Development Management Committee 18November 2019

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 18 NOVEMBER 2019

Case No: 19/00652/FUL (Full Planning Application)

Proposal: Demolish existing house and erect 10no. 3-5 bedroom dwellings with associated parking. New road proposed off of Stow Road

Location: House On The Hill Stow Road Spaldwick Huntingdon

Applicant: Mrs Racey

Grid Ref: 512459 272529

Date of Registration: 28.03.2019

Parish: Spaldwick RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE

This application is referred to the Development Management Committee as the proposed development represents a departure from the Development Plan and Spaldwick Parish Councils recommendation of Approval is contrary to the officer's recommendation of Refusal.

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The site is located in a prominent position to the south west edge of the village of Spaldwick and comprises a large two storey detached dwelling with several outbuildings. The western end of the site was once agricultural land which is evident by the medieval ridge and furrows that run through the site along with the fruit trees and store. The levels within the site drop significantly from the house and Stow Road down to the south and west. The site is enclosed by hedge planting and established trees and there are many established trees dotted within the site and a pond, agricultural land abuts the site on its north, south and west boundary. The site is not in an area of high risk of flooding (Flood Zone 1).

1.2 The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of 10 No. 3 - 5 bedroom dwellings with parking, access road and new access off of Stow Road. 1.3 The application is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment by Binney & Sims dated 26/03/2019.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2019) sets out the three economic, social and environmental objectives of the planning system to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The NPPF confirms that 'So sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policies for: • delivering a sufficient supply of homes; • achieving well-designed places; • conserving and enhancing the natural environment; • conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

2.2 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 (2019): • LP1: Amount of Development • LP2: Strategy for Development • LP4: Contributing to Infrastructure Delivery • LP6: Waste Water Management • 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 • December 2018 Annual Monitoring Review regarding housing land supply. Local For full details visit the government website Local policies

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 96/00602/FUL - Extension to dwelling - Approved 10.06.1996.

4.2 96/01522/FUL - Erection of conservatory - Approved 20.12.1996.

4.3 17/01904/FUL- Demolition of existing garage, dormer bungalow incorporating disabled facilities - Approved 13.12.2017.

4.4 18/70071/PENQ - Demolish existing house on the site and the construction of 11 No. Houses and 2 No. Bungalows - Officers supported the proposed two plots along the frontage of the site, the plots to the rear were considered to be outside of the built up area and were not supported by officers - 11.06.2018.

4.5 18/01500/NMA - Amendment to 17/01904/FUL - Changing dormer materials from render to light grey UPVC cladding. Removal of side window in bedroom and round window to front gable porch. Addition of rooflight to front elevation - Approved 23.07.2018.

4.6 18/02235/FUL - Demolish existing house and erect 10 No. detached 4 - 5 bedroom dwellings with associated parking. New road proposed off of Stow Road - Withdrawn 31.01.2019.

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Spaldwick Parish Council - Recommends approval (COPY ATTACHED) and commented - On the basis that it is a small development that will contribute to the economic future of the village.

The Parish Council would like to see development proposing affordable housing in the village but suggest a footpath on both sides of Stow Road, (up to Mount Pleasant on one side and to link up with the existing footpath on the other side), to allow for a potential increased school-age population. 5.2 CCC Local Highway Authority (LHA): deferred a decision until amended plans were received and commented: The proposal in its current format is not conducive to the LHA's adoption requirements and therefore until the below comments are resolved the LHA would not look to adopt the development. HDC would have to be content that this scale of development is acceptable to be served off of a private road. For the site to be adopted by the LHA the following will need to be amended: • Basic geometric features should be detailed on the plan. I.E carriageway widths, footway widths, kerb radii etc. • The access road will need to be amended to take out the spurious kinks in the alignment. • Footways will need to be provided either side of the development, wrapped around to the tangent point on Stow Road and all accesses formed as dropped kerb crossovers rather than bell mouths. • A footway will need to be provided across Stow Road linking into the existing pedestrian network with dropped kerb crossovers. • Vehicle to vehicle visibility splays will need to be provided at the access with Stow Road detailed as 2.4m x 43m with no obstruction over 0.6m. • Permeable tarmac is not an acceptable material to be proposing for the LHA to adopt. It should be constructed in traditional tarmac with a positive drainage system. • Auto track plans should be provided throughout the development for the largest vehicle (11.5m Dennis eagle refuse vehicle, HDC to confirm) passing a standard vehicle. • 2m x 2m with no obstruction over 0.6m vehicle to pedestrian visibility splays should be detailed on all accesses. • HDC to confirm if the level of parking is suitable for the scale of the development. • Please confirm the need for the footway running alongside plot J. If HDC is happy for this scale of development to remain private, then the access should be a minimum of 5m wide with 6m kerb radii, sealed and drained away from the highway for the first 10m. The access should be constructed in accordance with CCC Housing Estate Road Construction specification 2018.

Officer response: The above matters remain outstanding. Conditions could be added to the decision notice requiring the access to meet the recommended requirements above should the Authority agree for the development to remain private. 5.3 Internal Drainage Board (IDB) / Alconbury & Ellington - commented: The board notes that the intended method of storm water discharge is via a balancing facility however there are not details as to how SUDS techniques will be incorporated at this site. The Board therefore suggest that planning permission should not be granted without conditions requiring that the applicant's storm water design and construction proposals are adequate before any development commences. Please include a suitably worded condition in any planning permission that may be granted.

Officer response: A suitably worded condition could be added to the decision notice.

5.4 CCC Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) - Commented: We have reviewed the following documents: Flood Risk Assessment, Binney and Sims Design Ltd, 416-4.Dated 26.03.2019. 1. Insufficient detail in submitted Flood Risk Assessment, the submitted Flood Risk Assessment does not contain sufficient detail on potential flood risk at the site and the proposed surface water drainage strategy. Paragraph 163 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires planning application to be supported by a site specific flood risk assessment. Such an assessment should include a surface water strategy and must demonstrate that the proposed development incorporates sustainable drainage systems (SUDS), unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate. The SUDS should: a) Take account of advice from the Lead Local Flood Authority: b) Have appropriate minimum operational standards; c) have maintenance arrangements in place to ensure an acceptable standard of operation for the lifetime of the development; and) where possible, provide multifunctional benefits. As a flood risk assessment/surface water strategy containing the above information has not been submitted there is insufficient information in order for us to determine the impacts of the proposals. The comments go on to advise where developers can find assistance and requested informatives in regards to infiltration rates and IDB consent required.

