differently shaped windows. The proposed materials are mainly brick but with some cladding.
1.4 The site lies outside the built-up area of the village and is therefore in open countryside. The southern boundary of the site abuts Alconbury Weston Conservation Area. There is a public footpath in close proximity – it runs alongside the proposed access off Hamerton Road and at the point where the proposed extension to the drive would be created, the footpath turns due east and runs around the edge of the field. There is another public footpath to the west adjacent to 74 and 76 Hamerton Road. Neither public footpath would require diversion or alteration to accommodate the proposed development.
1.5 Officers have scrutinised the plans and have familiarised themselves with the site and surrounding area. The plans were amended to correct errors. The plans appear to be correct now i.e. the proposed elevations, floor plans and street scenes match with the block plan but the labelling in the reference box remains incorrect.
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 Planning Practice Guidance and the National Design Guide 2019 are also relevant and are material considerations. • 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.
2.4 Section 72 – Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act General duty as respects conservation areas in exercise of planning functions. (1) In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any functions under or by virtue of any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.
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 • LP6: Waste Water Management • LP10: The Countryside • LP11: Design Context • LP12: Design Implementation • LP14: Amenity • LP15: Surface Water • LP16: Sustainable Travel • LP17: Parking Provision and Vehicle Movement • LP30: Biodiversity and Geodiversity • LP31: Trees, Woodland, Hedges and Hedgerows • LP33: Rural Buildings • LP34: Heritage Assets and their Settings • LP37: Ground Contamination and Groundwater Pollution
3.2 Supplementary Planning Documents/ Guidance • Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPD (2017) • Developer Contributions SPD (2011) • Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment (2007) • Cambridgeshire Flood and Water SPD 2017 • Huntingdonshire Tree Guidance Note 3 • Annual Monitoring Review regarding housing land supply.
Local For full details visit the government website Local policies 4. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 12/01025/CLED – Certificate of Lawful Development granted 26.10.2012. Part of the land subject to the certificate includes the stables, tack and feed room and the exercise yard which form the site of the current application.
4.2 18/01946/FUL – Land to the south of the current application site, full planning permission granted for 3 dwellings (within the grounds of Salix House) on 18.10.2019.
4.3 20/01548/OUT – Current outline application for 3 dwellings on land to the east of the site within same ownership as applicant
5. CONSULTATIONS
5.1 Alconbury Weston Parish Council - Recommend approval for the following reasons; * There is a need for more housing in the village * Well-designed use of space * Ample access to and from the site * Planned location of properties does not interfere with the working of the village or the traffic flow.
5.2 Cambridgeshire County Council as the Local Highway Authority – Details of the access width and visibility splays should be detailed on the plans as has been the case for the other applications
5.3 Cambridgeshire Wildlife Trust – No comments to make except the recommendations contained in the submitted Preliminary Ecological Assessment (PEA) should be conditioned if permission is granted
5.4 Cadent Plant Protection – Low and medium pressure assets have been identified at the site boundary. The developer must contact plant protection before commencing any development and if necessary, plant must be diverted
5.5 HDC Urban Design – Reserve judgement on the principle of the development but considers the yard area relates more to the open countryside. Recommend that if the principle of the development were to be considered acceptable, that development is limited to the southern half of the site and to 1 to 2 single storey barn like dwellings to maintain the character of this edge of the village
5.6 HDC Landscape & Ecology – requested PEA and arboricultural survey (officer note: have been submitted)
5.7 HDC Environmental Health – No objections. Also commented that in response to comments from a neighbour that odour from keeping horses to other properties in rural areas is not usually a problem and is subject to good husbandry
6. REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 The application has been advertised by means of site and press notice, given the application would affect the setting of the Conservation Area. Seven neighbouring properties were also notified of the application by letter.
