Major Application
Cttee: 10/02/2010 Item No. 01
Application no: BDB/70680 For Details and Plans Click here
Site Address Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke, RG22 4BF Proposal Reserved matters application for the siting, external appearance and landscaping for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of land for Class A1 retail warehousing with car parking, service yard and revised access arrangements pursuant to outline planning permission BDB 55849
Registered: 15/05/2009 Expiry Date: 14/08/2009 Type of Approval of Case Officer: Lisa Souden Application: reserved matters 01256 845460 Applicant: Tesco Stores Ltd Agent: G L Hearn Ward: Grove Ward Member(s): Cllr S Day Cllr R Hussey*
Parish: OS Grid Reference: 462369,150541
Recommendation: Approve
General Comments
The Head of Planning and Transport has declined to use her delegation to determine this application. Whilst the 27 letters of objection raise, in the majority, principle issues of concern which cannot be reconsidered in this reserved matters application, the Head of Planning and Transport considered that this application was of sufficient public interest to be determined by the Committee.
Amended Plans: Received 03/07/2009 detailing the following:
1. Submission of additional cross-section drawings through the site and adjacent land to provide an indication of the relative levels 2. Submission of plans showing amendments to design - glazing to be provided along the entire frontage of building, which has involved the slight relocation of the cafe and storage areas within the building 3. Submission of additional drawing showing roof plan 4. Submission of details for all proposed boundary treatments 5. Amended Travel Plan - updated to remove reference to B&Q 6. Amended Landscape Supporting Information Document showing amendments to the landscape scheme to reflect the changes to the layout and boundary treatment 7. Additional illustrative photomontage of the front/west elevation of the building
1 of 66 Additional information: received by email dated 30th July 2009 from Aspect Ecology providing further information in relation to reptile potential.
Amended plans/additional information: received 14/10/09 (larger scale drawings of same received 19/10/09) showing revisions to layout to address landscaping, boundary treatment and highway matters.
Amended plans/additional information: received 06/11/2009 showing further revisions to landscaping proposals and submission of Landscape Management Plan to address comments of Tree/Landscape Officers.
Amended plans: received 11/01/2010 showing further revisions to boundary treatments and revised levels in service yard.
Additional information: received 15/01/10 - Structural Engineer's Report.
Description of Site
The site is approximately 3.3 hectares and is located south west of Basingstoke Town Centre, sited between the A30 Winchester Road to the north and The Harrow Way to the south. These two highways meet at the Brighton Hill Roundabout approximately 300m to the west of the site. The site is currently vacant and has been cleared of all structures associated with its former use as a production facility for Smiths Industries Aerospace. The site can be accessed from The Harrow Way, with pedestrian access via a gate on Winchester Road. Immediately to the west of the site is the Brighton Hill Retail Park, which comprises 6 retail units, a Pizza Hut restaurant in the car park and a McDonalds Drive Through adjacent to the entrance to the Retail Park. Vehicular access to the Retail Park is from a traffic light controlled junction from Winchester Road. To the north of the site beyond Winchester Road is the Basingstoke Football Club Camrose ground, with residential housing adjacent and beyond. To the south of the site there are further residential dwellings, but these are generally set back from the Harrow Way behind mature landscaping. The Basingstoke Business Centre lies to the east which consists of a number of small business units. These units are set on lower ground than the site. The site is also on lower ground than the Brighton Hill Retail Park, and it slopes down towards Winchester Road to the north.
Proposal
This application seeks reserved matters approval for the siting, design, external appearance and landscaping pursuant to outline planning permission BDB 55849 granted by the Secretary of State (SoS) on 15th May 2006 for the redevelopment of the site for Class A1 "bulky goods" retail warehousing with means of access from both Winchester Road and Harrow Way also forming part of that permission. The permission related to the provision of:
8,653m² internal floorspace at ground floor 186m² internal floorspace lobby area at ground floor 158m² internal floorspace cafe at ground floor 1579m² builders yard 2435m²garden centre
2 of 66 This application has been submitted in accordance with Conditions 2 and 3 of outline planning permission BDB 55849 which state:
"2. Application for the approval of reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this planning permission".
3. Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the proposed building and the landscaping of the site shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced."
With regard to siting, the proposed store would be positioned as shown on the indicative layout approved as part of the outline permission. The store would be located centrally within the site, but adjacent to the eastern boundary. The proposed garden centre and greenhouse would be sited to the north of the store and the builders yard and associated turning circle to the south. The customer entrance and exit to the store would be on the western elevation. The indicative layout plan approved under the outline permission showed parking perpendicular to the store, adjacent to its western and north-western elevations. This proposal retains this parking formation, together with the access points as previously approved under the outline permission.
A cafe, together with ancillary office areas, would also be provided within the building, again, as shown indicatively on the layout plan approved under the outline permission and as specified within the floorspace areas approved under Condition 4 of that permission.
The design of the building is generally typical to that associated to stores of this nature, but high level glazing would be introduced in an attempt to maximise solar gain and natural lighting. The proposed materials would comprise composite roofing panels with a single ply membrane finish and significant amounts of timber with glazed curtain walling for light penetration. The proposed fencing adjacent to the western elevation would be set back to avoid the creation of a blank facade.
Landscaping is proposed at intervals within the car park and around the boundary of the site.
The application is supported by the following:
Planning Statement Travel Plan Foul Sewage and Utilities Assessment Lighting Assessment Waste Management Strategy Air Quality Assessment Landscape Supporting Information
Relevant Planning History
There are a number of applications relating to the former use of the site by Smiths Industries which are not considered relevant to list. The following provides a list of the relevant planning history of the site.
3 of 66
BDB 36287 Erection of Class A non-food retail warehouse Granted and associated parking 14/09/94
BDB 38126 Erection of six Class A1 non-food retail units two Granted fast food restaurants, fast food drive through 08/09/95 facility, associated car parking, service areas and highway improvements (Brighton Hill Retail Park)
BDB 55849 Demolition of existing buildings and 15/05/06 redevelopment of land for Class A1 retail Granted warehousing with car parking, service yard and on Appeal revised access arrangements (Call-In by Secretary of State)
BDB 70408 Outline planning application for the erection of Withdrawn Class A1 food store including access and layout 15/06/09 with associated parking (Tesco Stores)
Consultations
Ward Councillors:
Cllr Mrs Rowland: No objection.
Local Highway Authority: Original Plans: Number of concerns raised, further information requested (see detail in main section of report)
Comments on final amended plans awaited to be reported on the update sheet
Hampshire County Council Highway Authority: Discussions have been held with applicant over the detail of the access to the service yard from Harrow Way. This matter is now resolved and content that the full details of the access arrangements can be dealt with under the subsequent Section 278 Agreement. Raise no highways and transportation objection subject to a condition requiring details of the junctions of the development with Harrow Way to be approved before development commences.
Comments on final amended plans awaited to be reported on the update sheet
Urban Design: Original Plans: Minor amendments required to design of building.
Amended Plans: Satisfactorily address the concerns raised subject to conditions requiring the approval of detailed materials and appearance of the fence.
North East Hampshire Architects Panel: Original Plans: More landscaping is required on both road boundaries and a much more convincing landscape design is required for the areas around the building including the car park. This should include significant mature tree planting. The west elevation should be clear glazed and not have opaque panelling.
4 of 66 The plan does not show the canopy to the west elevation. The strategic landscape design is key to the success of the incorporation of the building into the site. The fencing needs to be well detailed and robust.
Landscape: Original Plans: Acceptable subject to submission of revised landscape details including additional planting to reduce dominance of large areas of parking and tarmac; tree and shrub planting along eastern boundary; use of greater variety of shrubs.
Amended Plans: No objections / No adverse comments The revised plans as outlined above, incorporate all the amendments requested in emails to Aspect Landscape Architects of 30 September and 6 October 2009. However, for the avoidance of doubt and clarity, it is considered that a specification for the imported growing medium are added to the landscape proposals. The quality of the planting medium is likely to be a key issue on this site and it is therefore considered that the need for its use and specification is included on the landscape proposals plan.
Comments on final amended plans awaited to be reported on the update sheet
Tree Officer: Original Plans: Unacceptable, recommend refusal because insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed structural tree planting will make a long-term contribution to the regeneration, restoration and improvement to the visual amenity and scenic quality of the local landscape. This could be overcome if the scheme was revised to include details of the proposed structural tree planting including the provision of a decent rooting environment for the new trees.
Amended plans: The tree pit details and the location of the proposed tree planting are now acceptable. These details can be agreed through an appropriately worded condition. Tree of heaven has been replaced with Robinia pseudoacacia ‘Frisia’ on the western boundary but (wild) cherry is still proposed on the northern boundary which needs further consideration. This is something that can probably be agreed by condition.
Comments on final amended plans: No objections to the amendments. Previous email of the 7 December 2009 is still applicable with particular reference to the conditions and comments.
Biodiversity Officer: Original Plans: A report of a walkover survey to fully assess reptile potential is required to assess biodiversity implications. Depending on this initial assessment, further survey work to assess population size may be necessary. If this cannot be supplied, refusal is recommended. Further comments following receipt of email dated 30/07/09 from Aspect Ecology: Based on this assessment, it is agreed with the conclusions that a full survey is not appropriate and that the matter can be adequately dealt with through a watching brief, as proposed. This can be secured via an appropriate condition. Environmental Health: No objection subject to conditions relating to hours of work during construction and deliveries; noise survey and monitoring; generic contaminated land; odour, dust and fume control. Agree with the findings of the air quality impact assessment and satisfied with submitted lighting specification plan. Environment Agency: With regards to the reserved matters that addresses external appearance and landscaping as part of the development proposal, the Environment Agency has no comments to make on this reserved matters planning application.
5 of 66
The conditions recommended on the outline permission influences the siting of the proposed development in particular reference to the condition recommending a provision of a 5 metre buffer zone as well as surface water source control measures for the proposed development.
Waste and Recycling Officer: Amended Plans: Plans meet requirements for recycling facility, including suitable access for both public users of the facility and collection vehicles.
Further Amended Plans: satisfied with the provision made for a public recycling site.
