3 APPLICATION NUMBER: 13/08809/OUT APPLICANTS NAME(S): Mr & Mrs Andrew & Emma Jones and Mr & Mrs Iestyn & Rachel Gwillim SITE ADDRESS: Springfields Llangenny NP8 1HA GRID REF: E: 323974 N:218093 : 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 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 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, Road, , 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. As access is a matter for decision at this time it is essential that the southern access, which would be the only means of access for the southern three plots, is also fully specified in terms of layout, width, gradient, visibility and construction. I am puzzled at the inclusion of incorrectly drawn visibility splays on the plan which are depicted from a point not even within the limit of the red line site boundary! As a through route from north to south would not be supported additional information regarding the proposed means of prevention of vehicular access along the entire parish road is also required. Finally there would appear to be two strips of land, one north and one south of the five plots, being omitted from the scheme and I am seriously concerned to what end this has been proposed. Whilst I appreciate that much has been made of the retention of the remaining land for community use neither north or south access can, at this stage, be considered suitable for any other use than that put forward in this application. I look forward to receiving additional information to clarify these points but must advise that without such details my recommendation would be one of refusal. Powys County 6th Mar 2013 I have looked again at all the submitted Council Highways documentation and cannot see clearly any drawing which indicates that all the land possibly required for creation of the southern access is within the same ownership. Even if I have failed to spot the plans access has been indicated as a matter for decision at this time and therefore the detail of layout, width, gradient, visibility and construction should be available for consideration. Should the planners wish to condition this element of the development I remain uncertain as to whether the necessary standards can be met.

Powys will accept up to five dwellings off a private drive if the access is acceptable. The submission however is showing five houses and fails to make abundantly clear how the north and south portions will be separated to prevent through vehicular traffic. The northern access is barely acceptable for two and would certainly not be approved as a through route. It is not clear, if access is provided from the north for two units and the south for three why any form of emergency link would be necessary. A locked gate is all too readily left unlocked for the convenience of those who may wish to use it and such an arrangement is not acceptable given the limited scope of the northern access. A more permanent closure with pedestrian access would be appropriate.

Whilst you may be able to correct the visibility splay I would expect to see them shown on the application drawings as access is a matter for current consideration. I must advise that the splays must be shown to the same edge of carriageway and no part of the carriageway should fall behind the splay line.

Finally, I note your reasoning for the retention of the northern strip of land but am conscious that the purpose of the southern strip makes the lack of detail of this access all the more concerning. The proposed access to serve three dwellings, if detailed, is unlikely to be designed to be suitable for the purpose of equestrian use involving horse-boxes etc, even for the limited occasions generated by village gatherings.

I must therefore advise that your email does not answer my queries and remain concerned at the lack of detail being offered. I have no objection, in principle, to the development proposed but do not wish to comment favourably on an access about which I have no information but that is clearly part of the approval process at this time.

I trust the planning authority will advise as to how this impasse can be addressed. Powys County 17th May 2013 Comments that with reference to the latest plan Council Highways submitted, in terms of detail showing layout, width, gradient, visibility and construction adequate for consideration as a matter for decision, we are no further forward.

The current plan provides dimensions which are clearly meant to depict the visibility splays but do not relate to any lines of sight on the plan. The access now has an acute angle to the highway with no radius on either side and the gradient remains a statement of intent with no evidence to substantiate its achievability. With an access from a carriageway with its own gradient, levels across the width of the access are critical and need to be detailed.

I remain supportive in principle but until it is clear that the required standards at the southern access are achievable it would be unreasonable to make a recommendation with conditions that ultimately may not be workable.

Powys County 8th Jul 2013 I refer to the latest re-consultation and with all the Council Highways best intentions to support the application I am still unable to do so due to the total lack of clarity and detail relating to the southern access.

Two of the plans referred to in Mr. Betham's latest Southern Access Statement are nowhere to be found and paragraph C is unintelligible for the purpose of highway comment.

Drawing 0906/05/C continues to show an access with an acute angle to the carriageway, no discernible radii and is really of an inappropriate scale to depict visibility splays.

The most recent information submitted now includes data on a tree root protection system. It is far from clear exactly where this will be used but the text in paragraph b strongly suggests the access area to the class III road. This is not an acceptable construction method in the vicinity of the county highway.

I have been approached by both Kirsty Williams AM and Councillor John Morris regarding this site to whom I have indicated our, in principle, support. But with the access point as a detail to be decided at this stage I cannot even recommend workable conditions because after six months we still have no reasonable access layout plan upon which to comment positively.