6.2 Comments have been received from 4 neighbouring/nearby residences, summarised as follows; * The site in question is not a brownfield site * It is not a disused livery yard. There are still horses on site, only one of which belongs to the Baker family. These horses regularly use the exercise arena and use the rear paddocks and can be seen via the two public footpaths which run along the rear of the land and a footpath behind Willow Farm Close * The livery/stable yard was a thriving business until April 2020 when the owners of 17 horses were given 8 weeks’ notice to leave * Plot 3 is not on the stable yard area but mainly in a grass paddock * The development does not meet the planning policy framework 102 as there is currently no public transport available to residents of Alconbury Weston or Alconbury * The stables are mainly of a wood construction and some are in a poor state of repair and so cannot be considered of substantial construction * Hamerton Road suffers with flooding issues several times a year. When this happens residents on Hamerton Road, Spires End and Willow Farm Close move their cars to Vinegar Hill. The development will add to more cars being moved as such during flooding which would be a road safety issue (photographs of flooding submitted) * Water run off from the Salix drive is significant across Hamerton Road and ices up putting drivers and pedestrians at risk. The increase in drive and hard surfacing will increase this. * Water runs from the site land through 74 and 76 flooding gardens and this will be worse if the land is developed * Plot 3 is only 2 meters away from our stables and the increased noise will cause distress to our horses. Plot 3 will affect the light entering the sky light to our stables. It might lead to future occupiers complaining about smell. * There are a number of inaccuracies in the submission/plans * The application does not meet the requirements of policy LP 33 * The Design and Access Statement refers to demolition of stables and barns. The barns are not in this location but are several hundred metres away at what is now Sallows Farm and shown on the approved certificate of lawfulness 12/01025/CLED * I was not able to put my views across to the Parish meeting as they had already discussed the application before I receive my letter from HDC (the objectors note that two of the Parish Council Members are the applicant’s family) * The site and the Conservation Area overlap * The application states there are no trees or hedges on the site but there is a row of trees bordering the site and if excluded from this application should have been considered under 18/01946/FUL * I regularly see bats flying around and thought they came from the stables * The application states the site cannot be seen from a public footpath which is untrue
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) • Huntingdon Neighbourhood Plan (2019) • Houghton and Wyton Neighbourhood Plan (2018) • Godmanchester Neighbourhood Plan (2017) • St Neots Neighbourhood Plan (2016) • Bury Neighbourhood Plan (2021) • Buckden Neighbourhood Plan (2021)
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 • Impact on Heritage Assets • Impact upon Residential Amenity • Highways Safety, Parking Provision and Access • Biodiversity • Trees • Flood Risk • Other issues
The Principle of Development 7.6 Policy LP 2 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 (herein the “Local Plan” sets out the Council’s spatial strategy for the location of development which shall primarily be directed to the Spatial Areas, then the key service centres then to small settlements. The built up area is defined within Local Plan to 2036 as a distinct group of buildings that includes 30 or more homes. Land which relates more to the group of buildings rather than to the surrounding countryside is also considered to form part of the built-up area.
7.7 Having regard to the built up area guidance within pages 53-55 of the Local Plan to 2036, the site is not considered to fall within the built-up area of Alconbury Weston and is not considered to relate more to a group of buildings than the open countryside. The site is therefore considered to form part of the countryside.
7.8 Policy LP 10 of the Local Plan sets out that development in the countryside will be restricted to the limited and specific opportunities as provided for in other policies of this plan. Additionally, all development in the countryside must (in summary); a. Seek to use land of lower agricultural value in preference to land of higher value b. Recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside; and c. Not give rise to noise, odour, obtrusive light or other impacts that would adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the countryside by others
7.9 Policy LP 33 in relation to rural buildings, sets out that a proposal for a conversion of a building in the countryside that would not be dealt with through the prior approval procedure, will be supported where it can be demonstrated that: a. “The building is: i. redundant or disused ii. of permanent and substantial construction iii. not in such a state of dereliction or disrepair that significant reconstruction would be required; and iv. Structurally capable of being converted for the proposed use; and b. i. would lead to an enhancement of the immediate setting; and ii. any extension or alteration would not adversely affect the form, scale, massing or proportion of the building
7.10 A proposal for the replacement of a building in the countryside will be supported where criteria a, i to iii above are fulfilled and the proposal would lead to a clear and substantial enhancement of the immediate setting. A modest increase in floorspace will be supported.
7.11 The position of the replacement buildings within the site should be considered comprehensively so that it is located where it would have the least possible adverse impact on the immediate surroundings, the wider landscape and the amenity of users of existing buildings nearby”.
7.12 This proposal is for the demolition of the stable buildings on the site and the construction of 3 detached dwellings. As such, in terms of policy LP 33, in order to gain support for the proposal, it must be demonstrated that the proposal meets criterial a i to iii, and that the proposal would lead to a clear and substantial enhancement of its immediate setting.