Officer response: This matter remains outstanding. 5.5 Anglian Water - Commented: Desktop analysis has suggested that the proposed development will lead to an unacceptable risk of flooding downstream. We highly recommend that you engage with Anglian Water at your earliest convenience to develop in consultation with us a feasible drainage strategy. 1. Our records show that there are no assets owned by Anglian Water or those subject to an adoption agreement within the development site boundary. 2. The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Easton (Cambs) Water Recycling Centre that will have available capacity for these flows. 3. The development will lead to an unacceptable risk of flooding downstream. Anglian Water will need to plan effectively for the proposed development, if permission is granted. We will need to work with the applicant to ensure any infrastructure improvements are delivered in line with the development. A full assessment cannot be made due to lack of information; the applicant has not identified a discharge rate. We therefore request a condition requiring an on-site drainage strategy. The comments go on to request 5 separate informatives. 4. The preferred method of surface water disposal would be to a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) with connection to sewer seen as the last option. Building regulations (Part H) on Drainage and Waste Disposal for England includes a surface water drainage hierarchy, with infiltration on site as the preferred disposal option, followed by discharge to watercourse and the connection to a sewer. The surface water strategy/flood risk assessment submitted with the planning application relevant to Anglian Water is unacceptable. No evidence has been provided to show that the surface water hierarchy has been followed as stipulated in Building Regulations Part H. This encompasses the trial pit logs from the infiltration tests and the investigation in to discharging to a watercourse. If these methods are deemed to be unfeasible for the site, we require confirmation of the intended manhole connection point and discharge rate proposed before a connection to the public surface water sewer is permitted. We would therefore recommend that the applicant needs to consult with Anglian Water and the Environment Agency. We request that the agreed strategy is reflected in the planning approval. 5. Anglian Water would therefore recommend the following planning conditions if the local planning Authority is mindful to grant planning approval. 1. Details of on- site foul water drainage works prior to the occupation of any phase, 2. Details of a surface water management strategy.

Officer response: this matter remains outstanding, should members decide to approve the application contrary to the officer's recommendation, the requested conditions would need to be added to the decision notice.

5.6 HDC Waste - No objections, commented as follows: I understand the road will not be an adopted highway therefore can we ensure that the road surface is constructed to an adoptable standard which refuse vehicles can access. We will also require an indemnity agreement against any surface damage.

5.7 Cadent Gas Ltd and Nation Grid - No objections.

5.8 CCC Archaeology - No objections, commented: Our records indicate that this site lies in an area of archaeological potential, south-east of the medieval core of Spaldwick and within its agricultural hinterland, but also positioned between the former deserted medieval settlement sites of Upthorpe to the south-east (Cambridgeshire Historic Environment Record reference 00718) and Danesfield to the north (CHER ref 00719). Danesfield, 150m to the north of the application site and positioned within the area now enclosed by Thrapston Road and Stow Road, survives as upstanding earthworks of an irregular enclosure and rampart along with associated terraces and scarps and is thought to represent a possible early manorial site. Medieval ridge and furrow agriculture is also visible as earthworks in the field on the east side of Stow Road, directly opposite the proposed development site (MCB24962). Medieval settlement remains have previously been identified during archaeological investigations to the east of the application are at Ferriman Road (ECB259) and it is thought that similar remains could survive within the development area and that these would be destroyed or damaged by the proposed development. We do not object to development proceeding in this location but consider that the site should be subject to a programme of archaeological investigation secured through the inclusion of a negative condition, such as the example condition approved by DCLG prior to any demolition/development.

5.9 The Wildlife Trust (WT) - Commented: I have previously provided comments on the ecological survey for this application in relation to a previous scheme (now withdrawn) as follows: Firstly, barn owls have been recorded using an existing barn on site and the PEA refers to the proposals demolishing this structure and therefore proposes compensation through erection of barn owl boxes. However, the supporting statement and plans show the barn to be retained. As noted in the ecological report, even if retained, the barn is likely to become unsuitable for nesting barn owl depending on its future use and disturbance in the surrounding area. With regards to great crested newts, the on-site pond has not been assessed as it was dry at the time of survey. As the survey was done in July of an unusually dry summer, it should not be assumed that the pond never holds water and is unsuitable for newts. In addition the off- site pond was given an HSI score of 0.63 which was listed as below average but is actually (see table on page 23) average suitability for newts. Predicted pond occupancy for average scoring ponds is 55%, not 0.2% as stated. There is also some confusion within the recommended newt avoidance measures, with point 8 referring to clearance taking place after presence/absence survey (completed late April 2015), and point 10 to the pond being emptied by bucket (which indicates an expectation that the pond will not be dry). I recommend a re-assessment of the on-site pond, and of the potential need for further newt surveys. I welcome the proposal within the PEA for the production of an ecological enhancement strategy, which could incorporate some of the suggestions in section 4.4. This should include any revised recommendations regarding barn owls and great crested newts. In order for the proposals to deliver a net gain in biodiversity, in line with local and national planning policy, some habitat enhancements will be required. I note that the plans now show a number of locations for bird/owl boxes and the retention of the existing pond as well as an amenity/low maintenance wildlife area to the west of the site. Should permission be granted, the proposed ecological enhancement strategy should be required by way of a suitably worded planning condition. This should provide further details including: suitable types and locations of bird and owl boxes, types of habitats to be created in the wildlife area, and management to establish and maintain these, and to enhance the existing pond, incorporating some of the suggested enhancements in section 4.4 of the report. I also advise that the applicant's ecologist review the recommendations of the original PEA, with reference to the updated proposals. It is best practice (BS42020, CIEEM) for an ecological assessment to refer to the specific proposed development and focus on how biodiversity could be affected by that development, therefore I consider it also best practice to ask for an update to the recommendations of the report from the ecologist, given the scheme has changed (including the retention of the pond, etc.) Any revised recommendations and assessment of the potential for great crested newts as discussed above should be provided before this application is determined.

Officer response: An amended ecological report was submitted and re-consultation took place.

5.10 Amended Wildlife Trust comments - The amended ecological report appears to have no changes apart from the replacement of the proposed site map, therefore I have nothing further to add to my previous comments. This matter remains outstanding.

Officer response: this matter remains outstanding.

5.11 HDC Landscaping - Objects to the proposals and commented: the scheme is outside of the built up area of Spaldwick and represents an incursion into the wider countryside, with adverse landscape and visual erects on the character and appearance of the countryside surrounding the village. As well as potential removal of B category trees, there is also large scale removal of C category trees and hedges. This too will augment adverse landscape and visual effects, and equally importantly also result in a significant loss in biodiversity, when compared to the existing site. The submitted PEA [August 2018] in its para 4.4 discusses biodiversity gain but it does not include any detailed calculation of existing biodiversity on the site. If the proposals are to be recommended for approval it is considered that a recognised Biodiversity Impact Calculator [BIC] is used to compare existing and proposed schemes and to demonstrate that a net gain will be achieved. This should be submitted and agreed before any determination.