Crime Prevention Design Advisor: No objection, but a number of recommendations made to ensure that the perimeter of the site and the building shell are secure to allow staff and the general public to function without fear of crime. Care must be taken to provide sufficient lighting and natural surveillance of the public areas in order to allow anti social behaviour and crime to remain low.
Southern Gas Networks: Informative required - no mechanical excavations to take place above or within 0.5m of the low pressure and medium pressure systems and 3 metres of the intermediate pressure system.
Public Observations
26 letters of objection received in respect of original plans:
increased road traffic; no need as many food and retail facilities within vicinity including Asda; increased noise and disturbance; proposed entrance/exit points for shoppers and deliveries onto Harrow Way will increase traffic and congestion; no matter how 'green' a store is built will not stop people from using cars adding extra pressure to existing road structure; PPS6 contravened; B&Q pulled out of project which suggests no viable trading conditions in the area as already enough provision; landscaping will not provide privacy or a decent view in any direction; large car park without established boundaries/landscaping will spoil local environment; Cumberland Avenue will be used to park cars when shoppers can't be bothered to queue to Tesco; deliveries will be at all hours of the day; no need for another DIY store as B&Q, Homebase and Wicks all within 1 mile - could lead to these stores laying off staff so there will be no new jobs created; traffic survey is misleading; impact on highway safety not only for road users but also pedestrians;
10 letters specifically refer to a new Tesco's supermarket raising similar concerns as above (assumed referring to application BDB/70408 for a new supermarket on the site submitted by Tesco subsequently withdrawn 15/06/09)
6 of 66 1 further letter of objection received in respect of amended plans received: traffic; noise and disturbance from deliveries - if allowed should be restricted hours. 1 letter of comment received: querying details of application. Environmental Impact Assessment The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England & Wales) Regulations 1999 as amended by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2008 prohibit the granting of planning permission or subsequent consent with consideration of environmental matters pursuant to outline planning application and the subsequent approval of reserved matters. When the Local Planning Authority (LPA) receives an application for approval of reserved matters it should screen the development again having regard to the guidance on screening in Circular 02/99. Such consideration may be required where likely significant effects are identified at the reserved matters stage which either: (a) were not identifiable or identified at the outline planning permission stage; or (b) were identifiable but which now require "a fresh assessment", because of a significant change of circumstances. The proposed development is considered to be Schedule 2 development as defined by the Regulations, falling within 10(b) infrastructure projects. In the case of a Schedule 2 development, paragraph 32 of Circular 02/99 states the question "would this particular development be likely to give rise to significant effects on the environment?" having regard to the selection criteria for Schedule 2 development, set out in Schedule 3 of the Regulations concerning: 1. Characteristics of development 2. Location of development 3. Characteristics of the potential impact
The proposed development has been reviewed in the context of the Screening Opinion given by the Secretary of State in respect of outline planning application BDB 55849 dated 30 September 2005, which concluded the proposed development was not EIA development. The LPA, in carrying out a fresh screening of the proposal, considered that there has been no significant change in circumstances since the Opinion referred to above was given and the subsequent approval of the outline application and therefore an Environmental Statement in this particular case is not required. In arriving at this conclusion the LPA had regard to the above Regulations and advice and in particular the ‘Selection Criteria’ in Schedule 3 of the Regulations.
Planning Policy and Material Considerations
The proposal falls to be assessed against the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England May 2009; the provisions of the adopted Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 (BDBLP); the relevant Government guidance, Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), Supplementary Planning Document (SPD); and any other material considerations in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
7 of 66 National Guidance
Government guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 1 'Delivering Sustainable Communities' (PPS1) seeks the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and the wider area development scheme. PPS1 states that sustainable development is the core principle underpinning planning which should facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of urban and rural development.
The recently published Planning Policy Statement 4:'Planning for Sustainable Growth' (December 2009) sets out the Government's planning objectives for economic growth. It replaces previous policy guidance, including Planning Policy Statement 6:'Planning for Town Centres'.
Planning Policy Statement 9: 'Biodiversity and Geological Conservation' (PPS9) sets out the Government's vision for conserving and enhancing biological diversity. It includes the broad aim that planning, construction, development and regeneration should have minimal impacts on biodiversity and enhance it wherever possible.
Planning Policy Guidance Note: 13 'Transport' (PPG13) is also relevant and states that Local Planning Authorities should promote more sustainable transport choices both for carrying people and for moving freight.
South East Plan
The South East Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy May 2009 (RSS) and the adopted Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 now form part of the Development Plan for the Borough. At the time of determination of the outline application, the RSS was not in force and given that the principle of development was established at that time, it would not be reasonable or necessary to now assess against the strategic policies of the RSS.
However, Policy WCBV1 is a core policy and states that provision for development and infrastructure will be made to sustain the economic growth of the sub-region, with regional and sub-regional hubs being the main focus for transport investment and development in the sub-region. This policy identifies Basingstoke as a regional hub.
Local Plan
The Government introduced major changes to the planning system in 2004, which requires Local Planning Authorities to replace their Local Plans with new Local Development Frameworks (LDFs). As part of the transition to a LDF style planning system, the Council has sought the consent of the Secretary of State to save a number of policies until they are superseded by new policies within the emerging LDFs. The following policies are saved on this basis and are applicable to this application for reserved matters approval:
Policy E1 of the Local Plan refers to general Development Control considerations, and requires proposals to be of a high standard of design, to not affect the amenities of neighbouring properties or generate inappropriate levels of traffic.
8 of 66 Policy E6 only permits proposals that demonstrate they will be sympathetic to the landscape character and quality of the area concerned and that development proposals should contribute to the regeneration, restoration, repair or conservation of any landscape likely to be affected. Policy EC9 states that proposals for new retail development on the edge or outside of town centres will be required to demonstrate a need for the proposed development and assess the impact the proposal would have on the existing centres, in accordance with the Government guidance contained within PPS6. (NB: As noted above, PPS6 has been superseded by PPS4). Policy E7 seeks the protection of biodiversity and geological conservation as a result of a development. Policy A1 states that parking for new development proposals will be flexibly assessed, dependant on individual circumstances, using as a basis the car and other parking standards set out in the Council's Parking Strategy. Policy A2 seeks to ensure that proposed development is co-ordinated within the existing walking and cycling infrastructure and takes into account the needs for public transport. Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents
Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) – ‘Parking Standards’ (2001) is also relevant setting a minimum vehicle and cycle parking standard.
Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document - Appendix 5 Construction Statements.
Circular 11/95: Use of conditions in planning permission provides guidance on the use of planning conditions. In particular, it states that conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects.
Principle of Development
Outline planning permission BDB 55849 was granted by the Secretary of State (SoS) on 15th May 2006 for the redevelopment of the site for Class A1 "bulky goods" retail warehousing with means of access from both Winchester Road and Harrow Way also forming part of that permission. The permission related to the provision of:
8,653m² internal floorspace at ground floor 186m² internal floorspace lobby area at ground floor 158m² internal floorspace cafe at ground floor 1579m² builders yard 2435m² garden centre
The principle of a bulky goods retail warehouse on this site has therefore been established by virtue of that outline permission and cannot be revisited under this current proposal, which seeks reserved matters approval for the siting, design, external appearance and landscaping (as set out in Condition 3 of the outline permission). These remaining matters are addressed below.
9 of 66 Siting/Design/External Appearance/Landscaping The position of the proposed building is to remain as indicated on the illustrative drawings submitted at the outline stage. The building would be located centrally but adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site, with the garden centre and greenhouse to the north and the builders yard and turning circle to the south. The customer entrance and exit would be sited on the western elevation as previously shown. Parking would be perpendicular to the store building on its northern and western elevations, with the accesses as originally shown and approved under the outline permission. The building would measure 70m by 125m with a height at the lowest point of 8m and at the highest point of 10m. With regard to proposed materials, the roof would comprise composite roofing panels with a single ply membrane and Xtralight rooflights. The building would also incorporate elements of timber to increase its visual appearance, together with glazed curtain walling. The overall design approach, choice of materials and dimensions would result in a well proportioned building of modern appearance. The surrounding area is characterised by relatively low rise industrial/warehousing/retail buildings of functional design and the proposed building would not be out of context with its surroundings. There are residential properties to the north beyond Winchester Road and to the south along Harrow Way. The building would be located in a relatively prominent position and will be visible from outside the site, given the varying levels across the site itself and in relation to adjoining sites. However, this would be no different to other developments such as the Brighton Hill Retail Park or the buildings that were previously on the site when occupied by Smiths Industries. The design of the building would result in a contemporary finish that would respect the adjoining development and character of the area and the fact that it will be visible is not considered to be harmful to the character or amenity of the adjacent environs and occupiers. As such, the proposal is considered to comply with Policy E1 of the BDBLP. Given the constraints set by the outline permission in terms of the size and location of the store, together with the level of parking spaces required, (which will undoubtedly result in a large area of hardsurfacing) and the need to provide sufficient robust boundary treatment due to the difference in levels across the site and with adjacent land, the amount of landscaping that can be achieved has been challenging. As such, Officers have attempted to secure as much suitable landscaping as possible within and on the boundaries of the site, having regard to these constraints. This has resulted in a series of amended plans as detailed above. However, both the Landscape and Tree Officers are generally satisfied with the level and type of landscaping now proposed. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy E6 of the BDBLP. Highway Matters As referred to above, the principle of a DIY store together with access points from Harrow Way and Winchester Road, has been granted by the outline permission (BDB 55849). When considering the outline proposal under BDB 55849, the Secretary of State (SoS) considered that the site was accessible by a choice of transport (foot, bicycle and public) from large parts of Basingstoke, including the Town Centre and well connected to existing public transport networks. The SoS also agreed that the outline proposal would help to promote sustainable transport patterns and that the impact of the proposed DIY store on the local road network would be acceptable. Furthermore, that the level of car parking proposed would accord with PPG13.
10 of 66
The Inspector's report to the SoS outlined at paragraph 3.4, that a Section 106 Agreement was completed which secured a financial contribution towards implementation of the Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for Transport (BEST) to be used to secure various improvements along the A30 corridor, including enhanced crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists and better bus stops. It is also intended to use some of the funds to link the site to the town's cycleway network. In addition, the Agreement provides for the implementation of a Travel Plan intended to encourage the use of sustainable patterns of travel by staff.