7.13 The buildings proposed to be demolished to make way for the new dwellings are formed in a roughly U-shaped configuration with one side of the U being longer than the other. The buildings are constructed of a mix of breeze block walling (mainly to the elevations facing outwards, timber with differing corrugated roofing. Most of the buildings are dual pitched roofs. The existing plans label the tallest of the buildings as being 3.68 metres to the apex. The building containing the majority of the stables is 3.26 metres to the apex. The buildings contain a ground floor only.
Criteria a. i
7.14 The stables were, until last year occupied by horses owned by people other than the applicants or family as part of the livery business. Information has been submitted by a third party that provides a copy of a text notification to the customers sent on 22 March 2020 giving notice that the livery stables will close on 22 June 2020 and therefore the customers have 3 months to find somewhere else for their horses. The notice refers to further information posted on a notice at the yard. The agent was requested by the case officer to comment on the closing down of the business and replied that the livery business had been closed for some time and that the client parents no longer wish to operate the business. A few horses to graze on the land to the rear of the site which are still let out as paddocks for grazing. Note, the submitted application forms state the equestrian use is vacated but this is not entirely the case.
7.15 The current application was received on 17th August 2021. This is less than two months from the date the livery business was wound up. It is considered that the stables were deliberately closed to make way for the current planning application. Paragraph 8.33 which supports policy LP 33 sets out that a building is considered to be redundant or disused only where it has not been made vacant for the sole purpose of complying with the remaining criteria set out in this policy. Given that the occupiers of the stables were notified to quit by 22 June 2020 and the application was submitted less than two months later, it is reasonable to conclude the that stable buildings were made vacant for the sole purpose of complying with the other criteria of policy LP 33.
Criteria a. ii
7.16 No information has been submitted with the application to demonstrate that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction. For example, it is not known whether they have proper foundations and the state of repair of the buildings is unknown which would assist with understanding whether they can be said to be of permanent and substantial construction.
Criteria a. iii
7.17 The buildings to not appear to be in a state of dereliction or repair but as the proposal is for replacement and with houses and not replacement stables, this part of the criteria is rather a moot point. However, again the applicant has not demonstrated that this part of the relevant criteria is met.
7.18 Even if the above criteria had been met, the proposed buildings are so different from the existing buildings that in the opinion of the officer, the proposals cannot be said to constitute replacement buildings, not least that the stable buildings are not being proposed to be replaced with stable buildings but the scale, massing, appearance, materials and floorspace are completely different.
7.19 The submitted application form states that there will be no loss of non-residential floorspace, however, this is incorrect as the stables contain floorspace. Policy LP 33 states there were a replacement building is proposed a modest increase in floorspace will be supported. Floorspace means all floors and not just footprint. The application has not provided information on the measured floorspace of the existing and proposed. Measuring from electronic plans, the existing floor area of all the existing buildings shown to be demolished is approximately 430.16 square metres. The floorspace of the three proposed dwellings is approximately 525.8 square metres. This is considered to be more than a modest increase.
7.20 The proposal is not considered to represent a “clear and substantial enhancement of the immediate setting,” as required by policy LP 33. This will be explained further in the Design section of this report below.
7.21 The applicant’s statement says that the development will make good use of a brownfield site, will make efficient use of the land, securing the long-term future of the site. Equestrian use does not fall within the exemptions to brownfield land as defined in the glossary of the NPPF, and as such it is defined as brownfield land. This does not necessarily mean that it should be built on. Section 11 of the NPPF states that decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment. Amongst other things paragraph 118 of the NPPF states that decisions should “give substantial weight to the value of using brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, and support opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land.” This site is not within a settlement. The identified need for housing in Huntingdonshire is being met as can be evidence by the authority having more than a 5-year supply of housing and meeting its delivery targets. The land to which the stables is associated is still being used to graze horses and the stables were deliberately made redundant. There is no need to secure the long-term future use of the site and it could continue to be used for equestrian or agricultural purposes. It does not need to be developed for the proposed housing to secure its future. This scenario is a far cry from regenerating a disused former employment site or derelict land and does not therefore attract any weight in this particular regard when weighing this particular material consideration against the relevant development plan policies.
