Report by Planning Services Manager (Development Management))

AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PANEL 21 December 2009

APPEAL DECISIONS (Report by Planning Services Manager (Development Management))

HEARING

1. Appellant : Mr and Mrs A I Fraser Dismissed 23.10.09 Unauthorised works to listed building 24 Middle Street Great Gransden

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS

2. Appellant : Mr P Stubbs Dismissed Agent: Mr J Hartley 23.10.09

Proposed orangery The Old Coach House London Road Wansford

3. Appellant : Mr J Blarwick Dismissed Agent: Toby Pateman Architect Ltd 26.10.09

Caravan storage facility Cherry Hill Farm Keyston Road Covington

4. Ap pellant : Mr A Wolf Dismissed Agent: Bird and Tyler Associates 26.10.09

Erection of two storey extension and replacement of flat roof with pitched roof Weybridge Lodge Woolley Road Alconbury

5. Ap pellant : Vodaphone UK Ltd Allowed Agent: Mono Consultants Ltd 27.10.09

Erection of 12m high antenna column and equipment cabinet Huntingdon Northern Bypass Hartford

6. Appellant: Church Commissioners for England Dismissed Agent Smiths Gore 27.10.09

Erection of dwelling Land at Manor Farm Spaldwick Road Stow Longa

7. Appellant: Heritage Homes Ltd Dismissed Agent Matrix Planning Ltd 27.10.09

Erection of two dwellings 53 High Street Stilton Application for Partial Award of Costs Against Council Granted 09.11.09

8. Appellant: Ely Diocesan Board of Finance Dismissed Agent Alison Harker 02.11.09

Erection of dwelling Land adjacent the Vicarage Church Way Alconbury

9. Appellant: Mr Cronin Allowed Agent None 04.11.09

Two storey extension to dwelling 16 Milton Avenue Eaton Ford

HEARING

1. 0700038ENLBCA Unauthorised works to listed building 24 Middle Street, Great Gransden Mr & Mrs A I Fraser

A Listed Building Enforcement Notice was issued on 6 April 2009 in respect of the construction of a spiral staircase, the blocking up of an existing staircase and its conversion into a cupboard, and the insertion of a boiler extraction flue.

The Notice was issued because the works were contrary to Policies En2 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 and B7 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 and the advice contained in PPG 15, and it was considered that listed building consent should not be granted because planning conditions could not overcome these objections.

A Hearing was held on 22 September 2009.

The Inspector’s Reasons:

• The main issue was identified as the effect of the works on the special architectural and historic interest of the Grade 2* listed building • The floor, part of which had been removed to create an opening to accommodate the spiral staircase, probably only dated back to the 1930’s. The balustrades were probably made of plastered breeze block and the newel posts may have come from an ornate bed. The floor and the balustrade were of little historic interest • The blocked up stair case was a piece of poorly constructed builder’s work resulting in an impractical layout and was of little importance to the very considerable architectural and historic interest of the house as a whole • The spiral staircase is unobtrusive and improves the layout of the bedroom. Its form and construction serves to differentiate the later extension from the ancient part of the house • Although now removed, the boiler flue was clearly harmful to the appearance of the listed building and its special architectural and historic interest. • The works did not have any impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area

The Listed Building Enforcement Notice was upheld but varied to delete reference to removal of the spiral staircase and the reinstatement of the floor, the re-opening the existing staircase, and the reinstatement of newel posts and handrails.

Listed building consent was granted for the construction of the spiral staircase and the blocking up of the existing staircase and its conversion into a cupboard.

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS

2. 0900698FUL Proposed orangery The Old Coach House London Road, Wansford Mr P Stubbs

Planning permission was refused under delegation agreement against the recommendation of the Parish Council for the following reason:

1. The proposed form and design detail would conflict with the predominantly simple form and appearance of the existing building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Development Plan Policies, HIPPS 2007 and the SCS Incorporating Proposed Changes 2009 relating to preserving and enhancing the distinctiveness of villages and areas of architectural/historic importance.

The Inspector’s Reasons

• The Old Coach House lies behind buildings fronting London Road/Elton Road. The Inspector found that the proposed orangery would modify the original form of the building in an unsympathetic manner. In general terms, the design of the extension would harmfully complicate the relatively simple lines and form of the existing dwelling.