Powys County 15th Aug 2013 The County Council as Highway Authority for the Council Highways County Unclassified highway, U0645

Wish the following recommendations/observations be applied.

Recommendations/Observations

The following highway conditions should be included on any permission granted:-

HC2 The gradient of any access shall not exceed 1 in 15 for the first 10.0 metres measured from edge of the adjoining carriageway along the centre line of the access.

HC3 The centre line of the first 10.0 metres of the southern access road measured from the edge of the adjoining carriageway shall be at right angles to that edge of the said carriageway.

HC4 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the southern access shall be constructed so that there is clear visibility from a point 1.05 metres above ground level at the centre of the access and 2.4 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway, to points 0.26 metres above ground level at the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 70.0 metres distant in each direction measured from the centre of the access along the edge of the adjoining carriageway.

Nothing shall be planted, erected or allowed to grow on the area(s) of land so formed that would obstruct the visibility and the visibility shall be maintained free from obstruction thereafter.

HC7 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the area of each access to be used by vehicles is to be constructed to a minimum of 410mm depth, comprising a minimum of 250mm of sub-base material, 100mm of bituminous macadam base course material and 60mm of bituminous macadam binder course material for a distance of 10.0 metres from the edge of the adjoining carriageway in respect of the southern access and 5.5 metres in respect of the northern access from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Any use of alternative materials is to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the access being constructed.

HC11 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development provision shall be made within the curtilage of the site for the parking of all construction vehicles together with a vehicle turning area. This parking and turning area shall be constructed to a depth of 0.30 metres in crusher run or sub-base and maintained free from obstruction at all times such that all vehicles serving the site may park within the site and both enter and leave the site in a forward gear.

HC12a The width of the southern access carriageway shall be not less than 5.0 metres for a minimum distance of 10.0 metres along the access measured from the adjoining edge of carriageway of the county highway.

HC12b The width of the northern access carriageway shall be not less than 5.0 metres for a minimum distance of 5.5 metres along the access measured from the adjoining edge of carriageway of the county highway.

HC21 Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the area of the access to be used by vehicles is to be finished in a 40mm bituminous surface course for a distance of 10.0 metres in respect of the southern access and 5.5 metres in respect of the northern access from the edge of the adjoining carriageway.

HC31 The area of each private drive and any turning area is to be metalled and surfaced in bituminous macadam, concrete or block paviours, prior to the occupation of that dwelling.

HC32 No storm water drainage from the site shall be allowed to discharge onto the county highway.

Prior to the commencement of the development full details of the permanent barrier to through vehicular movements along the parish road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Within five days from the commencement of the development the permanent barrier shall be erected across the parish road to prevent through vehicular movement across the development site between plots 6 and 7.

Reasons for Comments

To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. Rural Housing Enabler No comments received Vale Of Grwyney 25th Feb 2013 Supports low cost affordable housing and whilst Community Council members support this application in principle clarification is requested on the "intermediate housing for local needs" classification. Please can you confirm: 1) Whether the application is for low cost affordable housing or open market housing.

2) If low cost housing for local needs will a section 106 agreement be formulated to ensure the properties remain affordable in perpetuity. Vale Of Grwyney 19th Mar 2013 Supports this application Community Council

CONTRIBUTORS Dr Richard Broyd, Penrhiw, Llangenny S E Powell, Gelli Fanw Farm, Llanbedr J Lewis, 2 Moor Parc Cottages, Llanbedr Mr Dave Sherman, Millbrook , Llangenny Susan Fair, Dyffryn Beusych, Llanbedr Mr and Mrs Allen, Tyn Y Pwll, Llangenny Mr Graham Norton, Penlan, Llangenny Mr and Mrs Alexander, Glanffrwd, Llangenny Mr and Mrs Coleman, Penlan, Miss B Buckle Sue Richards, Ty-Draw, Llangenny P J Lewis, Ty- , Llangenny Mr C Jones, Panteg Farm, Llanbedr Rev Colin Bowen, Rector Of The Parish Of Llangenni, The Rectory Sophie Price, Moor Park, Llanbedr Leolin Price Mr Clive Norbury, Llais Y Afon, Llangenny Mr and Mrs Lewis, 3 Springfields, Crickhowell J Schwank, 2 Springfields, Crickhowell Mr Michael Burt, Pen Draig, Llangenny Mr John Morris, Graig Barn Farm, Llangenny Lane Melissa and Nick Gannon, 4 Springfields, Llangenny Mr D J Davies, Montafon, Llangenny Mr Jeff Jones, Bronycoed, Llangenny Lane Mr Phil Rees, Gwen Y Butler, Llangenny

The application has been advertised by site notice and by letter to neighbouring properties and the following is a summary of the comments received.