7.22 The proposal, therefore fails to meet the specific requirements of policy LP 33 and as such does not comply with policy LP 10 which restricts development in the countryside unless specific opportunities are provided for in other policies of the plan. The proposal is therefore unacceptable in principle and fails to accord with Policies LP2, LP10 and LP33 of the Local Plan to 2036 and would not accord with any of the opportunities for residential development in the countryside outlined in paragraph 79 of the NPPF (2019).
Design, Visual Amenity and the impact upon the Character of the Area 7.23 Policies LP11 and LP12 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 state that developments should respond positively to their context, draw inspiration from the key characteristics of its surroundings and contribute positively to the area’s character and identity.
7.24 Policy LP 33 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 requires that replacement buildings in the countryside will be supported where the proposals will lead to a clear and substantial enhancement of the immediate setting.
7.25 Paragraph 130 of the NPPF states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.
7.26 Paragraph 170 b) of the NPPF advises planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland.
7.27 The National Design Guide supports paragraph 130 of the NPPF. It sets out 10 key design characteristics. The first three of these are context, identity and built form. The guidance sets out how good design takes cues from its context including the characteristics of the immediate area and how well development integrates into its setting. Local identity is made up of typical characteristics such as the pattern of housing, and special features that are distinct from their surroundings. These special features can be distinguished by their uses and activity, their social and cultural importance, and/or their physical form and design. Most places have some positive elements of character, particularly for their users. Built form is about the arrangement of blocks of development and street patterns and the relationship between these elements that creates distinctive places to live.
7.28 The proposal involves the demolition of a group of single storey linked barns and stables that are in the main constructed of wood with simple dual pitched roofs. They are mainly elongated and typical of a type of agricultural/equestrian group of buildings one would expect to be associated with an equestrian/agricultural use of land. They have the effect of marking a transition from the residential built up part of the village into the countryside and this is how the buildings would “read” by passers by who use the public footpath to the east of the site. The tallest of the buildings to be demolished rises to 3.68 metres.
7.29 The proposal comprises 3 detached dwellings, two of which rise to approximately 7.0 metres tall and the other to approximately 6.75 metres tall. They appear as rather squat buildings due to the plinth design and are considered to be urban and “fussy” in their appearance. This is exacerbated by the varied ridge heights, gable projections and varying size and style of windows. There is nothing about them that relates them to the rural setting nor to their position on this site that current appears as the transition from residential/built up area to countryside via the scale and rural nature of the stable buildings. At present views back towards the village from the public footpath as runs north along the eastern edge of the field present a distinct east-west edge to the village along the rear of properties in Butcher’s Close, Spires End and Willow Farm Close. The stable buildings are located beyond this edge but as they are low rise and of a stable-yard appearance, they sit well within the surroundings and fit with the nature and character of the immediate area. The proposed new houses will stand out and will be viewed as a creep of urbanisation beyond the natural edge of the village into the open countryside. This does not lead to a clear and substantial enhancement of the immediate setting. If the principle of the development had been considered acceptable, the proposals would require a complete re-design. The Council’s Urban Design Team commented that if the principle of development were acceptable, then the proposed development should be limited to single storey development only through a series of linked barn-style dwellings with attached car barns in order to improve the relationship with the rural character of this edge of the village.
7.30 The proposal has not been designed with any reference to its context, the local identity or built form as set out in the National Design Guide. It is not possible to understand how the design of the three detached houses has come about given the site’s context.
7.31 It is also considered that the development area, if the principle were acceptable, should be limited to the location of the existing buildings only and not encroach into the area that is presently the menege in order to reduce the incursion of hard landscaping and residential paraphernalia into the open character beyond the stables.
7.32 As such, the proposal does not respond positively to its context within the surrounding built form and does not contribute positively to the areas character and identity. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Policies LP11 and LP12 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 and paragraph 130 of the NPPF (2019) in this regard.
Impact on Heritage Assets 7.33 The National Planning Policy Framework 2019 states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (Para 193) and that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting) should require clear and convincing justification (Para 194). The NPPF 2019 states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal (Para 196). Paragraph 189 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. Policy LP 34 requires applicants to undertake this task.
7.34 Policy LP34 of the Local Plan to 2036 outlines 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.
7.35 There are two grade II listed buildings in the vicinity of the site at 72 and 78 Hamerton Road. It is considered that the site of the proposed dwellings is too removed from these listed curtilages to affect the setting, especially as the development permitted under 18/01946/FUL will be intervening once constructed.