• Whilst the extension would only be visible from the west bank of the Nene in a limited way due to partial screening, there is no certainty that this screening would remain in the long term. In those circumstances the unsatisfactory relationship between the extension and the existing house would come more distinctly into view. Although the suggested materials would partially mitigate the unsatisfactory relationship, the Inspector concluded that it is insufficient to overcome the material harm done to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The appeal was dismissed

The link to this planning application in Public Access is: http://planning.huntsdc.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_det ailview.aspx?caseno=IU9IJ9IKS0000

3. 0803124FUL Caravan Storage facility Cherry Hill Farm Keyston Road Covington Mr Blarwick

Planning permission was refused under delegation agreement in accordance with the recommendation of Bythorn and Keyston Parish Council for the following reason, Catworth Parish Council did not comment:

1. The unsustainable rural location of the site would represent an intrusion into the countryside where no justification has been demonstrated. The applicant has failed to justify that the proposal constitutes farm diversification and therefore there is no justification to contravene policy which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake. The proposal is therefore contrary to PPS1, PPS7, SS1 and ENV7 of the East of England Plan, Development Plan Policy, HIPPS (2007) and SCS (2008).

The Inspector’s Reasons

• The appeal site is in a remote and secluded part of the District approached via a network of narrow rural lanes. HIPPS Policy E5 seeks to facilitate farm diversification in order to support agricultural businesses but the appellant occupies only 2.4ha of land, the benefits of the proposed use to the rural economy have not been established and the unit does not generate sufficient income to make it a viable farm enterprise. Therefore, the Inspector found that farm diversification cannot carry any weight in offsetting the objections based on clear planning policies.

• The site is poorly related to the nearest towns. The use is one which is best located close to towns to minimise the transport of caravans to the site and to be more accessible for their owners. The Inspector accepted that the site is well screened but considered that the caravans would be visible through the eastern hedgerow from the adjacent bridleway, especially in winter months.

The appeal was dismissed. The link to this planning application in Public Access is: http://planning.huntsdc.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_det ailview.aspx?caseno=IU9IJ9IKS0000

4. 0900682FUL Erection of two storey extension and replacement of flat roof to pitched Weybridge Lodge, Woolley Road Alconbury Mr A Wolf

Planning permission was refused under delegation agreement contrary to the recommendation of the Parish Council for the following reason:

1. The proposed two storey extension projects beyond the existing side elevation creating an awkward relationship. The proposal does not complement the form or character of the dwelling. The fenestration is considered poor and does not result in a balanced elevation with a simple cohesive arrangement. The proposal is contrary to PPS1, PPS7, Development Plan Policy, Policy CS1 of the SCS, Policy B1 of HIPPS and the Huntingdonshire Design Guide.

The Inspector’s Reasons

• The Inspector considered that the extensions and alterations proposed would not restore the house to its original or most favourable appearance. He agreed with the Council that the general scale of the proposal is acceptable but considered the fenestration raises an issue for the appearance of the enlarged and altered house. The Inspector considered that in terms of its fenestration the appeal proposal would be materially harmful to the design and appearance of Weybridge Lodge as a whole.

The appeal was dismissed. The link to this planning application in Public Access is: http://planning.huntsdc.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_det ailview.aspx?caseno=IU9IJ9IKS0000

5. 0803088TELDET Erection of 12m high antenna column and 5

equipment cabinet Land north of Huntingdon northern bypass, Hartford

Prior Approval was refused under delegation agreement contrary to the recommendation of the Town Council for the following reason:-

1. The road carries high speed traffic and it is considered that, due to the servicing of the equipment and associated turning movements on the highway, the siting in the location proposed would have a significant detrimental impact on highway safety. As such the proposed siting is not considered to be acceptable.

The Inspector’s Reasons

• The site of the proposed development in on the highway verge on a very straight section of the A141 where high speeds are likely. The Inspector considered road safety as being a very important consideration in this case due to expectation of drivers to adopt high speeds along this stretch of straight road. However, once constructed this installation would only need servicing once or twice a year. He was satisfied that the need for a mast in this location is well founded in view of the unsuccessful exploration of alternative sites that has taken place and the substantial gap in the service that currently exists in the Hartford area. He concluded that the need combined with the infrequent requirements for access outweighs the concerns of the Council regarding highway safety.

The appeal was allowed subject to conditions including a requirement for provision of safety fencing prior to completion of the installation. The link to this planning application in Public Access is: http://planning.huntsdc.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_det ailview.aspx?caseno=HIDEL7IKF1000

6. 0900226FUL Erection of a dwelling Land at Manor Farm Spaldwick Road Stow Longa Mr Hazlehurst

Planning permission was refused under delegation agreement in accordance with the recommendation of the Parish Council for the following reasons:-

1. The proposed dwelling is located outside of the built-up framework of the village and in the countryside. It would cause harm by its intrusion into the countryside and would be detrimental to the rural character of the area. It would therefore be contrary to Development Plan Policy, HIPPS 2007 SCS 2008 and Huntingdonshire Townscape and Landscape Assessment 2007.