Officer response: this matter remains outstanding.

5.12 HDC Urban Design - The submitted scheme fails to respond positively to the surrounding context and is considered contrary to Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 policy LP12 Design Context, LP13 Design Implementation, and chapter 2 (context and Local Distinctiveness) and 3 (Place Making Principles) of the HDC Design Guide (2017). New development should be limited to a single row of dwellings fronting Stow Road to maintain the established linear form of development. Should the principle of back land development be considered acceptable in policy terms it is recommend that the current application is withdrawn and revised PENQ submission provided. Discussions should be had with urban design to develop a revised layout and typology for units at the rear of the site (smaller scale single storey/1.5 storey barn like dwellings arranged in a cluster of units around a shared parking area/yard/car barns is suggested to relate to the rural setting of the site is recommended).

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 Representations were received from 55, 56, 57 & 58 Stow Road raising the following objections to the proposals: • increase in traffic • over development of the site • highway safety/access • no safe pedestrian route to the school the footpath should be extended. • impact on the village • Sustainability issues and lack of services in the village for this type of development • the proposal doesn't contribute to the mix of housing type and size having regard to the current strategic Housing Market Assessment, • Effect on the character of the settlement and surroundings • lack of public transport • parking • Ecological and environmental impacts significant • Drainage • impact on the amenity of neighbours • sets a president for development on the edge of the village with green field site owners • loss of views

7. ASSESSMENT

7.1 This report assesses the following principal, important and controversial issues: • The Principle of the development and design • Impact on the character and appearance of the area • Residential Amenity • Access and Highway Safety • Waste Water Management • Trees and Landscaping • Ecology, Biodiversity and Geodiversity • Infrastructure requirements and Planning Obligations • Housing Mix

The Principle of the Development 7.2 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (Section 38(6)) identifies that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This is reiterated within the NPPF 2019. Under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 when dealing with planning applications, the Local Planning Authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations. 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 The majority of the site is located outside the built up area of Spaldwick. Whilst the front part of the site is considered to be within the built up area, the rear of the site is considered to be outside the built up area as this rear part of this large site relates more to the open countryside rather than the built form and is outside of the built-up area. Policy LP2 supports limited growth and new market dwellings within the built up areas of small settlements. Policy LP9 identifies Spaldwick as a Small Settlement and states amongst other things 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 for through other policies of this plan". 'The Countryside', 'Rural Economy', 'Local Services and Community Facilities', 'Tourism and Recreation', 'Rural Exceptions Housing', 'Rural Buildings' and 'Water Related Development'".

Taking each of the above in turn:

The Countryside (LP10) 7.4 Policy LP10 states that development in the countryside will be restricted to the limited and specific opportunities as provided for in other policies of the plan; and all development in the countryside must seek to use lower agricultural value land avoiding irreversible loss where possible and avoiding Grade 1 agricultural land unless there are exceptional circumstances where the benefits outweigh the loss; and recognise the intrinsic character and not give rise to adverse impacts. … The proposal for 10 market dwellings on this site largely outside the built up area and in the countryside is therefore a departure from the development plan, and has been advertised as such.

Rural Economy (LP19) 7.5 The proposed development for 10 residential units does not involve new business development, the expansion of an existing business or farm diversification.

Local Services and Community Facilities (LP22) 7.6 Paragraph 6.45 of the supporting text of LP22 identifies development proposals which may fall under the definition of Local Services and Community Facilities. The proposed development of 10 residential units is not considered to represent a Local Service/Community Facility.

Tourism and Recreation (LP23) 7.7 The proposed development for 10 residential units does not involve a new or expanded tourism, sport or leisure use in the countryside.

Rural Exceptions Housing (LP28) 7.8 For a proposal to be considered under LP30, a minimum of 60% of the site area should provide for affordable housing for people with a local connection. 10 Market dwellings are proposed.

7.9 The proposal would not be required to provide affordable housing. As such, the proposal cannot be considered under the provisions of policy LP28.

Rural Buildings (LP33) 7.10 The proposed development for 10 residential units does not involve the conversion of a building in the countryside.

Water Related Development (LP38) 7.11 Paragraph 8.76 of the supporting text of LP40 identifies development proposals which may fall under the definition of Water Related Development. The proposed development for 10 residential units and is not considered to represent Water Related Development.

Principle of Development - Summary 7.12 The proposal represents a departure from the development plan as there is an identified conflict with Policies LP2, LP9 and LP10 of the Local Plan, for the reasons set out above. The proposed development is therefore not acceptable in principle.

Design Impacts 7.13 Plot A - The proposed double garage projects forward of the prevailing building line established by the adjacent Bungalow and No. 60 Stow Road. These garages dominate and detract from the appearance of the dwellings and reduce the amount of active frontage to the street. Garages should be aligned with or setback from the building frontage between units to comply with the HDC Design Guide SPD (2017) page 94. 7.14 The proposed garage is located adjacent to the southern site boundary, relocating the garage between Plots A and B would allow additional landscaping/tree planting adjacent to the southern boundary - softening views looking north from Stow Road.

7.15 Plot B - The setback of Plot B results in exposing the blank side (north) gable of Plot A. The two storey scale of Plots A and B and staggered arrangement means windows on the front elevation of Plot B would fall within 45 degrees (measured in plan view and elevation) of Plot A, likewise, windows on the rear elevation of Plot A would fall within 45 degrees of Plot B - as a result both units will compromise daylighting to each other (see 45 BRE rule of thumb test set out in the HDC Design Guide 2017 page 146). Plots A and B should from a consistent building line with tandem parking/driveways/garages provided between the units.

7.16 The proposed side (north) elevation is entirely blank - windows are required at Ground Floor (GF) and First Floor (FF) to overlook the access road to Plots D-J at the rear of the site.

7.17 Plot C - The front elevation includes a 2 storey projecting feature gable - this element is entirely blank fronting Stow Road and dominates the proposed dwelling. The majority of existing dwellings fronting Stow Road are traditional form and flat fronted, The projecting gable should be omitted.

7.18 Whilst the provision of side GF and FF windows on the side (south) gable elevation are supported, and provide activity and surveillance over the adjacent access, it is unclear why 4 full height windows/2 double doors are proposed for the sitting room - this is likely to result in loss of privacy for the future occupant. Suggest the main sitting room windows/patio doors are provided on the rear elevation, with secondary windows on the side gable.