7.36 The edge of Alconbury Weston Conservation Area follows the east-west edge of the built-up area at this location as described above. It abuts the southern-most elevation of the stable buildings. As such the proposed main area of development is located just outside but abutting the Conservation Area. However, the existing access serving Salix House and providing the route of the public footpath towards the countryside to the rear is within the conservation area. As such, this part of the application site lies within the conservation area.
7.37 The submitted heritage statement makes no assessment of the significance of the Conservation Area. Paragraph 7.3 of this statement says that the proposal will “reinforce the existing in- depth developments. The proposed dwellings take their design cues from neighbouring properties and it does not constitute a detrimental impact on the adjacent conservation area.” There is no assessment of the character of the Conservation Area or the contribution that the countryside immediately to the north makes to its setting. There is no consideration as to the potential to deal with the transition the stables provide from conservation area out to the countryside beyond. There is no assessment from views from the public footpaths in the vicinity of view into and out of the conservation area. There is only reference to neighbouring properties in terms of design but no further detail. It is recognised that the Conservation Area designation pre-dates the development of the cul-de-sacs extending northwards from Hamerton Road to the east of the site. The Conservation Area requires re-appraisal by the Council. Nevertheless, the NPPF and Policy LP 34 of the Local Plan to 2036 require applicants to undertake an assessment of the Conservation Area and the impact that a proposed development will have upon it.
7.38 The application fails to demonstrate that the proposal has adequately assessed its impact upon the character and appearance of the conservation area and its setting. The proposed development replaces low rise buildings of a simple rural appearance with taller detached buildings and rear gardens which encroach into the open area at the rear of the conservation area. The submitted heritage statement, having provided no adequate assessment of the significance of the conservation area, cannot properly conclude that there is no detrimental impact. Given that it is considered that in terms of overall design, the proposals do not contribute positively to the areas character and identity with regard to design policies LP 11 and LP 12 and that the site abuts and is partially within the Conservation Area, the conclusion must be reached that the proposals do not preserve or enhance the character of appearance of the Conservation Area. As such, the proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset and the public benefits of the proposal to provide three market dwellings do not outweigh this harm. The proposed development is therefore not considered to accord with Policy LP34 of the Local Plan to 2036 and Chapter 16 (paragraphs 189 and 196) of the NPPF (2019). The local planning authority has had regard to its duty under Section 72 of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act in reaching this conclusion.
Impact on Residential Amenity 7.39 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.
7.40 The properties most likely affected by the proposals would be the host dwelling, Salix House and the future development approved under 18/01964/FUL, No’s 74 and 76 Hamerton Road which both border the western boundary of the site and potentially 1 – 3 Willow Farm Close whose rear gardens back onto the access off Hamerton Road.
7.41 In terms of direct impact upon the neighbouring dwellings and the potential for impact upon the interior of those dwellings, the proposed houses are of sufficient distance away so as not to cause issues of overlooking, overshadowing or being overbearing. Proposed plot 3 is approximately one metre away from the boundary with 74 Hamerton Road and specifically the stables that are within the curtilage to No. 74. The side elevation of plot 3 faces the rear of these stables and the only window in the proposed elevation is to a downstairs toilet. One of the issues raised by the owners of No. 74 is regarding potential complaints about smell from future occupiers. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer was asked about this particular issue and has advised that smell from horses is not usually a problem. Issues arise where there is poor husbandry and that HDC rarely has to deal with such complaints. If there were issues it would be necessary to take into account the neighbour’s stables and associated facilities are already in situ prior to any new houses being built. Given that the EHO does not consider that this would present an issue, it not a reason to refuse the application. It is also considered that the proposed plot 3 would not adversely affect light entering the stables and that in any event this could be afforded only low to moderate weight.
7.42 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).
Highway Safety, Parking Provision and Access 7.43 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.
7.44 Cambridgeshire County Council as the Local Highways Authority have reviewed the proposals and advised that the dimensions and vehicle to vehicle visibility splays need to be marked on the plans as they have on previous applications. Given that the proposed access has already been approved for use to serve the additional three dwellings approved under 18/01946/FUL, the dimensions of the access must be satisfactory and vehicle to vehicle visibility has relatively recently been accepted for the same access. It is considered that there is adequate land within the ownership of the applicant to provide adequate pedestrian visibility splays and if permission were being recommended this could be conditioned.