2. The siting, design scale and overall footprint of the dwelling would introduce a built form which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the wider character of the village. As such the proposal would be contrary to Development Plan Policy, HIPPS 2007, SCS 2008 and Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2007.

3. The new dwelling would be remote from services and as a result the occupiers would be car dependant. This will result in additional motor journeys and as such the proposal is considered to be unsustainable. It is therefore contrary to SCS 2008 and National Guidance PPS1, PPS3 and PPG13.

The Inspector’s Reasons

• The appeal site is at the eastern edge of Stow Longa and comprises part of the large garden attached to Manor Farm. The site is outside of the Conservation Area and there are two listed buildings opposite the site. The Inspector considered that in view of the age of the development plan and the conformity of both HIPSS 2007 and SCS 2008 with national guidance and regional policy he attached considerable weight to these policies. The Inspector found from his site visit the village has a clearly defined firm edge formed by No. 31 and its high eastern hedgerow and considered that Manor Farm to be a building clearly detached from the main body of the settlement. The extension of the ribbon of development on the southern side of the road would weaken the character of the Conservation Area and the proposal would therefore, fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

• Stow Longa is a small village having only a church and limited bus service by way of local facilities and services. The Inspector considered that the appeal site is in the sort of rural location where the private car is likely to the most dominant means of transport and the overall emphasis of national policy is to discourage development in such locations, he concluded that the proposal would result in an unsustainable form of development.

The appeal was dismissed The link to this planning application in Public Access is: http://planning.huntsdc.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_det ailview.aspx?caseno=HIDEL7IKF1000

7. 0803358FUL Erection of two detached houses 53 High Street Stilton Heritage Homes Ltd

Planning permission was refused under delegation agreement in accordance with the recommendation of the Parish Council for the following reasons:

1. The development fails to respect the pattern of frontage development along High Street which forms part of an important transition area between the existing houses and countryside. The relatively cramped layout and the bulk and design of the development would be intrusive and incongruous and would fail to create an attractive and sympathetic form of development that relates well to its surroundings. The proposal is therefore contrary to Development Plan Policy, HIPPS 2007 and SCS 2008.

2 The development is outside the built-up framework of the village. Furthermore Stilton is a smaller settlement which has limited services. The development would also result in additional motor journeys which would not be sustainable. The proposal is therefore contrary to HIPPS 2007, SCS 2008 and ENG1 of the East of England Plan. 7

3 The dwelling on plot 2 would be close to the A1(m) trunk road, the noise report accompanying the application states that the daytime NEC is C. Furthermore, as the plot is close to the slow lane of the trunk road and a noise bund, a high level of relatively low frequency noise is likely to impact on the property, particularly at first floor level, which will detract from the amenities of the future occupants. As there is no special justification for approving an NEC C development the proposal is contrary to the guidance of PPG24 and Policy B4 of the HIPPS 2007.

4 A first floor window of plot 1 would result in overlooking of the rear garden of 51a High Street which would detract from the privacy and amenities of the occupiers contrary to Policy H31 of the Local Plan and B4 of the HIPPS.

5 The proposal would result in an unsatisfactory relationship with the mature ash tree which is protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The threat to the tree is unacceptable because harm to the tree would detract from the amenity and character of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Development Plan Policy, and HIPPS.

The Inspector’s Reasons

• The appeal site comprises a neglected 2 storey dwelling and its long back garden. The immediate character of the area on both sides of the High Street is determined by deep set-backs of the nearby dwellings and their long back gardens. The proposed development would therefore have a different form from its immediate neighbours. The Inspector considered the site and adjacent land of a similar nature represents a valuable feature of transition between countryside to the south and the more built up development in Stilton to the north.

• The site is subject to noise intrusion from the traffic on the adjacent motorway. A noise survey by the appellant places the site within NEC C of PPG24. This would indicate that a condition would normally be capable of satisfactorily mitigating the internal effects of the trunk road. However, the Inspector was very aware of the constant high traffic noise levels during his site visit and concluded that the noise from the adjacent highway would have a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of the proposed dwellings.

• The proposed dwellings have been designed to ensure minimal overlooking of the adjacent property No. 51A High Street and the Inspector considered that the distance and angle of the proposed dwelling would prevent overlooking of all but the end part of the garden to No. 51A and the harm would not be significant enough to dismiss the appeal on this basis alone. However, the mass of buildings would be very close to the boundary with No 51A and intrusive in the outlook of its occupants from the rear of this property. The Inspector considered this would impact oppressively on the occupants’ enjoyment of their property and concluded that there would be a harmful impact on the outlook of the occupiers of the adjacent property.