A number of conditions were also attached to the outline permission.
Condition 26 states:
"No development shall take place until details of the following highway works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall include 2 new vehicular accesses to the development from Harrow Way, both to include associated ghost island right turn lanes; ghost island right turn lanes into Brighton Hill Retail Park and Cumberland Avenue; the associated reconfiguration of existing footways, closure of the existing vehicular access to the development and reinstatement to grade; a new traffic island with illuminated bollards or toucan crossing (if required); and amendments to the existing access to the development from Winchester Road. The details shall be devised along the lines indicated on RPS Drawing No. JNY4519/35 Rev C."
Condition 19 states:
"The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied, or the use commence, until provision for the turning, loading and unloading of vehicles and the parking of 476 vehicles and provision for the parking of cycles, details of which shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority, have been made within the curtilage of the premises and the areas of land so provided shall not be used for any purpose other than the turning, loading and unloading and parking of vehicles and the parking of cycles."
The current application originally only provided for a total of 371 parking spaces. This would have resulted in a shortfall of 105 to that approved under the outline and required by Condition 19 (476). The provision of 476 vehicles falls below the local and national parking standards. It is therefore assumed that this provision was considered to be reasonable by the SoS based upon the previous supporting evidence submitted during the appeal hearing.
No new evidence was submitted with the original proposal to support a further reduced car parking provision of 371 spaces. This reserved matters application is bound by the previous condition. In any case, given that the retail of bulky goods is proposed, it is likely that the car will remain the only real option for travel and therefore it is difficult to envisage how a further 22% reduction in the number of car parking spaces can be justified. Given the limited parking controls in the immediate vicinity and the strategic nature of the A30 and The Harrow Way, the Local Highway Officer (LHA) stated that any overspill parking would not be acceptable and therefore raised an objection in this regard. Amended plans were subsequently submitted increasing the parking provision to 476 spaces as set out in Condition 19 of the outline permission.
11 of 66
The Local Highway Officer also raised concerns regarding a number of other matters regarding the internal layout, including the ramp to Harrow Way, how boundary treatments would be constructed and whether these could be actually delivered, having regard to third party land/boundaries, whether consideration had been given to the diversion of the public sewer that runs from Lennox Road into the site and as such, further clarity on these items were requested. It was also suggested that a Structural Engineer provide detailed information on these matters.
As such, further amended plans have been received in the form of cross-sections, construction details for boundary treatments and revised levels in the proposed service yard. A Structural Engineer's Report has also now been submitted which provides the following information:
existing boundary features including retaining walls, fencing, buildings, service yards; design philosophy, design criteria and appropriate standards; methods of construction including the working space requirements; third party issues including access arrangements; diversion of the public sewer including Thames Water's construction and future access requirements to be accommodated without leading to problems for existing users as required by Policy A7 (iii) of the adopted Local Plan.
The Local Highway Officer's comments are awaited on whether this information is now satisfactory, as well as the Landscape Officer's confirming that they are satisfied that this revised detail will not adversely impact on the proposed landscaping. These comments will be reported on the update sheet.
The Hampshire County Highway Officer (HCC) has held discussions with the applicant over the detail of the access to the service yard from Harrow Way. This matter is now resolved and the HCC Highway Officer is content that the full details of the access arrangements can be dealt with under the subsequent Section 278 Agreement. HCC therefore has no highways and transportation objection to the development, subject to a condition requiring details of the junctions of the development with Harrow Way to be approved before development commences.
Ecology
The Biodiversity Officer initially requested that a walkover survey should be undertaken to fully assess reptile potential, which would seem reasonable given the current nature of the site and that some time appears to have elapsed since the site was cleared. In the absence of such a survey, a recommendation of refusal would be made. As such, the applicant's consultant ecologist provided additional information following a further visit to the site. The consultant confirmed that the habitats present have developed, such that areas of rank grassland provide potentially suitable opportunities for reptiles (whilst much of the site remains as recolonising ground with sparse vegetation which offers lesser potential). However, only very small isolated areas of grassland are present forming road verges and a small strip of recolonising land at the back of an adjacent offsite building which provide any potentially suitable habitat areas for reptiles. All of these areas, including the site appear well isolated from any other potential reptile habitats from which any colonisation could potentially have taken place, being completely surrounded by roads and heavily developed industrial/commercial areas of hardstanding and buildings with no apparent potential habitat corridors. Further, although full reptile survey work has not been 12 of 66 undertaken, a number of large boards and litter are present at the site which provide potential refugia, and these were checked during the consultant's survey (which was undertaken during ideal conditions, with broken cloud and sunny spells such that these features were warm) with no reptiles recorded. As such, given the isolated nature of the site, the surroundings and the previously cleared nature of the habitats, the consultant considers that reptiles are unlikely to be present and is therefore currently of the opinion that specific survey work would appear to be unwarranted for this group, but has recommended a watching brief be maintained during any works etc as a precautionary approach in line with NE guidance in the unlikely event reptiles were found during the course of any works. The Biodiversity Officer agrees with the conclusions that a full survey is not appropriate and that the matter can be adequately dealt with through a watching brief, as proposed and has therefore recommended a condition to this effect, should permission be granted. A further condition has been recommended with regard to nesting bird habitats (i.e. clearance works undertaken outside of March-August inclusive, unless checked by an ecologist for nesting birds). Other Matters A Section 106 Agreement was secured at the outline stage to secure a financial contribution towards the implementation of the Basingstoke Environmental Strategy for transport (BEST). At the appeal hearing it was advised that the financial contributions would be used to secure various improvements along the A30 corridor, including enhanced crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, improved bus stops and safer traffic arrangements. The Agreement also provides for the implementation of a Travel Plan. There is no requirement for any supplemental or variation to the existing Agreement as part of this reserved matters application. There are a number of conditions attached to the outline permission which cover matters including highway and parking issues, controlling hours of construction, delivery of materials and opening hours, foul and surface water control measures, external storage, noise control and land contamination. The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has recommended a number of conditions, some of which are already attached to the outline permission, but in addition those requiring measures to control dust and odour and noise and vibration monitoring during construction. It would not be reasonable for the LPA to impose conditions relating to the control of dust and noise/vibration monitoring as these matters that should have been addressed at the outline stage and are not directly associated to the reserved matters under consideration. It is, however, reasonable for the LPA to impose the condition relating to odour control that may be associated with the cafe use, since at the outline stage there would have been uncertainty as to whether this element of the scheme was to come forward in any subsequent reserved matters application. The EHO has also advised that they are in agreement with the findings and conclusions of the Air Quality Impact Assessment and is satisfied with the lighting specification drawing. The Contaminated Land Officer has confirmed that the site has been subject to a site investigation and remediation strategy and is therefore satisfied that any residual radioactive contamination has been reduced to natural background levels. As such, the officer has recommended that the generic contaminated land condition is added to any grant of planning permission.
13 of 66 Appendix 5 of the Design and Sustainability SPD Sets out the detailed sustainability requirements for development and a proposal of this nature would ordinarily require BREEAM rating of 'very good'. However, given that this is an application for approval of reserved matters, with the principle of development established at the outline stage, matters of principle cannot be revisited under this current application. It would therefore be unreasonable for the Local Planning Authority to attach a condition to a subsequent grant of reserved matters approval to secure a BREEAM rating for this development. Any condition would not meet the tests of Circula 11/95. Notwithstanding this, the proposal seeks to provide a sustainable building, which would maximise solar gain.
Separate Advertisement Consent would be required to allow the display of any advertisements on the building.
Conclusion
This proposal would result in a well designed building which responds to the site context and surrounding area. The siting, design, external appearance and landscaping details submitted with the application would comply with Policies D5, E1, E6 and A1 of the BDBLP. Subject to the Highways and Landscape Officers being satisfied with the amended/additional information recently submitted and no new adverse comments being received from third parties within the reconsultation period, the application is considered acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is RECOMMENDED that subject to the Highways and Landscape Officers being satisfied with the amended/additional information recently submitted and no new adverse comments being received from third parties within the reconsultation period (expiry 08/02/2010), the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:
6482 P01 14/10/09 6482 P01 Rev K 11/01/10 6482 P02 Rev H 14/10/09 6482 P03 Rev C 14/10/09 6482 P04 Rev F 11/01/10 6482 P05 Rev H 14/10/09 6482 P06 Rev E 02/12/09 6482 P07 Rev E 14/10/09 6482 P08 Rev D (Sheet 1 to 2) 14/10/09 6485 P09 14/10/09 SK02 Rev E 02/12/09 SK03 Rev C 06/11/09 4675/03 Rev L 02/12/09 AA TPP 05 02/12/09 20804/92 (Sheet 1 to 4) 19/10/09 L517633/1 08/05/09 REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 14 of 66
2. No development shall commence on site until details of the types and colours of external materials to be used, including the proposed glazed walling, together with samples, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
3. No development shall commence on site until details of the materials to be used for hard and paved surfacing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved surfacing shall be completed before the adjoining buildings are first occupied and thereafter maintained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
3. Before development commences, the applicant shall submit to the Local Planning Authority a scheme of works or such other steps as may be necessary to minimise the effects of odour from the preparation of food associated with the development. Development shall not commence until written approval has been given by the Local Planning Authority to any such scheme of works. The development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved scheme, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
4. No development shall commence until a Wildlife Protection statement, setting out details of a watching brief for reptiles and proposals to avoid harm to nesting birds, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall only proceed in accordance with the approved wildlife protection statement, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that the impacts on protected species are adequately mitigated and to ensure the proposals make a positive contribution to wildlife conservation, in accordance with the requirements of Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
5. A maintenance programme detailing all operations to be carried out in order to allow successful establishment of the tree and shrub planting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To improve the appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policies E1 (ii) and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
15 of 66 6. No development shall take place until details of the junctions of the development with Harrow Way as shown in principle on Drawing 6482-PO2 Rev K have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the development shall not be occupied until the agreed details have been implemented. REASON: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy E1 (iii) of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
7. The location and dimensions of the proposed tree pits and planting beds shall be constructed to accord with the details submitted in Aspect Landscape Planning’s ‘Planting Plan 4675/03L‘, SK02 Western Boundary Landscape Treatment revision E and ‘SK03 Car Park Landscape Treatment Revision C’ drawings. Any changes to these details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The construction and planting of the proposed tree pits and planting beds hereby approved shall be carried out prior to the completion of the car park, retaining walls and other adjacent structures, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To improve the appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policies E1 (ii) and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
8. No trees or shrubs shall be removed between 1 March and 31 August unless first checked by an ecologist for active birds nests. If a nest is discovered, the tree or shrub must not be removed until the young have left the nest. REASON: To avoid impacts on urban bird populations in the interests of urban wildlife conservation and the Council's duty to have regard to biodiversity conservation in carrying out its duties, in accordance with Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
9. If during development works any contamination of the land is encountered or suspected then this shall be fully assessed in accordance with the Contaminated Land Guidance for Developers Leaflet on the BDBC website http://www.basingstoke.gov.uk/services/envhealth/contaminatedland.htm. The developer must contact the Local Planning Authority as soon as possible and any action should be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure any soil, gas or water contamination on the site is remediated to protect the occupiers of the application site and/or adjacent land and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. Notes to the Applicant: 1. 1.1 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.