7.45 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 development provides enough space to provide cycle storage and if permission were being recommended, this would be conditioned.
7.46 Subject to conditions the proposed development is considered to accord with Policy LP17 of the Local Plan to 2036.
Biodiversity 7.47 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.
7.48 A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) has been submitted and identifies no significant ecological constraints within the site. Cambridgeshire Wildlife Trust and the Council’s Landscape Officer raised no concerns subject to the recommendations set out in the PEA being conditioned. These recommendations include; minimisation of external lighting, replacement trees on a one for one basis, avoidance of works during bird nesting season and if not a prior survey by a qualified ecologist to check for birds, provision of swallow nest boxes under the eaves, careful maintenance of the site up until development commences to reduce likelihood of amphibians and hedgehogs, enable escape routes during construction, rescue by an ecologist if necessary and provision of hedgehog friendly fencing. These measures would be necessary to avoid a net loss of biodiversity at the site. The report goes on to recommend enhancements to achieve a net gain in biodiversity. If permission were being recommended that compliance with all the recommendations in the PEA would be conditioned.
7.49 Subject to conditions the proposed development would be considered to accord with Policy LP30 of the Local Plan to 2036.
Trees 7.50 Policy LP31 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 requires proposals to demonstrate that the potential for adverse impacts on trees, woodland, hedges and hedgerows has been investigated and that a proposal will only be supported where it seeks to conserve and enhance any existing tree, woodland, hedge or hedgerow of value that would be affected by the proposed development.
7.51 The submitted PEA points to the boundary trees and vegetation as being the most ecologically valuable of the site. The HDC Landscape Officer advises that this confirms his view that arboricultural information should be submitted as part of the application. This would be the ideal. The existing landscape to the southern boundary is shared with the development site approved under 18/01946FUL in October 2019. Tree protection and landscaping was conditioned on this approval and if permission were being recommended for the current application, similar conditions would be imposed.
7.52 Subject to the imposition of compliance conditions, the proposed development would be in accordance with Policy LP31 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 and the NPPF (2019) in this regard.
Flood Risk 7.53 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.
7.54 The application site is situated in Flood Zone 1 which is the area at lowest probability of flooding, based on the Environment Agency Floods Maps and the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2017). The exception is the first part of the access where it adjoins Hamerton Road. The area along the Alconbury Brook and Hamerton Road lies within Flood Zone 3 and within an area susceptible to surface flooding. The photographs and comments from neighbours in relation to the flooding in January 2021 bear this out. The site where the development is proposed to take place is at a higher level than the road. Additional impermeable hard surfacing will be placed on the site to create the private drive and accesses to the dwellings.
7.55 The use of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems is advocated in the National Planning Practice Guidance. Policy LP 15 of the Local Plan states that a proposal will only be supported where surface water has been considered at the outset as an integral part of the design process and the proposal incorporates SuDs in accordance with the Cambridgeshire Flood and Water SPD. The application form states that surface water will be directed to the mains sewer. The application has not considered SuDs as an integral part of the development and is not proposing to provide a sustainable drainage system. There is a potential that an increase in surface water run-off as a result of the development could find its way onto the highway, thus potentially increasing the likelihood of flash flooding during heavy rainfall or surface water flooding after heavy rainfall.
7.56 The proposed development is therefore considered to accord with Policy LP5 of the Local Plan to 2036 as the vast majority of the site lies within flood zone 1 but does not comply with policy LP 15. The potential for an increase in surface water runoff from the site has not been considered at the outset and SuDs have not been explored. The proposal is therefore not acceptable in this regard and fails to accord with Policy LP15 of Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036.
Accessible and Adaptable Homes 7.57 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.
7.58 The applicant/ Agent has not confirmed via email that the proposed development is designed in accordance with, and will be built in accordance with the M4(2) standards, however, this is likely to be achievable and could be conditioned if approval were being recommended.
Water Efficiency 7.59 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.
7.60 The applicant/ Agent has not confirmed via email that the proposed development is designed in accordance with and will be built in accordance with the LP12 (j) standards, however, this is likely to be achievable and could be conditioned if approval were being recommended.