This development will help the survival of the village and allow local young people to build houses for their needs. The development is not intrusive and is of a scale that the village can support. Whole heartedly support the application.

Supports the application for five houses as there are not enough houses for sale in this area and the few that are available to buy have prices set for those coming from London wishing to buy holiday homes. It is not fair that local people are pushed out of their own communities in this way and as such believe that it is the NPA's responsibility and duty as their local community council to help to provide a solution to this problem, ie more housing for local people. This is not a planning application from some big city developer out to make lots of money, it’s for local people who want to stay in their community. You would be doing them and the local community a disservice by rejecting this application.

Support the application for dwellings as local needs housing within the hamlet of Llangenny. The applicants have always lived in the village, gone to school in the area and have had their names down on the local needs housing for a number of years, they also work within the immediate area. Proposed site for this small development would be an ideal location and the provision of the intermediate housing for local needs would also improve the demographic balance within Llangenny. The BBNPA should be encouraging the building of small numbers of local needs houses, where demand exists, in all hamlets and villages so that vibrant and sustainable communities can continue to flourish. The school needs young families to keep it going, if not they face possible closures.

It is noted that a commuted sum has been offered which in turn will be used towards affordable homes elsewhere in the area.

Within this community there is no housing for first time buyers, low waged workers and young families. Locals who have grown up in the area have only one option to travel to work from further afield which is expensive and a detriment to the community.

The field in question has for many years been used for community events - dog shows, pig roasts etc and for a much needed car park when there is a wedding or burial or for large community events in the village hall. All this has been done with the willing consent of the landowner and this facility would continue to be available with the proposed four/five houses to be built. The scale of this proposed housing development would not detract from the current ambience and ethos of the village and community.

Objections have also been received and the following is a summary of the issues raised: Concerned at the proposed development, as owners of the nearest dwelling there will be the greatest impact on this dwelling. The suggestion that we are supporting this application is not the case. We object on the grounds that the "parish road" bounds our property, concerned that the new access will become a thorough fare in the future, this would be undesirable and detrimental to our wellbeing in our own home and to the rural nature of the area in general. The house are not affordable, only by virtue that the land owner can release the land to the applicants without necessary cost. The plans do not show any grading/elevation of the proposed houses, including design and heights, thereby making it impossible to assess the visual impact from the neighbours perspective.

The field is in the centre of Llangenny and its development would spoil the heart of this hamlet. The field was sold on the understanding that it would not be developed.

The plan is being considered against the Authority Approved Unitary Development Plan and not the formally adopted Local Plan (1999) where this site is identified as countryside. o Within the approved UDP Llangenny is identified as a "third tier Settlement" having very little to offer in terms of provision for sustainable development on any significant scale. The scale of this proposal for five dwellings does not comply with the criteria set out in the UDP. o I cannot find any reference regarding "Local Needs" housing within the UPD the application not meeting the criteria within the plan. o Even though the field has been included within the village boundary for the UDP there is no reference within the plan regarding development. o This application is contradictory to Policy ES29"Enabling Affordable Housing "within the UDP o Llangenny being a hamlet is only served with miner road network consisting of narrow approach roads from every direction and is not sustainable for large development

Local Development Plan (LDP)

Public consultation meetings were held in Llangenny in 2008 for the LDP. The local residents that attended the consultation meeting made it clear that two areas within Llangenny village should never be built on. These areas were the playground to the south of Llangenny Church and the Dragon Field

The LDP team carried out a survey on this site (The Dragon Field) and it was deemed unsuitable for development. The boundary change made in the UDP to be amended Dragon field to become countryside within the LDP as it had been in previous development plans prior to the UDP.

This site was resubmitted under site alternatives SALT69 in the approaching LDP and rejected. o The Dragon Field also holds value as an important open space in the village. Furthermore, any development of this site would appear as back land development o Public LDP consultation meetings in 2008 concluded the Dragon field the site should not be developed. o The LDP survey concluded this site unsuitable for development. o Historically since the 1950s this field has been used to hold village events. o Llangenny being so small does not have the infrastructure or facilities to accommodate any large housing developments. o The Highways network in Llangenny will not support development the approach roads into the village are very narrow. The village has no public transport, the car being the only main means of transport in and out.