1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre- commencement conditions have been met.
16 of 66 1.3 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £85 per request or £25 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.
2. The applicant is reminded that compliance with conditions attached to outline planning permission BDB 55849 is required. A Section 106 Agreement was also secured as part of the determination of BDB 55849 and the applicant should also be aware of the requirements of that Agreement.
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the advice contained within the letter from Southern Gas dated 04/06/2009.
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the recommendations made within the letter dated 01/06/2009 from the Crime Prevention Design Advisor with regard to crime reduction measures.
5. The applicant is advised to refer to guidance contained within the document: Odour and Noise Control from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems. This can be obtained via the following link: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/kitchenexhaust/pdf/kitchenreport.pdf.
The applicant is advised to consult with the Environmental Health Team concerning kitchen design and layout, and compliance with relevant Food Safety legislation prior to any development taking place.
6. The applicant's attention is drawn to the comments of the Tree Officer dated 11/11/ 2009 where tree of heaven had been replaced with the more suitable Robinia pseudoacacia ‘Frisia’ on the western boundary. Aspect Landscape Planning’s ‘SK02 Western Boundary Landscape Treatment revision E’ shows Robinia but the amended ‘Planting Plan’ drawing 4675/03L still shows tree of heaven. This needs to be clarified. In addition, the applicant needs to ensure that the Prunus serrulata ‘Amanogawa’ is not grafted onto the wild cherry rootstock (wild cherry has a large spreading root system which can cause major disruption when planted adjacent to hard surfacing). It is noted that wild cherry is still being used on the northern boundary adjacent to areas of hard standing. Further consideration needs to be given to its use here.
17 of 66 7. The applicant is expected to consider the following with regard to submission of details for the discharge of Condition 22 of the outline permission (management plan submission to control noise from site and service yard):
All vehicle engines shall be switched off when parked or at an unloading bay and remain off until ready to leave the store. All trailer refrigeration units shall be switched off prior to the vehicle entering the service yard. The application site as a whole shall not be used for the overnight parking of vehicles running refrigeration or charging units. All unloading bays shall be fitted with a docking system that will form an airtight seal whilst unloading or loading is taking place. There shall be no loading/ unloading of HGV's except at the properly constructed unloading bays. There shall be no movement of trolleys/cages or fork lift trucks or similar noise producing vehicles in the service yard except between the hours stipulated above.
18 of 66 Minor and Other Application
Cttee: 10/02/2010 Item No. 02
Application no: BDB/71448 For Details and Plans Click here
Site Address 35 Test Road, Whitchurch, RG28 7LP Proposal Erection of new rear conservatory and shed (part retrospective)
Registered: 04/11/2009 Expiry Date: 30/12/2009 Type of Householder Case Officer: Karen Wylde Application: Permission 01256 845515 Applicant: Mr & Mrs Bates Agent: Inspiration Chartered Architects Ward: Whitchurch Ward Member(s): Cllr E Dunlop Cllr K Watts Parish: Whitchurch OS Grid Reference: 446403,148030
Recommendation: Approve
General Comments
This application is brought to the Development Control Committee at the request of Councillor Watts who states:
"This application includes a (retrospective) proposal for a shed in which is installed a wood burning boiler with an external flue.
I would like the Committee to consider whether the benefits of renewable energy are outweighed in this case by the adverse effect on the amenity of the neighbours, both visual amenity and the smoke emitted from the flue at a low level.
In the terms of Policy E1, does the proposal 'respect the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers' or 'harm the living and working conditions or the public's enjoyment of the built...environment'?"
Councillor Dunlop has supported this request.
Description of Site
The host dwelling is modern detached dwelling located at the London Street end of Test Road, opposite an area of private open space and the River Test. The property is undergoing the last stages of refurbishment. A large two storey extension to the western side and a small extension to the front elevation have also been constructed, creating a large detached dwelling which is set back approximately 8-10 metres from the highway. These alterations were approved under BDB 69391 in 2008. The house and extensions are constructed of red brick with brown tile hanging at first floor level. The front garden is enclosed along the southern boundary by an evergreen hedge of approximately 1m in height.
19 of 66 The plot is level and the rear garden measures approximately 20m in depth and 24m in width. The Mill Stream runs along the north western boundary, which is open to the stream. The Mill Stream forms part of the River Test Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). On the opposite side of the stream are a number of trees, edging the bank which forms part of the gardens of dwellings located in London Street. The north eastern boundary with No 37 is enclosed by a 2m fence at the rear, with the garage wall of No.37 enclosing the boundary parallel to the host dwelling. The front boundary between the two properties was open at the time of the site visit. Along the south western boundary with No.33 the rear boundary treatment is fragmented, comprising of some small conifers, timber fencing and temporary mesh fencing. In places the boundary is completely open to the neighbouring garden of No.33. The side front boundary between these two properties comprises a low shrub hedgerow. At the eastern rear corner of the house is a concrete base which used to serve a conservatory that has been removed as part of the renovations. Adjacent to the north eastern boundary, 2.2m from the house is a timber shed with a stainless steel flue which houses a wood pellet burning boiler. Proposal The application is two-fold. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a conservatory to the rear of the dwelling using the existing concrete base. The conservatory would be of white painted timber framed construction, resting on a 0.8m brick wall to match the existing house, with glazed elevations and roof panels. The dimensions would be 2.2m in depth and 3.15m in width. The mono-pitched roof would have a maximum height of 3.3m. The conservatory would be set in 0.5m from the south western side elevation of the dwelling. Retrospective planning permission is also sought for the retention of a timber shed which houses a Biomass boiler and is also used for the storage of the wood pellets used in the boiler. The hot water produced by the boiler serves the dwellinghouse, which is stored in a thermal store inside the house. The shed measures 3.5m in depth by 4.5m in length. The pitched felted roof has a hipped end at the front southern elevation and a gable end at the rear northern elevation. The eaves height is 2m and the ridge height is 2.75m. The shed is located adjacent to the north eastern boundary with a gap of 0.4m between the roof overhang and the boundary fence.
On the eastern roof slope, at the rear of the shed and within 20cms of the ridge, is a stainless steel flue measuring 60cms in height. The plans have been amended during the course of the planning application. The height of the flue has been reduced by 0.5m, by the applicant, to an amended height of 60cms in an attempt to alleviate neighbour's concerns. The applicant has already reduced the height of the flue, therefore the amended plans replicate what has been built. In the top left hand corner of the rear northern elevation is a small stainless steel vent.
Relevant Planning History
BDB 69391 Erection of a two storey side extension, Granted single storey front extension involving the 21/10/08 construction of a dormer window and insertion of roof light in front elevation. Demolition of existing garages/store and front conservatory
20 of 66
Consultations
Town Council: No objections
Natural England: No objection.
It is the view of Natural England that this proposal, either on its own or in combination with other plans and projects, will not have any significant impact on the River Test SSSI. However, we recommend that, in accordance with the Environment Agency guidelines, all reasonable precautions are undertaken to ensure no pollutants enter the water-course
Environment Agency: Assessed has having a low environmental risk.
Conservation: No objection. The proposed shed and conservatory both located to the rear garden area of this house are not considered to be sited in a location that will cause a visual impact on the character of the Whitchurch Conservation Area. The revised detail in respect of the proposed shed located to the rear garden area of this house is not considered to be sited in a location that will cause a visual impact on the character of the Whitchurch Conservation Area Environmental Health: Having checked the specification data for the burner supplied by the applicant I am prepared to withdraw my previous recommendation. I have no objections to this application.
Public Observations
Three letters of objection have been received in connection with the shed covering the following issues:
Not domestic in appearance or sympathetic to the new development or adjacent buildings. An eyesore. Unsightly. The character of the river view will be destroyed. Too large. Too high. Excessive dimensions. Design. Inappropriate materials for Conservation Area. Lack of landscaping to minimise impact. Stainless steel flue is not domestic in appearance. Glinting from flue. Not planned as an integral part of newly built extension. Smoke Emissions and smell of burning. Proximity to boundary fence. Impact on value of own property.