Other Issues Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL):
7.61 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:
7.62 A Unilateral Undertaking to secure the provision of wheeled bins has not been submitted as part of the application. On this basis the proposal would provide a satisfactory contribution to meet the tests within CIL Regulation 122 and paragraph 204 of the NPPF. The proposal would therefore not accord with Policy LP4 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 and the Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (2011). If approval were being recommended, it would be subject to the receipt of a completed UU/legal agreement.
The Planning Balance
7.63 Huntingdonshire District Council can evidence a 5-year housing land supply. The government’s desire to significantly boost the supply of housing is recognised, however, the provision of three market dwellings carries only limited weight particularly as the site is in the countryside. The most important policies for determining this application are Policies LP2, LP 10 and LP 33 of the Local Plan to 2036. The proposal is not in accordance with these policies. The limited weight that can be attributed to the provision of 3 market houses does not outweigh determination of the application in accordance with the development plan policies.
7.64 There are no other material planning considerations which have a significant bearing on the determination of this application.
Conclusion: 7.65 Overall, having regard to relevant national and local planning policy, it concluded that as: - The principle of the development of this site for three market dwellings in the countryside is unacceptable. - The proposed development does not respond positively to its context and the key characteristics of its surroundings due to the extent of the proposed plots and the height, massing/form and design of the dwellings - The proposed development would not maintain a neutral impact on heritage assets and the impact has not been adequately assessed in the submission. On this basis, it is considered that the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset and the public benefits of the proposal to provide three market dwellings do not outweigh this harm. - 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 with regards to the impact on trees. - The proposal is acceptable in terms of flood risk but is not acceptable with regard to surface water drainage as it does not propose or explore the use of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems.
7.66 There are no other material planning considerations which have a significant bearing on the determination of this application.
7.67 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 refused.
8. RECOMMENDATION - REFUSED for the following reasons.
Reason 1. The proposed development site lies within the countryside. Policy LP 10 restricts development in the countryside to opportunities as provided for in other policies within the plan and that development must recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Policy LP 33 enables support for the replacement of rural buildings where the building is redundant or disused, of permanent and substantial construction and is not in such a state of dereliction or disrepair that significant reconstruction is required; that the proposal would lead to a clear and substantial enhancement of the immediate setting and that a modest increase in floorspace will be supported. The stables/barns proposed to be demolished are considered to have been made vacant for the purposes of complying with policy LP 33 and no information has been submitted which evidences that these buildings are of a permanent and substantial construction. The floorspace of the proposed dwellings is approximately 100 square metres larger than the stables which is in excess of a modest increase and due to the extent of the plots and the scale, layout, massing and design of the proposed dwellings the development does not lead to a clear and substantial enhancement of the immediate setting. As such the proposal is contrary to policies LP 2, LP 10 and LP 33 of Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036 and paragraph 79 of the NPPF (2019).
Reason 2. The proposal does not respond positively to its context to help create distinctive and high-quality development and does not contribute positively to the areas character and identity. The proposal has not been designed with any reference to its context, the local identity or built form as set out in the National Design Guide. The extent of the site, the height, form/bulk and design of the proposals are out of character with existing transition the stables provide from settlement edge into countryside and do not represent a clear enhancement of the immediate setting. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policies LP10 b, LP11, LP12 and LP 33 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 and paragraphs 130 and 170 b) of the NPPF (2019) and guidance within the National Design Guide and Huntingdonshire Design Guide.
Reason 3. The application has failed to demonstrate that the significance of the Conservation Area and its setting, including public views into and out of the Conservation Area have been assessed and taken into account in the design of the proposal. The height, form/bulk and design of the proposals fails to preserve the existing character of the immediate setting whereby the edge of Conservation Area transitions into the open countryside through the existing low rise and simple vernacular of the stable buildings and manege area. As such the proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset and the public benefits of the proposal to provide three market dwellings do not outweigh this harm. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy LP 34 of Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036 and paragraphs 189 to 196 of the NPPF.
Reason 4. The submitted application forms states that surface water drainage will be provided via a mains connection. Surface water has not been considered at the outset as an integral part of the design and is particularly important in this area where the proposed access where it adjoins Hamerton Road is in an area at high risk of flooding and surface water drainage issues. The proposal does not include Sustainable Drainage Systems nor does it demonstrate that these are inappropriate and is therefore contrary to policy LP 15 of Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036.