7.19 Development at the rear (Plots D-J) -

7.20 The arrangement of the 2 storey terrace and semi-detached house types (Plots F-J) are inappropriate for an edge of settlement site. Should the principle of back land development be considered acceptable, a reduction in unit numbers (smaller scale single storey/1.5 storey barn like dwellings arranged in a cluster of units around a shared parking area/yard/car barns) is suggested to relate more to the rural setting and form a subservient relationship with the larger scale detached dwellings fronting Stow Road.

7.21 Units should be arranged to avoid impacts to retained trees (which currently dominate the rear garden of Plot E and are impacted by the arrangement of Plot J). It is vital these trees are retained to form a transition between the built up edge of the village and the rural countryside.

7.22 The arrangement of rear gardens to Plots F and I appear cramped and uncharacteristically small for an edge of settlement site.

7.23 It is unclear what the remaining area of the site, located to the west of Plots F-J will be used for - as shown this area is bounded by rear garden boundaries, resulting in the loss of security and privacy to units. This area receives limited surveillance and could be subject to anti- social behaviour/fly tipping etc.

7.24 The principle of the 'nature area' is supported however; this space is bounded by the rear/side garden boundaries of Plots D, E and F which limit activity towards this space.

7.25 Garages - The single garages have an internal measurement of 2.8m wide x 5.6m deep, whilst the double garages measure 4.5m wide x 5.6m deep. The HDC Design Guide SPD (2017) page 95 requires single garages to measure a minimum of 3m x 6m internally and double garages to measure 5.5m x 6m internally. An additional width/length is required if the garages are to be used for cycle parking.

7.26 The submitted scheme fails to respond positively to the surrounding context and is considered contrary to Policies LP11 and LP12 and LP 13 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 which seek amongst other things to ensure that new developments are well designed, responding to local context and delivering attractive, useable and long lasting buildings and spaces achieving a high standard of amenity for all users and occupiers. Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 7.27 This part of Stow Road is predominantly characterised by a linear form of development, with a single row of detached dwellings fronting either side of the Stow Road. Dwellings are setback from the road behind a grass verge, front gardens with established trees and hedge planting and with large gardens extending to the rear. The rear of this large site relates more to the open countryside rather than the built form and is outside of the built-up area as discussed above.

7.28 The site is largely undeveloped garden land and part agricultural/orchard to the west, which contributes to the open countryside in this edge of village location. Whilst the submitted scheme is for a smaller number of units (10 compared to 11 previously proposed) and the size of the units has been reduced to 3-5 bedrooms with 5 larger plots fronting Stow Road and 5 smaller plots to the rear. A 'nature area' is proposed within the centre of the site surrounding the mature tree and separates the two groups of dwellings.

7.29 The supporting statement states the proposal is designed to respond to the recent development in St James Gardens (approved as part of application 1301639FUL for 4 dwellings) which is located on land to the rear of 5-17 Stow Road. However, unlike the application site, St James Gardens is located centrally within the village and is surrounded by existing residential properties to the north, west and south with gardens to the east.

7.30 The proposal for 10 units in this location would introduce development into an area, which is at present characterised by open space, rear gardens and mature landscaping and would extend the built development beyond the established built up area of the village. Furthermore, the individual units towards the rear of the site (Plots D-J) would fail to create an appropriate relationship with Stow Road and would result in significant harm to the established character and appearance of the area and would be at odds with the prevailing linear pattern of development fronting Stow Road.

7.31 Whilst the proposed dwellings to the front of the site (Plots A- C) would generally follow the existing linear pattern and would relate to the built up area, the proposals as a whole will still result in new development in open countryside along with the large scale removal of C category trees and hedges. This too will augment adverse landscape and visual effects and result in a significant loss in biodiversity which will be harmful to the open character of the area. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to policies LP9, LP10, LP11 and LP12 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036.

Residential Amenity 7.32 The relevant part of the NPPF and the Council's planning policy LP14 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 seeks to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties. The policy also seeks to ensure residential amenity is not harmed as a result of development; the NPPF (2019), within its core principles states that planning should "always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings".

Plot specific issues 7.33 Plot A - The prosed double garage projects forward of the prevailing building line established by the adjacent Bungalow and No. 60 Stowe Road. These garages dominate and detract from the appearance of the dwellings and reduce the amount of active frontage to the street. Garages should be aligned with of setback from the building frontage between units to comply with the HDC Design Guide SPD (2017) page 94.

7.34 The proposed garage is located adjacent to the southern site boundary, relocating the garage between Plots A and B would allow additional landscaping/tree planting adjacent to the southern boundary - softening views looking north from Stow Road.

7.35 Plot B - The setback of Plot B results in exposing the blank side (north) gable of Plot A. The two storey scale of Plots A and B and staggered arrangement means windows on the front elevation of Plot B would fall within 45 degrees (measured in plan view and elevation) of Plot A, likewise, windows on the rear elevation of Plot A would fall within 45 degrees of Plot B - as a result both units will compromise daylighting to each other (see 45 BRE rule of thumb test set out in the HDC Design Guide 2017 page 146). Plots A and B should from a consistent building line with tandem parking/driveways/garages provided between the units.

7.36 The proposed side (north) elevation is entirely blank - windows are required at ground floor and first floor to overlook the access road to Plots D-J at the rear of the site for better surveillance.

7.37 Plot C - The front elevation includes a 2 storey projecting feature gable - this element is entirely blank fronting Stow Road and dominates the proposed dwelling. The majority of existing dwellings fronting Stow Road are traditional form and flat fronted, the projecting gable is out of character with the existing development.

7.38 Whilst the provision of side ground floor and first floor windows on the side (south) gable elevation are supported, and provide activity and surveillance over the adjacent access, it is unclear why 4 full height windows/2 double doors are proposed for the sitting room - this is likely to result in loss of privacy for the future occupants.

7.39 Development at the rear (Plots D-J) -

7.40 The arrangement of 2 storey terrace and semi-detached house types (Plots F-J) are inappropriate for an edge of settlement site. The plots would impact on the existing trees which form a vital transition between the built up edge of the village and the rural countryside.

7.41 The arrangement of rear gardens to Plots F and I appear cramped and uncharacteristically small for an edge of settlement site.

7.42 It is unclear what the remaining area of the site, located to the west of Plots F-J will be used for - as shown this area is bounded by rear garden boundaries, resulting in the loss of security and privacy to units. This area receives limited surveillance and could be subject to anti- social behaviour/fly tipping etc.