Planning Policy and Material Considerations
Policy
The site is located within the Whitchurch Settlement Policy Boundary wherein the principle of development is acceptable providing that the proposal would meet the building design and amenity policies contained within the adopted Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local 21 of 66 Plan 1996-2011 (BDBLP) . It is also within a Conservation Area and is adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The proposal must therefore be assessed against the relevant conservation, biodiversity, design and amenity policies of the Basingstoke and Deane Adopted Local Plan 1996-2011 (BDBLP), Supplementary Planning Guidance and Government guidance. National Policies Planning Policy Statement 1: 'Delivering Sustainable Development' (PPS1) sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system and advocates the importance of good design. Planning Policy Statement 9: 'Biological and Geological Conservation' (PPS9) states that planning decisions should aim to maintain, and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity and geological conservation interests. Planning Policy Guidance: 'Planning and the Historic Environment' (PPG15) relates to the protection of historic buildings, Conservation Areas and other elements of the historic environment Paragraph 4.14 of PPG15 states: “Section 72 of the Act requires that special attention shall be paid in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. This requirement extends to all powers under the Planning Acts, not only those which relate directly to historic buildings. The desirability of preserving or enhancing the area should also, in the Secretary of State's view, be a material consideration in the planning authority's handling of development proposals which are outside the conservation area but would affect its setting, or views into or out of the area”. Paragraph 4.19 emphasizes the importance of the objective of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. It states that: “If any proposed development would conflict with that objective, there will be a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission”. Planning Policy Statement 23 'Planning and Pollution Control' (PPS23) advises that "any consideration of the quality of land, air or water and potential impacts arising from development, possibly leading to impacts on health, is capable of being a material planning consideration". Appendix A of PPS23 details those matters that may be material considerations of individual planning applications where pollution considerations arise. Annex 1: Pollution Control, Air and Water Quality of PPS23 provides guidance on the pollution control regimes that interact with the planning system together with good practice in considering these issues when determining applications. Planning Policy Statement 25: 'Development and Flood Risk' (PPS25) requires that flood risk is taken into account during the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding. Planning applications should be supported by a site specific flood risk assessment. Regional Policy Policy CC1: 'Sustainable Development' of the South East Plan identifies sustainable priorities for the South East. CC1(iii) relates to reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with the region. Policy CC2: 'Climate Change' states that behavioural change will be essential in implementing this policy. It goes on to identify mitigation measures, through reducing greenhouse gas including encouraging development and use of renewable energy.
22 of 66 Local Plan Policies
Policy E1 states that all proposals for new development will be permitted provided that they are of a high standard of design, make efficient use of the land, respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and do not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety. E1(v) requires that development should incorporate features to minimise the energy consumed in the construction and future use of the building, whilst E1(vii) requires that development minimises 'the potential for pollution of air.....which harms living or working conditions or the public's enjoyment of the built and natural environment'.
Policy E3 states that development within a Conservation Area, or on sites outside where development would affect the setting of a Conservation Area, will be permitted provided that the proposals preserve and enhance their special character or appearance.
Policy E7 sets out the Council's policy on Biodiversity and Nature Conservation. The Policy states that proposals for development will be permitted where it will not have an adverse effect on protected species or on the conservation status of priority species, or lead to a loss or deterioration of a key habitat type or harm the integrity of linkages between such sites and habitats.
Supplementary Planning Documents
Basingstoke and Deane’s Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), adopted in September 2008 primarily supports Policy E1 of the adopted Local Plan 1996-2011 and incorporates a number of detailed appendices: Appendix 4: The Historic Environment: Conservation Areas sets out the Council's aims and policies in the preservation and or enhancement of the Borough's Conservation Areas. Appendix 13: Extending Your Home and Replacement Dwellings, Design Guide 2 states that ancillary buildings should be sited in such a way that overshadowing of, or disturbance to, neighbouring property is minimised. The Whitchurch Conservation Area Appraisal identifies particular characteristics and styles within the Conservation Area. The Whitchurch Village Design Statement' (VDS) is intended to ensure that future development and change within the town are based on an understanding of the area's history and present character and state what factors need to be taken into account when considering developments within a Parish. Conservatory Impact on the character of the area The conservatory, although located at the rear of the property, would be slightly visible from the highway. This is due to the open nature of the rear garden and the lack of any boundary treatment dividing the front and rear gardens. However, the situation is similar at the adjacent property at No.33, where a shed at the eastern side of the dwelling is visible within the street scene. As such, it is considered that the proposed conservatory would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The conservatory is of an acceptable design and size and would not dominate or compete with the existing dwelling. The proposed materials are appropriate.
23 of 66 Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the conservatory could be built under 'permitted development', not requiring planning permission. The conservatory would be 18.5m from the bank of the Mill Stream and the River Test SSSI and would be located in the same position as a previous conservatory that was demolished during renovations. Natural England considers that the proposed conservatory would not have any significant impact on the SSSI. However, it is recommended that an informative is added to ensure that all reasonable precautions are taken to prevent pollutants from entering the water-course.
Therefore, no objection is raised to this part of the proposal, which would comply with Policies E1, E3 and E7 of the BDBLP and Appendices 4 and 13 of the SPD.
Impact on neighbouring amenities
The proposed conservatory would be located 5m from the boundary with the neighbouring dwelling to the west, 33 Test Road. It is considered that due to the small scale of the proposal, it would not cause harm to the amenities of the occupiers of No.33 by way of overshadowing or overbearing impact. Due to the existing boundary arrangements and the glazed nature of the side elevations of the conservatory, there would be overlooking of the neighbouring dwelling and their private amenity space. However, this is an existing situation that results in a loss of privacy for both occupiers. The Agent has advised that the applicant and the owner of No.33 will be erecting fencing, of approximately 1.8m in height, along this boundary at some point in the future. However, this does not form part of this application. Given the inter-relationship described above, the impact on the privacy of the adjoining neighbour is considered to be of negligible harm. The development in this respect complies with Local Plan Policy E1.
Timber Shed
Planning History
Planning application BDB 69391 was approved by the Development Control Committee on 21/10/2008 for the erection of two storey and single storey extensions, the insertion of a front dormer window and roof light and the demolition of the existing garages/store and front conservatory. The approved plan 08-008/002B shows a new small timber shed. However, this did not form part of the proposal description, was not addressed in the officer's report and was not granted planning permission. In December 2008 the Local Planning Authority was asked to consider the inclusion of a timber shed, measuring 1.85m by 3.05m, as a minor amendment to the approved application. The Agent was advised that, whilst the addition of a shed could not be accepted as a minor amendment to the approved application, the shed would not require planning permission as it was considered to be 'permitted development' under Class E of Part 1 of The Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (Amendment) (No2) (England) Order 2008. However, the shed that has subsequently been built is larger than the shed that was originally proposed and does not fall within the 'permitted development' limits.
Impact on the character of the area
The shed is located to the rear of the dwelling and although it is visible from the highway, it is viewed against the backdrop of dwellings located in London Street and the neighbour's garage. Whilst the majority of properties in Test Road are of a traditional appearance, the
24 of 66 host dwelling and the adjoining property at 33 Test Road are of a modern appearance. The style of the shed and its materials are typical of a garden structure and do not look out of place in this location. The hipped roof on the front elevation helps to reduce the visual impact of the shed within the street scene. Furthermore, the neighbour's shed, at No.33, is also visible within the street scene. It is therefore considered that the shed does not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and as such would preserve it in accordance with Policy E3 of the BDBLP, Appendix 4 of the SPD and the guidance given in PPG15. The flue has been reduced in height during the course of this planning application and now sits only 50cms above the ridge of the shed and 65cms above the roof slope. The flue is of a small scale and is appropriate for domestic use. The stainless steel material is appropriate and of acceptable quality. Whilst the flue could be painted to reduce any possible glare that may occur, it is considered that if the paint work is not regularly maintained, it would result in a poor visual appearance of the flue. In addition, it would be difficult to enforce a condition that required the regular painting of the flue. The shed appears subservient in relation to the host dwelling and is relatively small in relation to the recently built extension. It is considered that the plot is of sufficient size to accommodate a building of these dimensions. As such, the overall dimensions of the shed are not considered to be excessive and the building does not dominate or compete with the existing dwelling. For your information the photographs from BDB 69391 show two structures on this boundary, a shed and a much larger bird coop, both of which have been demolished as they were in a very poor state of repair. Objections have been raised that the character of the river view will be destroyed. The Mill Stream, which is part of an SSSI, flows between the gardens of residential properties, most of which are open to the river bank. Whilst it is acknowledged that the stream is of importance and must be protected, the application site is a residential unit located amongst other residential properties and the gardens of these properties are visible to the occupiers of the dwellings on both sides of the stream. Structures in residential gardens are to be expected and would comply with planning policy if they do not have an adverse impact on the biodiversity of the stream and river bank or increase the risk of flooding in this location and are of an acceptable design and scale. A refusal on the grounds of the 'loss of a view' cannot normally be justified. No objections have been received from Natural England and the Environment Agency and given that the shed is located 18.5m from the river bank it is considered that the development complies with Policy E7 of the BDBLP and the guidance given in PPS9. In conclusion, the shed and flue respect the host dwelling, preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, are of an appropriate design and size and do not cause harm to the surrounding area and the SSSI, thereby complying with Policies E1, E3 and E7 of the BDBLP, Appendix 4 and 13 of the SPD and the guidance given PPG15 and PPS9. Impact on neighbouring amenities The shed is located close to the north eastern boundary and has an eaves height of 2m. A fence of 2m in height could be erected along this boundary under 'permitted development'. Given that the shed is located 0.4m from the boundary and the roof slopes away from the boundary, it is considered that the height of the shed does not result in an overbearing impact for the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling at 37 Test Road. The location of the shed does not have a harmful impact on any other neighbouring dwellings to the north or west of the application site.
25 of 66
The visibility of the shed and the flue has raised objections. Whilst the flue is visible as part of the structure, it has been reduced in height and is not considered to increase the bulk or height of the shed significantly. To the north-west, there are a number of trees along the far river bank which provide some natural screening of the application site and the shed. Furthermore the dwellings located to the northern side of the Mill Stream are between 30 and 80m from the river bank. It is therefore considered that the shed with its flue do not have any greater visible impact than most permitted structures/outbuildings within residential curtilages.
Environmental Issues
The main areas of concern for the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings are the smoke emissions and the smell of burning that are being emitted from the flue as a result of the burning process. PPS23 requires that Local Planning Authorities (LPA) take account of the risks of and from pollution and that these are material to decisions on individual planning applications. Appendix A states that consideration should be given to the possible impact of potentially polluting development including effects on health, the natural environment and general amenity. It also states that consideration should be given to the need to limit and where possible reduce greenhouse gas emissions and take account of potential effects of climate change. These considerations are reflected in Policy E1(v) and E1(vii) of the adopted local plan. Therefore, it is necessary to balance the harm of the development against the benefits of using a renewable energy source.
The development and the wood burning operation is a small scale activity and any pollution issues are largely covered by the statutory nuisance legislation. A detailed technical report in relation to the performance and emissions data was requested by the LPA in order to assess the pollution impact of the development. The LPA has sought advice from Environmental Health Officers, in their role as the pollution control authority, with regard to the perceived level of risk from pollution. On the basis of this information they have raised no objections.