Reason 5. The proposal is required to ensure that infrastructure is provided to make the development acceptable in planning terms which includes a contribution towards bin provision for each dwelling through a financial contribution delivered by submission of a completed Unilateral Undertaking. Such an Undertaking has not been provided therefore the proposal is contrary to policy LP 4 of Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036 and the Developer Contribution SPD (2011).
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 Pearson, Development Management North Team Leader – [email protected]
From: DMAdmin Sent: 23 September 2020 07:50 To: Control, Development (Planning) Subject: FW: Planning Permission Consultation - Salix Stud And Livery Hamerton Road Alconbury Weston (ref 20/01547/FUL)
From: Alison Benfield
Having considered this application at last nights Parish Council meeting it was resolved to RECOMMEND APPROVAL- There is a need for more housing in the village Well-designed use of space Ample access to and from the site Planned location of properties does not interfere with the working of the village or the traffic flow.
Kind regards Alison Benfield Parish Clerk
From: [email protected]
Dear Parish Clerk,
Please find correspondence from Development Management at Huntingdonshire District Council attached to this email in relation to the following application for planning permission.
Proposal: The erection of 3 detached dwellings, following the demolition of the stables and the re-use of the exercise yard associated with the disused equestrian use.
Site Address: Salix Stud And Livery Hamerton Road Alconbury Weston
Reference: 20/01547/FUL
Opting out of email correspondence ------
1 We are continually striving to improve the service we deliver to our customers. As part of this we are now contacting our customers by email where possible in an effort to provide a faster, more efficient service.
If you would prefer not to receive correspondence from us via email you have the right to opt out. If you wish to opt out please contact us at the address provided below so that we can remove your email details from our records.
Keeping safe on the internet ------You should never open a file attached to an email when you do not trust the sender's authenticity.
We will only contact you via email when you have already contacted us in relation to this specific application (or one directly related to it) and provided your email address as a contact - we will not transfer your contact details between unrelated applications.
If you have any doubts or concerns relating to this email please contact us directly, our contact details are provided below.
Development Management Huntingdonshire District Council
T: 01480 388388 E: [email protected]
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived
2 Development Management Committee Scale = 1 :1,250 Application Ref: 20/01547/FUL o Date Created: 03/06/2021 © Crown copyright and database rights 2021 Location:Alconbury Weston Ordnance Survey HDC 100022322
!
Key Listed Buildings Conservation Area The Site
C C
F E D
1:100 Elevation D-D
1:100 Elevation E-E
A A 1:100 Elevation F-F
F E D
B B 1:100 Existing Roof Plan
1:100 Elevation A-A
REV DATE BY REVISION NOTES Suite 2, Clare Hall, St Ives Business Park, Parsons Green, 1:100 Elevation B-B St Ives, Cambs, PE27 4WY
C COPYRIGHT
Tel: 01480 494969 PARTNERS Email: [email protected] in PLANNING Web: www.planningandarchitecture.co.uk and ARCHITECTURE
PROJECT Land at Salix House, Hamerton Road Alconbury Weston, Cambs
CLIENT 1:100 Elevation C-C Mr Baker DRAWING TITLE Existing Pans and Elevations SCALE 1:100 (METRES) DRAWN BY SCALE SD 1:100 @ A1 DATE DWG. No. REV. 17.07.20 2016.65.RD02 - N
Plot 3
Area Key: Plot 2
Exiting structures to be demolished: 415m2 Plot 1
Proposed Plots: Plot 1: 155m2
Plot 2: passing bay/visitor space 146m2
Plot 3: 155m2
Total: 456m2
REV DATE BY REVISION NOTES Suite 2, Clare Hall, St Ives Business Park, Parsons Green, St Ives, Cambs, PE27 4WY
C COPYRIGHT
Tel: 01480 494969 PARTNERS Email: [email protected] in PLANNING Web: www.planningandarchitecture.co.uk and ARCHITECTURE
PROJECT Land at Salix House, Hamerton Road Alconbury Weston, Cambs
CLIENT Mr Baker
DRAWING TITLE Proposed Block Plan
SCALE 1:200 (METRES) DRAWN BY SCALE SD 1:100 @ A1 1:200 Block Plan DATE DWG. No. REV. 17.07.20 2016.65.RD03 -