Other Considerations

The Llangenny map dated 1872 submitted with this application does not correspond with an earlier map of 1839 or the ordinance survey map published in 1888. The maps dated 1839 and 1888 and any maps to date do not show the old parish road where the applicant claims. Please see attached maps 1839 and 1888. o The proposed access to the development in fact is a new road way to be constructed in open countryside. o Nine properties surround the Dragon Field. The proposal for five new houses increases Llangenny by over 50% o The visual impact of the proposed development in an area of conservation is totally unacceptable o Housing on this site has already been refused planning consent and an appeal dismissed

Given the legitimate issues of concern echoed above, I would respectfully request the application Ref: 13/08809/OUT is dismissed and the scheme refused planning consent. If the matter is being brought to the attention of the PAROW Committee, I would appreciate if you would inform me so I can speak at the Committee against the proposal.

RELEVANT POLICIES

G3: “Development in the National Park” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) G4: “Development Affecting Trees” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) G6: “Design” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q4: “Protected and Important Wild Species” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q5: “Biodiversity and Development” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) S1: “Sustainable Use of Land” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) S10: “Solar Energy” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) S11: “Biomass Energy” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES29: “Enabling Affordable Housing” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES39: “Boundary Features” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES47: “Water Sewage Supply New Developments” (Unitary Development Plan 2007)

PLANNING HISTORY App Ref Description Decision Date

10/05039/OUT Pair of local needs houses. Application 3rd Sep 2010 Refused

OFFICER’S REPORT

This application is brought before Committee as the application has been called in by Councillor P Ashton for reasons of public interest, the need to debate the issues around local need, affordable and intermediate housing in a rural environment so Committee can be aware of the issues.

Site description

The site is located within the settlement development boundary of Llangenny as defined within the National Park Unitary Development Plan (2007). Llangenny is a small hamlet predominantly set in a river valet basin with properties situated also on the rising hillside around approximately two miles south east of Crickhowell.

The site is a field located in the centre of Llangenny with residential dwellings bordering the land to both the north and south boundaries. The field is bounded on the west side by a wooded area on rising land at the bottom of which the application describes is a parish highway. Dropping down into the field from the parish highway the land slopes down to the east, to an access gate onto the adjacent main road through Llangenny. On the opposite side of the road the land drops off again down to the Gwynne Fawr tributary of the , which is a SSSI and cSAC. The field is otherwise bounded on the remaining sides by residential gardens/houses.

Access to each proposed dwelling is off an existing track as describe as a parish highway. This runs north of the site bounding the residential curtilage of number 4 Springfields exiting onto Powys highways land from behind a small row of mono-pitch garages and runs south joining onto the narrow highway running through Llangenny. Between the site and the residential units bounding the north of the site is a minor tributary/water course to the nearby river.

The field has been described as land used for equestrian purposes, but is also used for overspill carpark when events take place within the area and for local sporting events, hog roasts and other community events. One letter suggests that the field has been used for these types of events for many years.

Proposal

The proposal is for an outline application for the creation of five new dwellings along the western edge of the field and associated access from the dwellings to the highway.

History

The site has been the subject of a number of applications, a number of which were considered invalid due to insufficient information. There has been correspondence between the NPA and the agent where advice has been provided regarding the need for a comprehensive proposal for the site.

Pre-application advice was offered to the agent on the 5th August 2009 where it was identified that the site lay within the settlement development boundary, but that the number of dwellings proposed should not prejudice the development or use of of the remainder of the site; access off the single track road; flood risk; the proposal would need to take account of the NPA Planning Obligation Strategy and would require a robust justification in the design and access statement that it represents the most efficient use of the land. This advice was reiterated in correspondence of the 2nd October 2009 as part of an invalid letter.