7.43 The principle of the 'nature area' is supported however; this space is bounded by the rear/side garden boundaries of Plots D, E and F which limit activity towards this space. 7.44 Garages - The single garages have an internal measurement of 2.8m wide x 5.6m deep, whilst the double garages measure 4.5m wide x 5.6m deep. The HDC Design Guide SPD (2017) page 95 requires single garages to measure a minimum of 3m x 6m internally and double garages to measure 5.5m x 6m internally. The proposals therefore do not meet the requirements of the guidance and would fail to provide adequate useable parking space for vehicles and cycles.

7.45 For the reasons given above it is considered that the proposed layout, scale and design of the dwellings would result in loss of privacy and security and would provide opportunities for overlooking, overbearing or loss of light and would not satisfactorily meet the needs of the future occupiers of the dwellings. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to policy LP14 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPD (2017) in regards to amenity impacts.

Access and Highway Safety 7.46 Paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) sets the test that "development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development would be severe".

7.47 The main issue is whether there would be any severe adverse effects on highway safety and traffic flow arising from the proposed development of 10 homes. In determining whether the development would have severe residual cumulative impacts, Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) has been consulted. The Local Highway Authority has no objections to the application, but would require footpaths and roadways to meet their requirements for adoption (as above) or for further changes to be secured by conditions attached to any decision notice if members are minded to approve the application contrary to officer recommendation.

Pedestrian Safety 7.48 The proposals comprise 10 family homes along a stretch of Stow Road where there is no pedestrian footpath or street lighting, future residents that wished to access the limited services within the centre of Spaldwick by foot would be required to walk along a stretch of unlit carriageway in the road.

7.49 The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to the NPPF (2019) and policies LP16 and LP17 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 which seek as a basic requirement of any successful developments that they provide a safe physical access from the public highway to ensure that pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles have access as required.

Waste Water Management 7.50 The proposals have been assessed in consultation with LLFA, IDB, and Anglian Water who have raised objections to the proposals and commented on the lack of sufficient supporting information to demonstrate compliance with relevant policies and SPDs. These consultations form the basis of the assessment in regards to water management and drainage. An opportunity was afforded to the applicant to submit revised information but to date no such information has been received. The proposals are therefore contrary to policy LP6 and LP15 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 and Cambridgeshire Flood and Water SPD 2017 which aim to ensure that development proposals have sufficient and sustainable waste water and surface water drainage solutions.

Ecology and Biodiversity 7.51 The application has been assessed in consultation with The Wildlife Trust who has confirmed that the Preliminary Ecological Assessment (PEA) is not satisfactory and that in order to achieve a biodiversity net gain there need to be habitat enhancements. Although the pond is now retained the PEA recommendations have not been changed in the amended scheme. The proposals seek large scale removal of C category trees and hedges. This too will augment adverse landscape and visual effects and result in significant loss in biodiversity. Whilst the submitted PEA discusses biodiversity gain it does not include any detailed calculations of existing biodiversity on the site. It is recommended that a recognised Biodiversity Impact Calculator (BIC) is used to compare existing and proposed schemes and to demonstrate that a net gain will be achieved. 7.52 The Wildlife Trust advises that the recommendations in the PEA are revised in regards to barn owls and great crested newts in order for the proposals to deliver a net gain in biodiversity, in line with local and national planning policy and some habitat enhancements are also required. The Wildlife Trust has therefore raised a holding objection to the proposals to seek further revised recommendations before the application is determined. This consultation response forms the main assessment of the proposals in regards to their impacts on ecology and biodiversity within the site, the proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to Policy LP30 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 and the NPPF (2019).

Impact on Trees and Hedges 7.53 The site is bounded by mature hedging which includes several trees and there are many trees within the site. The application is supported by an Arboricultural survey and has been assessed in consultation with HDC Trees & Landscapes Officers in regards to the impacts of the proposals on the existing trees within the site. The proposals seek to retain most of the B category trees and it was noted that many (of the retained trees) will be in south facing rear gardens, or south of house plots. In both these circumstances shade will be cast by mature trees on private houses and gardens - and this will lead to inevitable pressure from future residents to continually reduce or remove those trees. Removal / reduction would play a part in the adverse landscape and visual effects. As well as potential removal of B category trees, there is also large scale removal of C category trees and hedges. This too will augment adverse landscape and visual effects, and equally importantly also result in a significant loss in biodiversity, when compared to the existing site. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to the aims and objectives of policy LP31 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan which seek to protect existing trees and hedgerows from the impacts of development and to halt the loss of trees in Huntingdonshire.

Infrastructure Requirements and Planning Obligations 7.54 The Infrastructure Business Plan 2013/2014 (2013) was developed by the Growth and Infrastructure Group of the Huntingdonshire Local Strategic Partnership. It helps to identify the infrastructure needs arising from the development proposed to 2036 through the Core Strategy

7.55 Statutory tests set out in the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 (Regulation 122) 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

7.56 The application is not accompanied by a satisfactory completed unilateral undertaking for the provision of wheeled bins by virtue of the omission of an accompanying plan contrary to the Developer Contributions SPD (2011) - part H.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): 7.57 Due to the nature and scale of the development proposal, 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.

Housing Mix 7.58 Policy LP25 of the Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 seeks to ensure that all housing developments in the district offers a genuine choice of different sizes and types of housing that meet the requirements of residents. A proposal for major scale development (10 dwellings or more) that includes housing will be supported where it provides a mix of sizes, types and tenures which help achieve sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities (criteria a -e), and which meet Building Regulation accessibility standards (or replacement standards) as set out below, unless it can be demonstrated that site specific factors make achieving this impractical or unviable:

7.59 f. ensuring 100% of new dwellings, across all tenures provided, meet Building Regulation requirement M4 (2) 'accessible and adaptable dwellings' (or replacement standards). 7.60 The proposals are supported by a Supporting Statement by Binney and Sims Design Limited dated 27.03.2019. Page 8 of the statement states that all of the houses are designed to appeal to families with children of all ages and there will be a mix of 3, 4 and 5 bedrooms all with various layouts to appeal to a range of prospective buyers. Whilst there is a mix of smaller 3 bedroom properties there is little demand in the district for 5 bedroom houses and no one or two bedroom houses are proposed. The supporting statement fail to demonstrate how the proposals will meet the aims and objectives of Policy LP25, in particular fail to demonstrate how the criteria f) and g) of this policy has been met.

7.61 The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to the aims and objectives of Policy LP25 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 which aims to ensure that all housing developments offers a genuine choice of size and types of accessible and adaptable homes to meet the requirements of residents.

