3 APPLICATION NUMBER: 13/08809/OUT APPLICANTS NAME(S): Mr & Mrs Andrew & Emma Jones and Mr & Mrs Iestyn & Rachel Gwillim SITE ADDRESS: Springfields Llangenny Crickhowell NP8 1HA GRID REF: E: 323974 N:218093 COMMUNITY: Vale Of Grwyney DATE VALIDATED: 22 January 2013 DECISION DUE DATE: 19 March 2013 CASE OFFICER: Mr Jonathan James PROPOSAL Five houses, four as intermediate housing for local needs ADDRESS Springfields , Llangenny, Crickhowell CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS Consultee Received Comments Clwyd Powys 13th Feb 2013 I write to confirm that this development lies outside Archaeological Trust the medieval historic core of the village and consequently there are no archaeological implications for the proposed development Dwr Cymru Welsh 6th Mar 2013 Comments that as the applicant intends to use a Water septic tank facility they will have to contact the environment agency. There are no problems envisaged on water supply. Environment Agency 11th Feb 2013 Comments that the application does not fall within Wales their consultation checklist and therefore does not require direct consultation. Standard planning advice note is attached NP Ecologist 29th Apr 2013 1.0 I note the information provided in the Design and Access Statement (7th December 2012), particularly Section 3. Biodiversity and the draft Landscape Management Plan (9th January 2013). I also note the comments previously made by the National Park Ecologist on 20th July 2010. Most of these comments are still relevant and I will reference relevant elements in my comments. 2.0 I agree with previous comments that in principle the proposal will not have a significant effect on the field categorised as improved grassland or on the western boundary hedgerow/treeline. Consequently, there is no requirement for an ecological survey. I do disagree with the Design and Access Statement conclusion which states that the "field itself is of little biodiversity value." The field acts as important natural, open space for both wildlife and people, linking surrounding wooded and hedgerow systems with the River Gwyne Fechan for certain mobile species such as bats that will use the area for foraging and commuting, for example. The field also provides ecosystem services for people including open space, rainfall capture and aesthetic qualities. 3.0 With these thoughts in mind, the field and its boundaries offer opportunities to provide biodiversity enhancement. I, therefore, welcome the proposal to restore the hedgerow which forms the western boundary of the site east of the parish road. I note that access to the proposed properties has been paired to reduce the effect on the hedgerow. I also recognise plans to manage the ash woodland along the western side of the parish road through coppicing to maintain a foraging route for bats and to provide heating fuel for residence without overshadowing the buildings. In addition, I welcome the proposal to create hedge boundaries around the properties and the circumference of the remaining field boundary. I wish to emphasise that hedgerow creation and improvements should be completed using native species. 4.0 I note that the proposed development is within 100 metres of the River Grwyne Fechan which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Proposed works are of a nature and scale that they are not likely to have a significant effect on the SSSI or SAC. Nevertheless, the precautionary principle should be applied and all construction works should be designed such that any activities do not lead to a negative impact on the SSSI features (e.g., soil erosion and contaminants). 5.0 I recognise as did the previous National Park Ecologist that at this outline stage there is no detail of the design of the individual houses. I would like to reiterate, though, that incorporating design elements into the buildings which provide opportunities for roosting bats would be a welcome biodiversity enhancement, complimenting the hedgerow proposals. Equally, lighting schemes should minimise negative impacts on bats and other nocturnal species that will have benefited from other biodiversity enhancement measures noted herein. 6.0 The following recommendations are given in light of these documents and observations. Recommendations Should the National Park Authority be minded to permit the above outline application I would recommend that the following matters are appropriately conditioned or informed by advisory notes. 1.0 A detailed landscape management plan shall be developed incorporating the existing proposals for hedgerow restoration on the east side of the parish road, ash woodland management along the western side of the parish road, and hedgerow creation along the perimeter of the properties and remaining field boundaries. Appropriate native species shall be used for hedgerow restoration and creation. 2.0 No development shall commence until an external lighting plan is submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall avoid conflict with the other bat mitigation measures on site and shall be implemented in full. 3.0 Plans should be made to incorporate into building design opportunities for roosting bats. 4.0 Protected species are not likely to be encountered during the planned works if the appropriate care and attention is exercised. However, in the event that protected species are encountered: 4.1 Work should halt immediately and Natural Resources Wales contacted for advice in the unexpected event that protected species are discovered during the course of the development. To proceed without seeking the advice of Natural Resources Wales may result in an offence being committed. Natural Resources Wales, Cantref Court, Brecon Road, Abergavenny, NP7 7AX. Tel. 01873 737000. NP Head Of Strategy 26th Feb 2013 It is not clear as to the nature of the dwellings Policy And Heritage proposed as the application is for "intermediate housing for local needs". The Authority does not recognise local needs housing in policy terms in either the UDP or the Local Plan (the LDP has little weight at this point since we are still in the examination period). It is not possible to tie these dwellings to such a use. Therefore the description of the houses for this use is not relevant to the consideration of the application. I note the statement by the agent in his 'Design and Access Statement" (7th December 2012) that the prospective purchasers of the dwellings are local people employed locally, but the application has not been submitted as Rural Enterprise Dwellings as per the definition of TAN 6 and therefore cannot be considered on that basis. If the application is for 5 affordable units then the Authority requires that the units are transferred to an RSL or equivalent and subject to a S106 to ensure the houses are affordable in perpetuity. They will be allocated to occupiers from the housing waiting list and subject to a local lettings policy. They would likely be tenure neutral in order that, depending on the circumstances of the occupiers, could either be let as social rented or as intermediate housing. I can see no evidence in the information submitted by the applicant that the dwellings meet the definition and mechanisms for delivery of affordable housing as set out in the UDP and "Policy ES29 and ES30 Affordable Housing UDP Guidance Note (July 2008)". Therefore the application cannot be considered on this basis. I consider that the application is for 5 market houses. Subject to the detail the site is within the development boundary of Llangenny and therefore the principle of residential development may be acceptable. The affordable housing policy is triggered above 3 houses for a minimum of 20 % affordable housing. My understanding is that there is a general need for affordable housing in Powys (although the Powys affordable Housing Officer will confirm the actual level of need in this area and the number of affordable units required here), and the Policy position, on this basis, will require at least one of the proposed units to be affordable and delivered as per the UDP definition. However on the file to date the applicant has not provided any evidence from the affordable housing officer as to the need in the area, the number(s) and type of dwelling(s) needed nor any confirmation as to whether an RSL or equivalent would be interested in acquiring the dwelling(s). The statement by the agent in his supporting statement that an RSL would not be interested has not been confirmed either by the Powys Affordable Housing Officer or an RSL to date. The applicants attentions should be drawn to the "Policy ES29 and ES30 Affordable Housing UDP Guidance Note (July 2008)" which details the necessary steps and requirements. Only where it is demonstrated to the Authority in this way will we be in a position to consider whether on site provision is viable or whether either a land swap or a commuted sum is appropriate as per the Policy. NP Rural Practice No Comments received Surveyor Powys Affordable 11th Feb 2013 I write to confirm my support for this development Housing Officer as it is designed to address strategic and affordable need in the area. Powys County 2nd Apr 2013 I have now asked all Housing Associations operating Council Affordable in the area and it seems none of them are willing to Housing Officer take on a single property in the village. Melin Homes was the last I was able to speak to and I presume you will hear from them shortly. I hope this helps you in your report. Powys County 19th Feb 2013 I have received the consultation on the above Council Highways application and am unable to make a considered comment due to the lack of information provided. The application is for five houses but only the northern access has any detail of layout, width etc.