In an email of the 10th February 2010, comments were reiterated again to the agent relating to our concern over the piecemeal development of the site and the lack of a comprehensive scheme. Eventually a valid application was submitted (application 10/05039/OUT) where it was clear that the pre-application advice had not been followed and the application was refused. Application 10/05039/OUT was refused on three grounds:

1 The proposal is for two residential units, within a small area of a whole field that falls within the settlement development boundary, with no consideration given to the rest of the land. It is therefore considered that the proposal fails to meet criteria (iii) of policy G3 and criteria (I) of policy G6 of the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Wales (2010) in relation to the efficient use of land. 2 The application fails to demonstrate that the site is supported by an existing foul drainage system or that new facilities cannot be provided for foul drainage to support this development. As such it is considered there is insufficient information to support the provision of a private septic tank and the proposal would therefore fail to meet the criteria of policy G3(viii) and ES47 of the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan (2007). 3 There is insufficient information to assess the proposed development of this site in terms of its scale and design within the landscape and built environment. On the basis of the limited information provided and with regard to the potential for the development of the whole field it is considered that the proposed development would create an incongruent and discordant element within the built environment and landscape of the National Park. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy G3 (I) (iii) and (IV) of the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority Unitary Development Plan.

There was a subsequent appeal on the decision of this application, which was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate the 27th June 2011 who raised strong concerns at how an access could be achieved to the south exit point onto the highway.

The current application was submitted on 22nd January 2013. There have been extensive negotiations in order to receive the necessary adequate information to reach a recommendation on the proposed scheme.

Appraisal

Whilst the Local Plan remains the formal statutory policy framework for the area, the Authority Approved UDP provides a more up to date and relevant planning framework. The UDP may not have been formally adopted but it has been subject to all the statutory consultation and procedures required for development plans. It is for this reason that the NPA has determined to afford greater weight to the UDP in the determination of planning applications than the Adopted Local Plan of 1999.

This application was considered against policy G3, G4, G6, Q4, Q5, S1, S10, S11, ES29, ES39 and ES47 of the BBNPA UDP. Local Plan policies will only be considered where they differ significantly from their UDP counterpart. The relevant polices of the former BBNPA Local Plan (adopted 1999) have not been referred to as under the proposals map of this document the site would have been sited within countryside and would not therefore have been considered acceptable.

In making a recommendation on this application, I have taken into consideration the relevant policies of the Development Plan and the comments made by the consultees and other interested parties and the following national guidance: o Planning Policy Wales (PPW, 2010) o Technical Advice Note 12 (Design)

The dual purposes of National Park designation are, as first set out in the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949 and updated by the Environment Act 1995: o conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage; and o promotion of opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park by the public

Following a review in 1974 of the operation of the 1949 Act, led by Lord Sandford, an important recommendation emerged that became known as the Sandford Principle. This principle was enshrined in the 1995 Act, to the effect that where irreconcilable conflict arises between the two main National Park purposes, then the conservation of natural beauty should prevail over promotion of public enjoyment and understanding.

Technical Advice Note 22: Sustainable Buildings (July 2010) sets out that for residential development the policy uses the Code for Sustainable Homes ('the Code') to expect all new applications for residential development to meet Level 3 of the Code, with additional expectations that 6 credits will be achieved under Category Ene1 Energy/CO2.

The DAS provides a code for Sustainable Homes Pre-Assessment setting out how the proposed dwellings could achieve in the region of Code Level 5. The mandatory minimum for Wales is Code Level 3 and based on the figures provided it I considered that this could be achieved in principle. Further consideration of this level to be achieved will be considered under the approval of reserved matters, however conditions will be imposed on this application. Officers therefore support the sustainability credentials of this proposal.

Issues

The main issues of the case are considered to be the following; Has the current submission overcome the previous reasons of refusal and satisfied all material planning considerations. Namely: 1. is the proposal acceptable in principle; 2. is there an impact on the amenity of the area; 3. is there adequate supporting infrastructure for the proposed development; 4. would there be a negative impact on protected species or their habitats; 5. would there be a detrimental impact on highways safety; and 6. would there be a detrimental impact visually.

Principle of development

The previous application was refused as the proposal was for two residential units, within a small area of a whole field that falls within the settlement development boundary, with no consideration given to the effect on the remainder of the site. Therefore, whilst the application site falls within the current approved settlement development boundary where development is generally supported the proposal before the Authority was not an efficient use of the land and opened the door to the potential of piecemeal development across the field. A comprehensive proposal needed to be considered for the whole of the site.