Government has a domestic goal to cut CO² emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2010. The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions across the region including encouraging the development and use of renewable energy is reflected in Policies CC1 and CC2 of the South East Plan. Local Planning Authorities have a key role to play in moving towards a low carbon economy. Whilst the development is only small scale, such uses of renewable energy should be encouraged. Given that there is no perceived level of risk from the emissions, it is considered that the development complies with Policy E1(v) and (vii) of the BDBLP and the guidance given in Annexe 1 of PPS 23.
Impact on flooding
The application site is located within Flood Risk Zone 2 and 3. Furthermore, the proposed developments are located within 20 metres of a river bank. The Environment Agency has identified the development as having a low environmental risk and the applicant has confirmed that the floor levels would be set no lower than the existing levels. Furthermore, the footprint of the proposed conservatory and the timber shed would be less than the footprint of the conservatory and outbuildings that used to be present and that have been demolished as part of the renovation of the property and site. The proposals therefore comply with PPS 25: 'Development and Flood Risk'.
26 of 66 Other matters
Of the objections raised by neighbours, all relate to the erection of the shed and flue and its use for housing a boiler and most have been addressed within this report. No objections have been received in relation to the conservatory. Reference has been made to the fact that the biomass boiler and heating system was not planned as part of the new extension. Whilst this may have been preferable, it is not a material consideration of this application which, must be considered on its own merits. The impact of a development on the value of a neighbour's property is not a material consideration. A further point has been raised relating to the incorrect position of the north eastern boundary fence. The ownership of and the line of boundaries is not a matter for the Local Planning Authority and if the boundary has been re-aligned this is a civil matter to be resolved by the owners.
Reasons for Approval
(1) The proposed development would be of an appropriate design and relates to surrounding development in a sympathetic manner and as such complies with PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development and Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
(2) The proposed development neither dominates or competes with the original building and as such complies with PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and Appendix 13 of the Basingstoke and Deane's Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document.
(3) The proposed development preserves the character of the Conservation Area and as such complies with adopted policies in particular Policy E3 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, and Appendix 4 of Basingstoke and Deane's Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document.
(4) The proposed and existing development would not result in an increased risk of flooding or have an unacceptable adverse impact on the biodiversity of the River Test Site of Special Scientific Interest in accordance with Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, Planning Policy Statement 9 'Biodiversity and Geological Conservation' and Planning Policy Statement 25:'Development and Flood Risk.
(5) The provision of the biomass boiler and flue does not result in an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties and as such complies with Policy E1(v) of the Basingstoke and Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control, Annex 1: Pollution Control, air and Water Quality.
27 of 66
RECOMMENDATION:
It is RECOMMENDED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. The shed and flue hereby permitted shall be maintained in accordance with the following approved plans and particulars unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:
Drawing 20A received 30/10/2009 (part superseded) Drawing 21D received 25/01/2010 Drawing 022 received 30/10/2009
Rozell Boiler and Buner Specifications received 25/11/2009 Boiler Performance Test Report received 04/01/2010
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
2. The conservatory hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this planning permission. REASON: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.
3. The conservatory shall be built in accordance with the approved plans 022 and 21D unless agreed otherwise in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the conservatory hereby permitted shall match, in type, colour and texture those on the existing building unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
Notes to the Applicant:
1. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.
2. In accordance with the Environment Agency guidelines, all reasonable precautions must be undertaken to ensure no pollutants enter the watercourse of the River Test Site of Special Scientific Interest.
28 of 66 Minor and Other Application
Cttee: 10/02/2010 Item No. 03
Application no: BDB/71528 For Details and Plans Click here
Site Address Tile Cottage, Stargrove Lane, East End, Newbury, RG20 0AD Proposal Erection of a part two storey, part single storey rear extension. Erection of a first floor rear extension
Registered: 26/11/2009 Expiry Date: 21/01/2010 Type of Householder Case Officer: Andrew Barber Application: Permission 01256 845235 Applicant: Mr R Clegg Agent: Yolande Fothergill Ward: East Woodhay Ward Member(s): Cllr C Sanders Parish: East Woodhay OS Grid Reference: 441255,160838
Recommendation: Refuse
General Comments
This application for Householder Permission is brought before the Development Control Committee at the request of Cllr Sanders for the following reason:
"The application in many ways meets the comments made by the inspector when refusing an earlier application because of its dominance, scale, mass and subservience to the host building. It is now reduced in scale and presents a much more attractive solution particularly from the elevations seen from the lane. It is also more rural in character. It would be appropriate for the committee to determine whether these changes would now make this an acceptable extension."
Amended Plans
22/01/2010: Reduction in length of proposed rear extension, through the omission of the proposed projecting larder (1.4m) and reduction in the length of proposed kitchen (1.1m).
Description of Site
An unlisted, small but much-extended, 19th century cottage within the East End Conservation Area. It is of individual architectural and historic character, although not on the Local List, and positively contributes to the Conservation Area. Situated within open countryside on a public right of way (Stargrove Lane - unadopted) and visible from another public footpath. Linear planform original front range, possibly originally two separate cottages. The rear outshot is much altered to the extent that it is of very limited architectural or historic interest. Two-storey rear extension to other side of rear elevation with a very poor visual relationship with the rest of the house. Large pond to rear of house within garden. Rear and side elevations very visible to approach from north from village and very much dominate the lane.
29 of 66
East End is within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), with the application property lying outside of the main body of the village in an area more related to the surrounding countryside and parkland of Stargrove than with the village itself. This rural periphery to the village is important to the setting of the conservation area.
Proposal
Demolition of existing two-storey extension Erection of a first floor rear bedroom extension Erection of a two-storey stair tower extension to rear Erection of a single-storey rear kitchen extension Erection of a open porch canopy to side elevation
Relevant Planning History
BDB 31470 Erection of 2 No. two storey extensions Refused 26/04/91
BDB 68464 Erection of a part two storey, part single Refused storey rear extension. Erection of a first 23/06/08 floor rear extension Appeal dismissed 15/04/09
Consultations
Parish Council: No objection.
North Wessex Downs AONB: No objection subject to condition to secure suitable external materials.
No other comments received to date.
Public Observations
Two letters of support from neighbours:
1. Significant improvement upon existing rear and side elevations. 2. A pleasing improvement on unsightly existing elevations; view from Stargrove Lane improved due to tidying up unsatisfactory and messy existing extension; sympathetic design proposal.
Planning Policy and Material Considerations
Tile Cottage is within the East End Conservation Area, which covers the majority of the village of East End, including its peripheral landscape setting. Proposals affecting it are therefore subject to Policy E3 of the Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council Local Plan 1996-2011, and to Appendix 4 of the Design and Sustainability SPD (Conservation Areas) and the "East End and North End Conservation Area Appraisal". Such proposals also subject to the guidance given by PPG15 - Planning & the Historic Environment. Together these require that applications affecting a conservation area should be granted if they would preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of that area. 30 of 66
Policy E1 of the Local Plan is the main design and environmental policy and as such is also relevant to this case. Amongst other factors, it requires that extension proposals should 'respect their host building'.
Policy E6 of the Local Plan states that development proposals should 'contribute to the regeneration, restoration, repair or conservation of any landscape likely to be affected.' Amongst other factors it requires that proposals should respect the local character of buildings and their contribution to the countryside.
Previous appeal proposals
This application follows the refusal of a previous proposal to extend this property, which was subsequently dismissed at appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. That proposal was for a two-storey extension to the rear, and a first floor extension above the existing single-storey rear 'outshot'. The Appeal Inspector's reasons for dismissing the appeal, which were much the same as the Borough Council's reasons for refusal and can be summarised by the following extract from his report:
"The cumulative impact of the proposals would result in a scale and mass of development which would not be subservient to the host building. It would dramatically increase the original length and width of the dwelling and be visually dominant over the original building when viewed from Stargrove Lane, which is an identified viewpoint within the council's Conservation Area Appraisal.
I agree with the appellant that the existing rear extensions detract from the character of the original building. Furthermore, there is no objection in principle to replacing them. I accept that the proposals have been well designed and would utilise appropriate materials. I also note that the appellant's comments about the modest increase in volume, floorspace and footprint of the building. However, this increase has resulted in an extension which I have concluded to be visually dominant."
The Inspector's decision includes several factors which remain relevant to the current proposal and his advice has given a clear steer that even minor extensions to a house such as this can be intrusive, particularly when considered cumulatively with previous and other extensions. He does however consider that the principle of replacement is acceptable, although it should be noted that he did not make any comment about the principle of extending the house beyond a straight replacement.
The original cottage on this property was very small with a very shallow front to rear depth. This has already been added to on all sides apart from the front, and so has now become a good-sized modern family home. It is recognised that it does have some limitations and difficulties resulting from its form and appearance, but these do not prevent it from acting as a viable modern family home, and which could also be corrected without extension. Any proposals to add further to it should consider the cumulative impact of the proposals with the existing additions, and recognise the originally compact character and context of the cottage.
The appeal proposals were for a two-storey rear extension on the same line as the currently proposed single-storey extension. This would have projected 7.36m from the rear wall of the single-storey outshot and would be 5.6m wide, with the ridge of the roof standing at 6.2m (approximately 1m lower than the ridge of the main house).
31 of 66 Demolition of existing two-storey rear extension
As identified by the Appeal Inspector, there is no objection in principle to the replacement of the existing two-storey extension to the rear of the house. This is acknowledged as being a visually harmful element to the site, which is poorly built and has very little or no consideration to the character of the original house. Its demolition and replacement is therefore supported in principle, subject to the comparative merits of the new proposal. It is also considered by Officers that in doing so, the house could accommodate a small degree of additional accommodation.
It is important to consider in this regard that the problems seen by the current extension are largely corrected by the proposed first floor extension. The proposed single-storey rear extension or staircase tower is not considered to be necessary in order to correct these problems.