Other matters - Archaeology 7.62 The proposals have been assessed in accordance with Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeology who have identified that the site lies in an area of archaeological potential close to medieval core of Spaldwick and the deserted medieval settlements sites of Upthorpe and Danesfield. CCC Archaeology raises no objections to the proposals but consider that the site should be subject to a programme of archaeological investigations secured through the inclusion of a negative condition. Should members decide to approve the proposals contrary to the officers recommendation, a condition would be required to be added to the decision to this effect.

Conclusion and Planning Balance 7.63 The NPPF has at its heart the presumption in favour of sustainable development. To be sustainable, development must, as noted in paragraph 6 of the NPPF, strike a satisfactory balance between the economic, environmental and social considerations.

7.64 In terms of the economic dimension of sustainable development, the proposal would modestly contribute towards economic growth, including job creation - during the construction phase and in the longer term through the additional population assisting the local economy through spending on local services/facilities. There will also be Council Tax receipts arising from the development. The loss of this relatively small parcel of land is outweighed by the modest positive economic benefits of this development, in this location.

7.65 Regarding the social dimension, the site itself appears to have no significant physical constraints and is deliverable. It would also marginally increase the supply of housing, although the Council can demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land, therefore the provision of ten market dwellings (net increase of 9) on the application site is afforded very limited weight. The proposal would be within walking and cycling distance of the limited facilities of Spaldwick including the primary school, albeit along a small stretch of unlit carriageway with no footpath. The proposals also fail to provide a suitable housing mix which is contrary to the social dimension.

7.66 In terms of the environmental dimension of sustainable development, there is environmental harm on the rural character of the area due to a large part of the site encroaching into the countryside and with the loss of established trees. As a result, the development would have an adverse impact on the rural character of the area and biodiversity.

7.67 Having assessed all three dimensions of sustainable development; economic, environmental and social within this report it is concluded that the proposal is considered to result in environmental harm, and the applicant has failed to demonstrate that safe and adequate vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access can be achieved. There is only a minor benefit of ten market dwellings of accommodation. However, section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning applications be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

7.68 The scheme would therefore conflict with the NPPF which states that it does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Officers consider that the creation of 10 market dwellings in this location would not accord with the above mentioned policies of the up-to-date Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036, and, as outlined in the preceding sections of this report, there are no other material considerations which would provide an overriding reason to disregard the development plan. Accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission should be refused for the following reasons:

8. RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE for the following reasons:

Reason 1 The proposed residential development would represent an encroachment of built development in the countryside outside the built up area of Spaldwick. The proposal does not meet any of the other specific opportunities identified within Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 and the proposal would therefore be contrary to the NPPF 2019, and Polies LP2, LP9 and LP10 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036.

Reason 2 The submitted scheme fails to respond positively to the surrounding context by virtue of its poor design, scale and layout and is considered contrary to Policies LP11, LP12 and LP 13 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 which seek amongst other things to ensure that new developments are well designed, responding to local context and delivering attractive, useable and long lasting buildings and spaces achieving a high standard of amenity for all users and occupiers.

Reason 3 The proposed residential development would intensify the existing sporadic and ribbon residential development within the countryside outside the village of Spaldwick. This would have a harmful impact on the rural character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary with policies LP9, LP10, LP11 and LP12 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036.

Reason 4 The amended Tree Survey and Phase 1 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal is not sufficient to demonstrate that there will be no significant detrimental impacts on protected habitats and species and fails to demonstrate that the proposals will achieve a Biodiversity Net Gain. The proposal would therefore cause significant and demonstrable harm to biodiversity and trees contrary to Paragraph 170 of the NPPF, policies LP30 and LP31 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036.

Reason 5 The proposals seek to retain most of the B category trees and it was noted that many of the retained trees are located in south facing rear gardens, or south of house plots. In both these circumstances shade will be cast by mature trees on private houses and gardens - and this will lead to inevitable pressure from future residents to continually reduce or remove those trees. Removal / reduction would contribute to the adverse landscape and visual effects. As well as potential removal of B category trees, there is also large scale removal of C category trees and hedges. This too will augment adverse landscape and visual effects. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to the aims and objectives of policy LP31 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 which seeks to protect existing trees and hedgerows from the impacts of development and to halt the loss of trees in Huntingdonshire.

Reason 6 The proposals do not adequately demonstrate that the development will provide a suitable mix of housing or that the dwellings will meet Building Regulations M4 (2)) therefore the proposals are considered to be contrary to the aims and objectives of Policy LP25 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 which aims to ensure that all housing developments offers a genuine choice of size and types of accessible and adaptable homes to meet the requirements of residents.

Reason 7 - Bin UU The proposals seek to increase the number of dwellings within the site and there would be an additional requirement for provision of bins. The application is not accompanied by a satisfactory completed (omission of accompanying plan) unilateral undertaking for the provision of wheeled bins, the proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to Policy LP4 and the Developer Contributions SPD (2011) - Part H.

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 Debra Bell Senior Development Management Officer 01480 38813 Page 1 of 3

From: Sarah Cardwell Sent: 16 May 2019 23:03 To: DevelopmentControl Cc: Stephen Fane de Salis Subject: FW: Planning Permission Consultation - House On The Hill Stow Road Spaldwick (ref 19/00652/FUL) Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; 19-00652-FUL House on the Hill Stow Rd.pdf

Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.

FAO: Debra Bell,

Following our Council meeting tonight, Spaldwick Parish Council propose approval of House On The Hill Stow Road Spaldwick (ref 19/00652/FUL on the basis that it is a small amount of sustainable development that will contribute to the economic future of the village. The Parish Council like to see development proposing affordable housing in the village but suggest a footpath on both sides of Stow Road, (up to Mount Pleasant on one side and to link up with the existing footpath on the other side), to allow for a potential increased school-age population.

Thank you. Kind regards

Sarah Cardwell Clerk to Spaldwick Parish Council

(Please note, I only work 4 hours per week so there may be a delay before I respond to your email.)