Turning to the particulars of this application, the proposed development has been described as five house, four as intermediate housing for local needs with a commuted sum as affordable housing component. The application suggests that four of the dwellings will provide for housing local people who cannot afford the high house prices within the area. This may well be the case, however there are no occupancy restrictions proposed on the dwellings and the owners will be free to sell them on the open market. The proposal does not meet Welsh Government Guidance or the UDP definition of affordable housing as follows; “……..properties for rent at registered social landlord (RSL) benchmark rent levels and properties available for shared ownership, in accordance with Welsh Assembly Government or other recognised criteria.”1 I consider therefore that the application is for five market houses. The Authority in the first instance will seek to secure the provision of affordable housing units on site. Taking a minimum amount out of five dwellings at least one would be expected to be affordable as Policy ES29 requires a minimum of 20% affordable housing. Exceptionally the NPA may accept a commuted sum payable to the relevant Unitary Housing Authority (in this instance ) to enable the provision of affordable housing in the local area. In order to meet the requirements of Policy ES29 in this instance a commuted sum is appropriate. The reason for this is as follows;

The local housing needs survey for the Vale of Grwyney within which this area is located identifies a housing need for 9 to 13 households for the total area. The comprehensive scheme for this site would initiate the use of Policy ES29 which provides for affordable housing where a need is established. Policy ES29 is triggered where an application is submitted for three or more dwellings or on land which could reasonably contain these numbers which lies within the settlement development boundary (white area).The proposal is for five dwellings along the boundary of a field that lies wholly within the settlement development boundary.

Evidence has been provided to the Authority by the applicant’s agent and by Powys County Council's Housing Strategy Officer that there are no Registered Social Landlords who would be interested in taking on a single dwelling in this location. If the Authority considered negotiating a land swap in the community, the same situation would arise. I considered therefore that this option would not be expedient to pursue. I am satisfied in this instance that a commuted sum would be appropriate. This will be agreed through the section 106 agreement. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle.

Neighbouring Amenity

Policy G3 (v) aims to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties from proposed development. The overlooking of dwellings and gardens is a material planning consideration, although it is normally accepted that some overlooking of gardens by neighbours is inevitable in most medium to high density situations. However, the planning system will still operate to safeguard existing property owners from the worst excesses of garden overlooking.

The nearest dwellings would be at 4 Springfields to the north and Bron y Coed to the south. Both dwellings would be at distances in excess of 20 metres between elevations and those of the nearest proposed house (based on the indicative layouts). Restricting the level of glazing in those proposed elevations that face onto the neighbouring properties would fundamentally overcome the issue of overlooking, this can be resolved at detailed stage.

It is not considered unreasonable to seek to ensure that existing gardens have at least some private area that is not easily overlooked. In this instance limited detail has been provided in order to assess this element, however with due regard to the distances between the proposed development and the existing housing this could be reasonably resolved under a more detailed application. With the use of appropriate screening and ensuring that there

are no windows looking towards to the neighbouring properties this is considered not an issue.

Foul water drainage

Policy G3 (viii) and ES47 identify that development requiring foul drainage will only be permitted where it has been reasonably demonstrated that adequate infrastructure exists or can be provided.

The previous application was refused as the application failed to demonstrate that the site is supported by an existing foul drainage system or that new facilities cannot be provided for foul drainage to support this development. Is has been recognised by Dwr Cymru that the existing mains sewer for the area does not currently have the capacity for supporting additional dwellings. It is now proposed for foul drainage to be disposed of through a private treatment plant. Natural Resources Wales (formerly the Environment Agency) have not raised any concerns to the use of a private system in this instance. The previous reason for refusal has now been resolved.

As such it is considered that the meets the criteria of policy G3(viii) and ES47 of the BBNPA UDP (2007).

Ecological Issues

Policy G3 (i), Q4 and Q5 aim to ensure that development does not have a detrimental impact upon protected species and their habitat and enhances such habitats through positive management.

It is accepted in principle that the proposals will not have a significant effect on the improved grassland site or the western boundary hedgerow/treeline, and on this basis there has been no request for an ecological survey in support of this application.

Comments received from the NPA Ecologist 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)". It is agreed 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. The NPA Ecologist disagrees 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.

With these thoughts in mind, the field and its boundaries offer opportunities to provide biodiversity enhancement. It is therefore welcomed that the proposal will restore the hedgerow, which forms the western boundary of the site east of the parish road. It is recognised that access to the proposed properties has been paired to reduce the effect on the hedgerow and that there are 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. The creation of hedge boundaries around the properties and the circumference of the remaining field boundary is supported. Hedgerow creation and improvements should be completed using native species.

The proposed development falls 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).

At this outline stage there is no detail of the design of the individual houses. 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.