• Significant harm to the form and amenity value of trees within the site was carried out and the remaining ash tree is the only tree 8

which needs to be considered from the point of view of shading and protection in relation to the construction of both the proposed dwellings. The Inspector was satisfied that the proximity and size of the tree would not have a significant shadowing effect nor be a cause for concern regarding lopping or felling.

The appeal was dismissed

APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF COSTS AGAINST THE COUNCIL

• The Inspector considered the application for costs in the light of Circular 3/09 and all relevant circumstances. He found that whilst the Council had acted reasonably in forming its judgement of the noise situation at the site in the context of PPG24 guidance it did not substantiate that element of its reason for refusal relating to low frequency noise. Therefore he concluded that the Council acted unreasonably, causing the appellant to commission additional work by its noise consultant.

The application for an award of partial costs against the Council was granted so far as they relate to the additional work needed to address the element of reason 3 for refusal relating to low frequency noise.

The link to this planning application in Public Access is: http://planning.huntsdc.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_det ailview.aspx?caseno=HIDEL7IKF1000

8. 0803277FUL Erection of a dwelling land adjacent the Vicarage Church Way Alconbury Ely Diocesan Board of Finance

Planning permission was refused under delegation agreement. The Parish Council made no comments either in favour or against the proposal. The reasons for refusal are as follows:-

1 The siting of the dwelling outside of the built-up area of the village would cause harm through the introduction of built form in a landscaped gap without justification of a rural need. As such the proposal would be contrary to Development Plan Policy, HIPPS 2007 and SCS 2008.

2. The location, design and in particular the size, scale and built form would introduce a built form which would harm and not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would not be sensitive to the setting of the adjacent listed buildings. As such the proposal would be contrary to PPS1, PPG15 Development Plan Policy HIPPS2007 and SCS 2008 and Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2007.

3 The siting and resultant loss of a Pear tree would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and to a feature of nature value contrary to PPS9, Development Plan Policy, HIPPS 2007 and SCS 2008.

The Inspector’s Reasons

• The formal identification of built up areas is yet to be undertaken but the Council consider the appeal site as outside the built-up area because of factors of detachment and character. The Inspector found that the Council is not unreasonable in regarding the appeal site as outside the built-up area of Alconbury, even in advance of the formal definition of such limits in a Development Plan Document.

• He considered that the proposed dwelling would extend the built- up character of the lower part of Church Way at the expense of the more restful and natural character of the approach to the Church and churchyard. Increased vehicular and domestic activity would intrude upon the peaceful character of the approach to the churchyard entrance.

• The visual harm would be increased by the proposed felling of an established pear tree. The Inspector agreed with the Council that this tree does make a material contribution towards the visual character of the Conservation Area and is visible from Church Way and the public footpath.

The appeal was dismissed The link to this planning application in Public Access is: http://planning.huntsdc.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_det ailview.aspx?caseno=HIDEL7IKF1000

9. 0900402FUL Two storey extension to dwelling 16 Milton Avenue Eaton Ford Mr Cronin

Planning permission was refused under delegation agreement in accordance with the recommendation of the Town Council for the following reason:-

1 The area is characterised by detached two storey dwellings with open, landscaped front gardens which softens the wider urban development. The siting of this extension in this location would result in the introduction of a dominant and incongruous feature, when viewed from the south and east. This extension would intrude into this important open space to the south of the dwelling, detrimental to the visual amenity and prominent setting of this corner. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy En25 of the Local Plan and Policy B1 of HIPPS 2007.

The Inspector’s Reasons

• The existing character of the area is formed by regularly spaced houses set behind open plan landscaped frontages. Most of the dwellings are generously planted with semi-mature trees and shrubs giving an overall attractive suburban appearance to the area. The space at the side of the appeal property is substantially wider that on most other corner situations in the area. The Inspector considered that the proposal would appear subservient to the main dwelling in all important views and that sufficient space would remain at the side of the dwelling for it to retain the original open plan design theme of the estate without threat to the existing vegetation. He did not consider that the extension would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area or the street scene in Stevenson Court or Milton Avenue. 10

The appeal was allowed subject to condition including a requirement for the approval of a tree protection scheme

The link to this planning application in Public Access is: http://planning.huntsdc.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_det ailview.aspx?caseno=HIDEL7IKF1000

Background Papers: Relevant Appeal Files CONTACT OFFICER - enquiries about this Report to Mrs J Holland, Administrative Officer, 01480 388418.

FORTHCOMING APPEALS

Public Inquirys

Commencing 15 December 2009 Land West Of Tesco, Barford Road, Eynesbury

Commencing 26 January 2010 Upwood Road, Bury.