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

file:///E:/Adlib/System/Work/20... 17/05/2019 Page 2 of 3

From: [email protected] Sent: 15 April 2019 14:52 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Planning Permission Consultation - House On The Hill Stow Road Spaldwick (ref 19/00652/FUL)

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: Demolish existing house and erect 10no. 3-5 bedroom dwellings with associated parking. New road proposed off of Stow Road

Site Address: House On The Hill Stow Road Spaldwick

Reference: 19/00652/FUL

Opting out of email correspondence ------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

file:///E:/Adlib/System/Work/20... 17/05/2019 Page 3 of 3

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

Virus-free. www.avg.com

file:///E:/Adlib/System/Work/20... 17/05/2019 Development Management Committee

Scale =1:2,500 Application Ref:19/00652/FUL

Date Created: 01/11/2019 © Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Location:Spaldwick Ordnance Survey HDC 100022322

Mound

MOUNT PLEASANT

29.8m 3

The Leas

48 37

50 49

1 10 51

30.3m

53 2

8 57

18 55

House-on-the-Hill 59

28.5m

25.0m

Pond

Drain

The Bungalow

Key Conservation Area Listed Building The Site NOTES - Drawings are subject to structural Scale : 1/1250 calculations and building control. Drainage subject to a visit by the builder and Copyright © 2019 assessment of existing drains. Drawn By : Client: Racey Builder to visit prior to commencing work to confirm Date : 25th March 2019 NORTH building details. Site Address: Drawing No : 416/4 LP Party wall act may be required and is the responsibility of the homeowner, we can advise if required. House on the Hill Spaldwick Site plan purchased from Streetwise.net dimensions have been taken from the plan PE28 0TE purchased and boundaries have not been surveyed

Please review our Terms and Conditions on our website www.binneyandsimsdesign.co.uk BB BB BB Garage BB PLOT J PLOT I Garage PLOT H Patio Garage

Drop Kerb PLOT G

Drop Kerb Permeable Tarmac

Drop Kerb PLOT F Garage

Drop Kerb BB BB Nature Area REMAIN POND TO BB NORTH Permeable Tarmac patio PLOT E Please review our Terms and Conditions on purchased and boundaries have not been surveyed required. responsibility of the homeowner, we can advise if Party wall act may be required and is the building details. Builder to visit prior commencing work confirm Drainage subject to a visit by the builder and NOTES - Site plan purchased from Streetwise.net dimensions have been taken from the plan assessment of existing drains. website www.binneyandsimsdesign.co.uk PLOT D Double Garage

patio Drop Kerb Drop Double Garage patio patio Garage PLOT B patio patio PLOT A Drawings are subject to structural Copyright calculations and building control. Site Address: Client: Racey road 5.5m wide patio Garage DOUBLE GARAGE PE28 0TE House on the Hill Spaldwick © 2019

Permeable Tarmac Drop Kerb Drop

PLOT C 30 Drawing No : 416/4 SP Date : 25th March 2019 Drawn By : Scale : 1/500 1.8m pathway

45 Degree viability splay

45 Degree viability splay 7928 4760 BB 4367 Garage

2200 PLOT F PLOT G PLOT D Garage BB Patio Drop patio PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION Kerb Garage Double Garage

PLOT H Drop Kerb Garage

PLOT I BB patio Drop Kerb Permeable Tarmac PLOT C PLOT J Drop Kerb

BB Garage Permeable Tarmac Nature Area

5.5m wide Drop Kerb Drop Kerb road 1.8m pathway patio Permeable Tarmac POND TO BB REMAIN patio PLOT B Double Garage BB patio Garage

BB PLOT E patio

PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION PLOT A

patio DOUBLE GARAGE

PLOT A

NOTES -

6154 2865 Drainage subject to a visit by the builder and assessment of existing drains.

DRESSING ROOM Builder to visit prior to commencing work to confirm building details. DINING

4442 BEDROOM Party wall act may be required and is the responsibility of the homeowner, we can EN-SUITE advise if required.

Please review our Terms and Conditions on our website www.binneyandsimsdesign.co.uk

KITCHEN

BATHROOM

UTILITY 7500 Client: Racey COATS/ BOOTS

STUDY BEDROOM

BEDROOM Site Address: House on the Hill

9019 Spaldwick

6000 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN PE28 0TE PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED ROOF PLAN

Scale :1/500, 1/100 & 1/1250 on A1

6000 Drawn By :

Date : 25th March 2019

Drawing No : 416/4 A

0M 2M 4M 6M 8M 10M BB Garage

PLOT F PLOT G PLOT D Garage BB Patio Drop patio Kerb Garage Double 7928 Garage

PLOT H Drop Kerb Garage

4760 PLOT I BB

3367 patio Drop Kerb Permeable Tarmac PLOT C PLOT J Drop Kerb 2200 BB Garage Permeable Tarmac Nature Area

PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION 5.5m wide Drop Kerb Drop Kerb road 1.8m pathway patio Permeable Tarmac POND TO BB REMAIN patio PLOT B Double Garage BB patio Garage

BB PLOT E patio PLOTPLOT A B

patio DOUBLE GARAGE

PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION PLOT B

NOTES -

Drainage subject to a visit by the builder and assessment of existing drains.

6154 2865 Builder to visit prior to commencing work to confirm building details.

Party wall act may be required and is the DRESSING ROOM responsibility of the homeowner, we can advise if required.

DINING

4442 BEDROOM 3000 Please review our Terms and Conditions on our website www.binneyandsimsdesign.co.uk

EN-SUITE

UTILITY 7500

COATS/ Site Address: BOOTS House on the Hill STUDY BEDROOM Spaldwick BEDROOM PE28 0TE

9019 30 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 0M 2M 4M 6M 8M 10M Scale :1/500, 1/100 & 1/1250 on A1 Drawn By :

Date : 25th March 2019

Drawing No : 416/4 B 7928

4760 BB

4526 Garage

PLOT F 2225 PLOT G PLOT D Garage BB Patio Drop patio PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION Kerb Garage Double Garage

PLOT H Drop Kerb Garage

PLOT I BB patio Drop Kerb Permeable Tarmac PLOT C PLOT J Drop Kerb

BB Garage Permeable Tarmac Nature Area

5.5m wide Drop Kerb Drop Kerb road 1.8m pathway patio Permeable Tarmac POND TO BB REMAIN patio PLOT B Double Garage BB patio Garage

BB PLOT E patio

PLOT A

patio DOUBLE GARAGE

PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION 30

4900 PLOT C

NOTES -

Drainage subject to a visit by the builder and GARAGE assessment of existing drains. 6000

10219 Builder to visit prior to commencing work to confirm building details.

Party wall act may be required and is the responsibility of the homeowner, we can BEDROOM advise if required. KITCHEN/ DINING BEDROOM Please review our Terms and Conditions on BEDROOM our website www.binneyandsimsdesign.co.uk

SITTING ROOM

Wardrobe 7885

vaulted ceiling

W/C Client: Racey

BEDROOM

4318

SNUG STUDY Site Address: 2794 House on the Hill Spaldwick

5901 PE28 0TE PROPOSED ROOF PLAN

PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN

0M 2M 4M 6M 8M 10M Scale :1/500, 1/100 & 1/1250 on A1 Drawn By :