Consideration for securing a potential community allotment or orchard area on part of the remaining improved grassland and the retention and management of the western boundary hedgerow/treeline in combination with the woodland block to maintain the habitat corridor was expressed during pre-application discussions. A plan depicting the future management of the site has been provided, however this will more than likely need to be included within the 106 legal agreement.

It is appreciated that there is no detail of the design of the individual houses at outline stage however such features should be included within these buildings that offer opportunities for roosting bats as an additional or part alternative biodiversity enhancement. This can be achieved either through condition or the use of informatives directing the future deign of the dwellings.

In conclusion should the BBNPA be minded to permit the outline application it is recommended that the location and design of the access road should avoid any significant adverse effects on the western boundary hedgerow/treeline and further biodiversity enhancements within and around the application site should be secured. These maybe appropriately controlled as a reserved matter.

Highways Safety

Criterion vii) of policy G3 requires that all proposals are compatible with the road hierarchy in that it is within the capacity of existing approach roads and does not have an unacceptable impact on traffic circulation or highway safety. Criterion ix) requires that adequate means of access and parking space can be provided to cater for the traffic generated by the proposal.

Access is for consideration under this current application. It is proposed to create two new access points onto the adjacent highway, to the north and to the south. There is an existing track running along the western boundary of the proposed plots that is described as a parish road. The status of this track has been queried, however this is not pertinent to the determination of this application. A track exits and this will be upgraded in order to accommodate the traffic movements of the proposed dwelling.

The local highways has been supportive of the proposed development in principle, however the application has had to undergo extensive negotiations in order to reach a stage where sufficient information has been provided to reach a conclusion. Of particular concern was how the proposed access point to the south would connect to the highway given the constraints of the site and surrounding land. Adequate detail has now been provided to satisfy the Highways requirements and to reasonably allow for a positive recommendation subject to conditions imposed in the interests of highways safety.

Visual amenity

Policy G3 (i) (iii) and (iv) aims to ensure that proposed development will not have a detrimental impact upon the natural beauty, landscape and built environment of the character of the National Park.

The previous application was refused as there was insufficient information to assess the proposed development of this site in terms of its scale and design within the landscape and built environment. On the basis of the limited information provided and with regard to the potential for the development of the whole field it is considered that the proposed development could create an incongruent and discordant element within the built environment and landscape of the National Park.

The site has a definite rural feel the character of which would be impacted upon by the creation of any development within. As the whole site/field falls within the development boundary it is considered important that a comprehensive scheme is considered to assess properly the potential visual impact. Limited detail has been provided in relation to the physical appearance of the proposed dwellings although this is usual under outline applications. However it is important to consider the comprehensive development of this site. Full detail can be reasonably considered under the reserved matters application, however it is considered that piecemeal development of the site must be avoided and a comprehensive scheme for the five houses considered under one future application.

Following discussions between officers of the NPA and the applicant/landowner and their agent it has been agreed that a lower density of development would be more in-keeping in this area along with safeguarding the rest of the land from further development through a land management scheme, this will be secured through a section 106 agreement. Failure to achieve this level of security would result in the current application still not being acceptable to the NPA, as there would not be sufficient clarity on the density levels of dwellings on the whole of the land, the expected level of affordable housing that could be achieved and any other planning obligations necessary for a more intensive use of the land.

It is proposed therefore to provide five dwelling bounding the western boundary of the field leaving a village green type open space at the heart of Llangenny. This will form part of the legal agreement.

On balance the potential for a piecemeal type development across the whole field let alone the western boundary would create a situation that could significantly impact upon the visual amenity of this part of the park. However, as the proposal is only for part of the field and the rest of the land will be protected from further development through a management agreement it is considered that sufficient control can be maintained to prevent an inappropriate form of development that would have a detrimental visual impact on this part of the Park. It is considered that a piecemeal scheme along the western boundary will not be appropriate and that a comprehensive, well designed, integrated scheme into this attractive hamlet will be essential. As such the proposed development complies with the criteria of policy G3 (i) (iii) and (iv) of the BBNPA UDP.

Conclusion

There is strong local support for this application and it is likely that the development if approved will benefit local people in the first instance and allow them to stay within an area, where due to the cost of the existing housing stock they may fail to get onto the housing ladder. However, this proposal is for unrestricted market housing and will therefore not add to the local areas affordable housing stock. A need for affordable housing has been identified in this area, which is not met through this application. A commuted sum can contribute to the provision of affordable housing in the wider local area. Policy ES29 indicates that a commuted sum will only be considered in exceptional circumstances. It is my view from the reasons set out above that there are exceptional circumstances in this case and it is reasonable for the Authority to accept a commuted sum.