Proposed single-storey rear extension
Following the receipt of amended drawings during this current application, the extension is proposed to project 7.6m (approximately 0.3m more than the appeal proposal) from the rear wall of the existing single-storey outshot, and would measure 5.4m wide, with a ridge height of 5.8m, rising to 6.8m where the associated proposed stair tower sits against the rear roof slope of the proposed first floor extension (see below). The amendments received during the process of this current application have reduced the length of the proposal by 2.5m, it should be noted that 1.4m of this is achieved through omitting the previously proposed larder addition, which in fact did not add any additional roof bulk as its roof ran down from that of the main extension roof. The actual main kitchen extension, which is what produces the bulk of the proposal, has only been reduced by 1.1m.
It is considered that whilst there has been an apparent reduction from the two-storey proposal that was appealed, in comparison to the current single-storey proposal, the difference in height is not in fact significant, being only 0.4m lower. In addition, the section which relates to the stair tower would be 0.4m higher than the appeal proposal. Furthermore, the depth of the proposed roof is disproportionate to that of the original cottage. The depth of a roof is directly related to the depth of the building in question - that is, the front to back measurement. The original cottage was very small, measuring only 4.2m front to back, so creating a roof measuring just 2.6m tall from eaves to ridge. The current proposal however would have a front to back measurement of 5.4m, creating a roof measuring 3.1m from eaves to ridge. Where this roof would run up to the roof of the stair tower, this would increase to 4.1m - this would be visible from Stargrove Lane and would create a substantial bulk of roof which would be disproportionate to that of the original cottage's comparatively diminutive roof. This problem offsets any lowering of the overall roof ridge height seen in comparison with the appeal proposal.
Another key issue which the Inspector raised was the length of the appeal proposal. The new proposal would in fact be marginally longer than the appeal proposal, and certainly no shorter. This issue of length remains relevant for the new proposal despite any apparent reduction in height, as it is this side (east) elevation facing Stargrove Lane which is the most sensitive to the public appearance of the house in the conservation area. A common 'rule-of-thumb' that applies well to the extension of historic buildings is that for an extension to be proportionate, it should keep to within or at least not exceeding the proportions of the original building. Considering this house has already been extended, this principle is considered to be particularly relevant to this case.
32 of 66
The proposed single-storey extension is considered to harm the character of the host building, and is therefore contrary to Policy E1 of the Local Plan. For similar reasons, it is also considered to harm the building's contribution to the character and appearance of the East End Conservation Area, and therefore fails to comply with Policy E3 of the Local Plan also.
It is considered that, in order to satisfy the appeal Inspector's concerns and to preserve the house's contribution to the Conservation Area, any proposal for the rear extension of this house must seek to be notably shorter than the appeal proposal and should be proportioned to match the proportions of the original cottage and proposed first floor extension.
Proposed first floor rear extension
The existing single-storey 'outshot' extension to the rear of the house is of approximately late 19th century date, and is a traditional form of adding onto the rear of a rural cottage such as this. However, its character is much degraded by later work, and as such extending on top of it to extend the first floor of the house is considered to be acceptable in principle.
The current proposal is to build along the full width of the rear of the house, so replacing the existing two-storey extension at the same time, with a consistent depth and height. This would create an effective 'double-pile' house with two parallel and almost matching in height wings, which again is a generally traditional form of house. The new roof that would be formed to the rear would be hipped at the western end, which successfully reduces the apparent bulk added to the side elevation of the house. The eastern elevation (facing Stargrove Lane) however would be gabled, forming an M-shaped profile with the gable end of the original cottage, which is in itself considered to be acceptable. The valley between these two gables would however be filled with an inset roof sloping up to a flat- top roof spanning over the whole house (see submitted roof plan).
It is considered that by closing the valley with this inset roof, would, in cumulation with the bulk of the roof of the proposed single-storey extension and stair tower, produce an unacceptable bulk of roof which would dramatically alter the side appearance of the house from Stargrove Lane. This would harm the character of the building and Conservation Area and would therefore be contrary to Policies E1 and E3 of the Local Plan. The appearance of clear sky within such V-shaped roof valleys is considered to be important to reducing the apparent bulk that can be created by such extensions. The proposed first floor extension is otherwise considered to be acceptable in itself.
Proposed two-storey stair tower extension to rear
Associated with the proposed first floor and single-storey rear extensions, and sitting in the corner formed between them, it is proposed to build a new two-storey 'stair tower' extension to provide access from the ground floor to the first floor. This is designed to enable the current staircase within the original cottage to be removed, so that the ground and first floors of the cottage can be remodelled to form additional bedroom and bathroom accommodation.
33 of 66 Whilst this proposal in itself is not considered to be harmful, it does raise the ridgeline of the adjoining single-storey extension, as discussed above, and introduces a further element to what is already a very complicated building, but was originally very simple. Furthermore, it is not directly necessary, as by simply turning the top of the new staircase to face the landing outside the bedrooms, one would avoid the necessity of the formation of a broad U-shaped landing on the first floor, so reducing or even removing the depth of projection of the stairs from the rear wall of the new first floor extension, and thereby simplifying the proposals.
It is considered that the proposed stair tower contributes to the harm caused to the building's character and the Conservation Area by the proposed single-storey rear extension, and therefore does not comply with Policies E1 or E3 of the Local Plan.
Proposed open porch canopy to side elevation
A much more minor element of the current proposals is to build a new open porch onto the side of the house, facing Stargrove Lane. This is considered to be an acceptable design which allows some of the problems of this elevation to be rectified.
Impact on landscape character
The appeal Inspector considered that, whilst there would be no impact on the wider AONB landscape quality, there would be on the more local character of Stargrove Lane as a rural lane. This view is now shared by officers and is considered to be a similar consideration to the impact on the Conservation Area, the character of which at this point is entirely rural. In this regard, it is considered that the current proposals would harm the rural character of the lane for the same reasons as the appeal proposal was considered to by the appeal inspector, in that the length of built bulk facing onto Stargrove Lane would be dramatically increased so giving a 'suburbanising' effect on the rural qualities of the lane. It is therefore considered that the proposals are contrary to Policy E6 (landscape) of the Local Plan.
Impact on neighbour amenities
The application property sits outside of the main village area of East End, and is not close to any other dwellings. Its boundaries are with much larger properties where the dwellings of which sit at some distance from the boundary. Supporting comments have however been received from the owners of those properties regarding what limited appreciation they currently have of the application property. In particular they consider that the existing two-storey rear extension is harmful and would benefit from being replaced.
Impact on highway network
As the proposals are for an extension to an existing dwelling, with no increase in the number of bedrooms, there would be no change in relation to highway or car parking impact.
Submitted drawings
It is noted that the submitted drawings, whilst accurate, may be unclear due to the lack of definition between dimension lines and actual proposal lines, and has included the outline of previous proposals on the plan to demonstrate the changes made. The actual lines of the appeal proposal are in fact those closest to the lines of the current (amended)
34 of 66 proposal. The lines which are further outward from the current proposal are in fact the dimension lines of the three evolutions of the proposals and the lines of the original proposal of this current application.
The submitted drawings also display discrepancies on the submitted proposed elevations between the size of the existing western side extension - it is shown notably larger on the submitted front (south) elevation than it is on the west (side) elevation. The submitted west (side) elevation, which shows it smaller, is in fact the correct size.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is RECOMMENDED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The proposed single-storey, two-storey (stair tower) and first floor rear extensions would fail to respect the character of the host building and would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the East End Conservation Area, by virtue of the length and bulk of the proposed single-storey extension in combination with the proposed stair tower extension, which would be disproportionate to the scale and proportions of the original dwelling and its setting within the conservation area and open countryside. As such the proposals do not comply with Policies E1, E3 or E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, and are contrary to the guidance given by PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment, and by the Borough supplementary planning guidance notes entitled, "The Historic Environment: Conservation Areas", and "Conservation Area Appraisal: East End and North End".
Notes to the Applicant:
1. The apparent alterations to the existing single-storey side (western) extension as shown on the submitted front elevations, do not form part of this planning application as they are not included in the description.
35 of 66
Minor and Other Application
Cttee: 10/02/2010 Item No. 04
Application no: BDB/71576 For Details and Plans Click here
Site Address Twiggys Farm, Priory Lane, Freefolk Proposal Siting of mobile home as temporary agricultural workers dwelling (Retrospective)
Registered: 13/11/2009 Expiry Date: 08/01/2010 Type of Retention of Case Officer: Katherine Miles Application: Development 01256 845249 (Section 73A) Applicant: Mr D Guppy Agent: Ward: Whitchurch Ward Member(s): Cllr E Dunlop Cllr K Watts Parish: Whitchurch OS Grid Reference: 448053,149632
Recommendation: Approve
General Comments
This application has been brought to committee in line with the Council's scheme of delegation given the number of objections received.
Description of Site
The site is located to the north of Freefolk, north of the London – South West mainline, which is in a cutting. The site is a large, elevated open field, which is predominantly level, sloping downhill to the north-west and, with a slight raise in landform towards the hedge to the east. The site is located in the open countryside in the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty north of Freefolk.
The site is accessed via Priory Lane, a single track road linking the site to the B3400 Basingstoke to Whitchurch Road. The site lies to the west of Priory Lane, which has high native hedges on banks on both sides of the lane. Access is via a shared entrance with a neighbouring field, off Priory Lane, a quiet narrow, rural lane of high native hedges on banks, with informal passing places. The landform and character of the area around the site is one of rolling agricultural hills, interspersed with woodland belts, copses and hedgerows.
The site is a small holding covering an area of 4.12ha. There is a large, concrete block and timber clad building (known as the 'packhouse') located in the north-east corner of the site. This building is approximately 20m x 6m and has a roller shutter door to the end elevation and windows in the side. There is a timber lean-to against this building on the eastern side. To the rear is a timber general store. In addition, to the north is a metal
36 of 66 shipping container. The packhouse contains a kitchen and bathroom at the northern end. The lean-to store is used to store bedding, whilst the shipping container stores feed. There are also two polytunnels on site and two stables for horses. A menage has been staked out with tape to the south of the packhouse.
At the time of the site visit, horses were grazing on the site. There were also a few geese and Officers were advised that pigs were grazing to the far west of the holding.
The site is exposed and on high land which slopes slightly down to the south and west. The eastern boundary of the site, adjacent to Priory Lane has 3m high, dense hedging, and the other boundaries consist of 1m high post and wire fencing. There has been recent landscape planting works to the northern boundary of the site adjacent to an existing bund.