Date : 25th March 2019

Drawing No : 416/4 C 7928

4900 BB 4501 Garage

PLOT F 2200 PLOT G PLOT D Garage BB Patio Drop patio PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION Kerb Garage Double Garage

PLOT H Drop Kerb Garage

PLOT I BB patio Drop Kerb Permeable Tarmac PLOT C PLOT J Drop Kerb

BB Garage Permeable Tarmac Nature Area

5.5m wide Drop Kerb Drop Kerb road 1.8m pathway patio Permeable Tarmac POND TO BB REMAIN patio PLOT B Double Garage BB patio Garage

BB PLOT E patio PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION

PLOT A

patio DOUBLE GARAGE

6000

15353

GARAGE 6000

DINING Wardrobe BEDROOM BATHROOM

SITTING ROOM Wardrobe BEDROOM MASTER BEDROOM

KITCHEN PLOT D

9022 NOTES -

Wardrobe mezzanine mezzanine Drainage subject to a visit by the builder and EN-SUITE SNUG assessment of existing drains.

STUDY BEDROOM Wardrobe UTILITY Builder to visit prior to commencing work to ENTRANCE vaulted ceiling BEDROOM confirm building details. EN-SUITE

PORCH W/C Party wall act may be required and is the responsibility of the homeowner, we can advise if required. PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN Please review our Terms and Conditions on our website www.binneyandsimsdesign.co.uk

Site Address: House on the Hill Spaldwick PE28 0TE

Scale :1/500, 1/100 & 1/1250 on A1 30 Drawn By :

Date : 25th March 2019

Drawing No : 416/4D

PROPOSED ROOF PLAN

0M 2M 4M 6M 8M 10M BB Garage 7928

PLOT F PLOT G PLOT D Garage 4760 BB Patio

4367 Drop patio Kerb Garage Double

2200 Garage

PLOT H Drop Kerb Garage

PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION PLOT I BB patio Drop Kerb Permeable Tarmac PLOT C PLOT J Drop Kerb

BB Garage Permeable Tarmac Nature Area

5.5m wide Drop Kerb Drop Kerb road 1.8m pathway patio Permeable Tarmac POND TO BB REMAIN patio PLOT B Double Garage BB patio Garage

BB PLOT E patio PLOTPLOT A B

patio DOUBLE GARAGE

PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION 30

PLOT E

NOTES -

6000 Drainage subject to a visit by the builder and assessment of existing drains.

Builder to visit prior to commencing work to confirm building details.

6154 2865 Party wall act may be required and is the responsibility of the homeowner, we can 6000 advise if required.

DRESSING ROOM Please review our Terms and Conditions on our website www.binneyandsimsdesign.co.uk DINING

4442 BEDROOM

BATHROOM Client: Racey

11942 BEDROOM SITTING ROOM

Site Address:

UTILITY 7500 House on the Hill

COATS/ Spaldwick BOOTS PE28 0TE STUDY BEDROOM

BEDROOM

9019 Scale :1/500, 1/100 & 1/1250 on A1 PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED ROOF PLAN Drawn By :

0M 2M 4M 6M 8M 10M Date : 25th March 2019

Drawing No : 416/4 E 8373

BB 5104

4630 Garage

PLOT F PLOT G PLOT D Garage 2100 BB Patio Drop patio Kerb Garage Double Garage

Proposed Rear Elevation Proposed Side Elevation PLOT H Drop Kerb Garage (Plot F) (Plot G) (Plot F) PLOT I BB patio Drop Kerb Permeable Tarmac PLOT C PLOT J Drop Kerb

BB Garage Permeable Tarmac Nature Area

5.5m wide Drop Kerb Drop Kerb road 1.8m pathway patio Permeable Tarmac POND TO BB REMAIN patio PLOT B Double Garage BB patio Garage

BB PLOT E patio

PLOT A

patio DOUBLE GARAGE

Proposed Front Elevation Proposed Side Elevation (Plot G) (Plot F) (Plot G)

3000 5747 PLOT F & G

GARAGE KITCHEN KITCHEN GARAGE NOTES -

Drainage subject to a visit by the builder and 6000 assessment of existing drains.

Builder to visit prior to commencing work to 8000 confirm building details.

Party wall act may be required and is the responsibility of the homeowner, we can advise if required.

SITTING ROOM SITTING ROOM Please review our Terms and Conditions on

W/C W/C our website www.binneyandsimsdesign.co.uk

BEDROOM BEDROOM

Site Address:

BEDROOM BEDROOM House on the Hill Spaldwick PE28 0TE

Scale :1/500, 1/100 & 1/1250 on A1 A/C A/C Drawn By : BEDROOM BEDROOM BATHROOM BATHROOM Date : 25th March 2019

Drawing No : 416/4 F&G

Proposed First Floor Plan Proposed Roof Plan 0M 2M 4M 6M 8M 10M 8373 5104 4630 2100 BB Garage

Proposed Rear Elevation Proposed Side Elevation PLOT F (Plot H) (Plot I) (Plot J) (Plot H) PLOT G PLOT D Garage BB Patio Drop patio Kerb Garage Double Garage

PLOT H Drop Kerb Garage

PLOT I BB patio Drop Kerb Permeable Tarmac PLOT C PLOT J Drop Kerb

BB Garage Permeable Tarmac Nature Area

5.5m wide Drop Kerb Drop Kerb road 1.8m pathway patio Permeable Tarmac POND TO BB REMAIN patio PLOT B Double Garage BB patio Garage

BB PLOT E patio

PLOT A Proposed Front Elevation Proposed Side Elevation (Plot J) (Plot I) (Plot H) (Plot J) patio DOUBLE GARAGE

3000 5747 5747 5747 3000

GARAGE KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN GARAGE 6000 8000 PLOT H,I & J

SITTING ROOM SITTING ROOM SITTING ROOM NOTES -

W/C W/C W/C Drainage subject to a visit by the builder and assessment of existing drains.

Proposed Ground Floor Plan Builder to visit prior to commencing work to confirm building details.

Party wall act may be required and is the

BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM responsibility of the homeowner, we can advise if required.

BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM Please review our Terms and Conditions on our website www.binneyandsimsdesign.co.uk

Proposed First Floor Plan Site Address: House on the Hill Spaldwick PE28 0TE

Scale :1/500, 1/100 & 1/1250 on A1 Drawn By :

Date : 25th March 2019

Drawing No : 416/4 HIJ

Proposed Roof Plan

0M 2M 4M 6M 8M 10M