Issues over the access have now been successfully negotiated and all other issues will be conditioned for future consideration under an approved matters application. In order to avoid piecemeal development of the site a comprehensive scheme for all five dwellings will be required to be submitted.

On balance the proposal is therefore considered to comply with the requirements of policies G3, G4, G6, Q4, Q5, S1, S10, S11, ES29, ES39 and ES47 of the BBNPA UDP and the application is hereby recommended for approval subject to a section 106 agreement being entered into.

RECOMMENDATION: Minded to Permit

Conditions and/or Reasons:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. 2 Approval of the details of the layout, scale and appearance of the building[s] and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. 3 The dwellings shall achieve Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. No dwelling shall be occupied until a final Code Certificate has been issued for it certifying that Code Level 3 has been achieved. 4 No development shall take place until a detailed landscape management plan is 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. 5 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. 6 The gradient of any access shall not exceed 1 in 15 for the first 10.0 metres measured from edge of the adjoining carriageway along the centre line of the access. 7 The centre line of the first 10.0 metres of the southern access road measured from the edge of the adjoining carriageway shall be at right angles to that edge of the said carriageway. 8 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the southern access shall be constructed so that there is clear visibility from a point 1.05 metres above ground level at the centre of the access and 2.4 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway, to points 0.26 metres above ground level at the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 70.0 metres distant in each direction measured from the centre of the access along the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Nothing shall be planted, erected or allowed to grow on the area(s) of land so formed that would obstruct the visibility and the visibility shall be maintained free from obstruction thereafter. 9 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the area of each access to be used by vehicles is to be constructed to a minimum of 410mm depth, comprising a minimum of 250mm of sub-base material, 100mm of bituminous macadam base course material and 60mm of bituminous macadam binder course material for a distance of 10.0 metres from the edge of the adjoining carriageway in respect of the southern access and 5.5 metres in respect of the northern access from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Any use of alternative materials is to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the access being constructed. 10 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development provision shall be made within the curtilage of the site for the parking of all construction vehicles together with a vehicle turning area. This parking and turning area shall be constructed to a depth of 0.30 metres in crusher run or sub-base and maintained free from obstruction at all times such that all vehicles serving the site may park within the site and both enter and leave the site in a forward gear. 11 The width of the southern access carriageway shall be not less than 5.0 metres for a minimum distance of 10.0 metres along the access measured from the adjoining edge of carriageway of the county highway. 12 The width of the northern access carriageway shall be not less than 5.0 metres for a minimum distance of 5.5 metres along the access measured from the adjoining edge of carriageway of the county highway. 13 Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the area of the access to be used by vehicles is to be finished in a 40mm bituminous surface course for a distance of 10.0 metres in respect of the southern access and 5.5 metres in respect of the northern access from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. 14 The area of each private drive and any turning area is to be metalled and surfaced in bituminous macadam, concrete or block paviours, prior to the occupation of that dwelling. 15 No storm water drainage from the site shall be allowed to discharge onto the county highway. 16 Prior to the commencement of the development full details of the permanent barrier to through vehicular movements along the parish road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the barrier approved shall be implemented in full and maintained as such in- perpetuity. 17 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking, amending and re-enacting that Order) no development of the types described in Part(s) 1; Class(es) A, B, C, D, E, F, H, G; Part 2 Classes A, B; Part 40 Classes G, H of Schedule 2, other than that hereby permitted shall be carried out without the written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons:

1 Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2 To enable the National Park Authority to exercise proper control over these aspects of the development. 3 In the interests of creating a sustainable development 4 In the interests of protecting biodiversity for the area. 5 In the interests of protecting biodiversity and their environments. 6 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 7 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 8 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 9 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 10 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 11 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 12 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 13 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 14 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 15 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 16 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 17 In order to safeguard the character and visual amenities of the locality, to safeguard the amenities of the neighbouring properties and in the interests of creating a sustainable form of development.

Informative Notes:

1 (a) Plans should be made to incorporate into building design opportunities for roosting bats. (b) 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: (c) 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. 2 The development to which this permission relates is the subject of an agreement under, inter alia, Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This permission should be read in conjunction with that agreement.