Access to the site is from Priory Lane at the southern end of the site, with a track laid along the side of the field up to the packhouse. The existing track is unmade.
There are fields to the south of the site which appear to be used for equestrian purposes and several have small field shelters upon them. There was also a caravan sited within one field and a horse box, although neither appeared to be occupied.
There are no public footpaths close to the site; the nearest lies to the east of Winterhill Plantation (approximately 800m away) and is screened from this site by a thick belt of field boundary hedges/trees, as well as a rise in landform.
Proposal
The application proposes the retention of a temporary agricultural workers dwelling to the west of the existing packhouse and would be aligned with this building. The dwelling was erected on site on 30 October 2009.
The dwelling is in the form of a mobile caravan which contains three bedrooms and measures 10.6m x 3.7m and has an overall height of 5.7m. The drainage for the dwelling is provided by a septic tank and soakaway to the east of the dwelling. Power is provided through a generator.
Access to the site is via the existing access off Priory Lane.
Relevant Planning History
BDB 44239 Use of land for the keeping horses and Refused associated field shelters 24/12/98 Appeal Allowed 20/09/99
BDB 46633 Change of use from agricultural land to Granted the keeping of horses and erection of 20/12/99 field shelter BDB 47764 Revised application to amend the Granted footprint of the field shelter and lay a 27/06/00 concrete hardstanding beneath the shelter and relief of conditions 2 and 4 of BDB 46633
37 of 66 BDB 52255 Erection of two polytunnels and a Granted packhouse 05/04/02
BDB 52256 Siting of a mobile home Refused 21/03/02
BDB 61862 Change of use of the land from Withdrawn agriculture to the keeping of horses. 31/10/05 Erection of a store, tack room and 6 no. open shelters
BDB 65055 Erection of a field shelter building and Refused change of use of the land for the keeping 16/02/07 of horses and use of existing barn as ancillary use
BDB 67210 Change of use of land to land to be used Withdrawn for recreational keeping of horses and 08/02/08 alterations to and use of pack house as field shelters, tack room and haystore
BDB 70268 Erection of a temporary agricultural Withdrawn workers dwelling 19/05/09
BDB 70843 Erection of a temporary agricultural Refused workers dwelling 20/08/09
Consultations Parish Council: No objection. Local Highway Authority: No objection subject to conditions: "The proposal includes for three parking spaces and whilst the access has less than desirable sightlines looking right along Priory Lane, which is a single track road with relatively slow speeds, this is an established access serving the site as a whole. Therefore, on balance I raise no adverse highways objections to this application subject to conditions to preserve the on-site parking in future". Landscape: Objection: The proposals do not meet the criteria of Policy E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan (2006) because:
The proposals would have a negative impact on landscape character, as set out in Landscape Character Area 10: Litchfield Down of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Landscape Assessment, June 2001 and the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Countryside Design Summary (April 2002); The proposals do not meet the Objective 1 of The North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan (2009-2014): “To maintain and enhance the distinctive landscape character of the North Wessex Downs”; The proposals could set an unacceptable precedent for future development within the AONB, which would have a significant negative impact on its designation.
38 of 66 Forward Planning: Comments: "This application seeks retrospective permission of siting of a mobile home as a temporary agricultural workers dwelling following the refusal of a similar application (ref: BDB 70843) in August 2009 for the erection of a temporary agricultural worker's dwelling. There was also an earlier application (ref: BDB 70268) which was subsequently withdrawn in May 2009. The site falls outside of any defined Settlement Policy Boundary under Policy D5 in the Adopted Local Plan 1996-2011, and is therefore considered to lie in the open countryside where the more restrictive policies apply. The site also falls within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and therefore Policy E6 is relevant. Given that the proposal involves residential accommodation for an agricultural worker in the countryside, Part (iii) of Policy D6 is relevant which requires compliance with Policy D7, D8 or D9 of the Local Plan. Policy D7 of the Local Plan refers to 'Essential Residential Accommodation in the countryside' but expired on 17 July 2009 and therefore national planning policy takes precedence. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 states: “Isolated new houses in the countryside will require special justification for planning permission to be granted. Where the special justification for an isolate new house relates to the essential need for a worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside, planning authorities should follow the advice in Annex A to this PPS.” Whilst usually the functional and financial tests set out in paragraph 12 in Annex A are relevant to demonstrate that there is a need for a temporary agricultural worker's dwelling, the previous application (ref: BDB 70843) established the principle for a temporary agricultural worker's dwelling on this site. The applicant submitted a statement to demonstrate compliance with these tests in Annex A in the initial application (ref: BDB 70268). In March 2009, the local planning authority sought expert opinion from Reading Agricultural Consultants (RAC) to carry out a technical appraisal of the information submitted with the application and raised no objection to the principle of siting a dwelling on the land for an agricultural worker. Turning to the issue of the impact on the landscape, consideration should be given to policies E1 and E6. The previous reason for refusal concerned the siting of the dwelling and the impact on the landscape character of the North Wessex Downs AONB. Given that the previous application (ref: BDB 70843) established the principle for a temporary agricultural worker's dwelling on the site, no policy objection is raised to the proposal subject to the Landscape Team's comments on the impact on the landscape character of the area. Environment Agency: Low environmental risk. Reading Agricultural Consultants: No objection. Southern Water: No comment. North Wessex Downs AONB Officer: Objection: Following the introduction of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the government confirmed that the landscape qualities of National Parks and AONB's are equivalent. The protection given by the land use planning system to natural beauty in both types of area should therefore be equivalent.
39 of 66 The North Wessex Downs AONB support the Council's previous reasons for refusal in respect of a permanent dwelling in terms of affect on the AONB. Accordingly the North Wessex Downs AONB also object to the current proposal. The North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan (2009-2014) notes that even small changes to the landform can have a cumulatively adverse affect on the AONB. The proposal is therefore considered to go against Objective.1. Of the Management Plan as it will lead to a loss of the distinctive character of the North Wessex Downs. The proposal will also result in a new dwelling in the countryside away from local services and facilities.
It is the view of the North Wessex Downs AONB that any need for accommodation can be adequately met by existing provision within Whitchurch which has previously been referred to as being 4 minutes or 2 miles away by car. Whitchurch has also previously been referred to as having a good stock of affordable homes to rent or buy, suitable to meet the requirements of PPS7 and should address the functional requirement of this site.
Public Observations
Six letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:
The AONB was designated to protect countryside. Unacceptable visual impact. Light pollution. Contrary to conditions laid down for building the polytunnels. All the planning applications for this site appear to be retrospective. Two mobile homes on site plus a "packing shed" equipped with kitchen and showers, which has been used to live in. Business plan is based on growing vegetables for sale - there is no evidence that this is happening yet. How can permission for a mobile home be granted on just a proposal? Level of activity submitted in the business case is not in fact taking place. There is no justification for any dwelling on this site. The AONB has already been scarred by other temporary structures. Further buildings will add to the unsightliness of the area. The consultants report on the previous application was contested by another professional. A blight on the horizon that can be seen for miles around. This is clearly a stepping stone to gaining a permanent dwelling and should not be supported.
Planning Policy and Material Considerations
Policy
The application site is situated within the countryside outside any identified settlement policy boundary. The site is also with the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Any application for development in this location must be assessed against the relevant policies of the Development Plan. The Development Plan comprises The South East Plan (Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East) May 2009 and the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 (BDBLP). National planning guidance in the form of Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7) is also relevant.
40 of 66 National Guidance
PPS7 sets out the Government's overall aims in relation to the countryside and states at paragraph 1(iv) that "New building development in the open countryside away from existing settlements, or outside areas allocated for development in development plans, should be strictly controlled; the Government's overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all".
Paragraph 10 goes on to state that "Isolated new homes in the countryside will require special justification for planning permission to be granted. Where the special justification for an isolated new house relates to the essential need for a worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside, planning authorities should follow the advice in Annex A".
Annex A of PPS7 states (at paragraph 1) that "one of the few circumstances in which isolated residential development may be justified is when accommodation is required to enable agricultural, forestry and certain other full time workers to live at, or in the immediate vicinity of, their place of work". Paragraph 12 sets out the test for temporary agricultural dwellings and states "If a new dwelling is essential to support a new farming activity, whether on a newly-created agricultural unit or an established one, it should normally, for the first three years, be provided by a caravan, a wooden structure which can be easily dismantled, or other temporary accommodation". Applications for temporary agricultural dwellings are required to satisfy the following criteria: i) Clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise concerned; ii) Functional need; iii) Clear evidence that the proposed enterprise has been planning on a sound financial basis; iv) The functional need could not be fulfilled by another existing dwelling on the unit, or any other accommodation in the area which is suitable and available for occupation by the workers concerned; and v) Other normal planning requirements, e.g. on siting and access, are satisfied.
The Development Plan
Policy C3 of The South East Plan is relevant to the consideration of this application. This sets out the regional policy for sites within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB's). It states that a high priority will be given to conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in the region's AONB's and planning decisions should have regard to their setting. In considering proposals for development, the emphasis should be on small-scale proposals that are sustainably located and designed. Proposals which support the economies and social well-being of the AONB's and their communities will be encouraged provided that they do not conflict with the aims of conserving and enhancing natural beauty.
Policy E1 of the BDBLP is a general development control policy and expects new development to be of a high standard of design, make efficient use of land, respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety. Proposals are required to respond to the local context in terms of design, siting, spacing and density and should integrate successfully into the landscape and surrounds.
41 of 66 Policy E6 of the BDBLP refers to development in countryside locations and states that planning permission will only be granted where it is demonstrated that the proposals will be sympathetic to the landscape character of the area concerned. Development proposals should contribute to the regeneration, restoration, repair or conservation of any landscape likely to be affected. In particular they should respect, and improve the following: i. the particular qualities of the relevant Landscape Character Area as defined in the Basingstoke and Deane Landscape Assessment; and ii. visual amenity and scenic quality; and v. trees, hedgerows, water features and other landscape elements and features.
Consideration will also be given to the impact that development would have on sense of place, sense of remoteness or tranquillity.
Policy E6 emphasises the importance of respecting and improving the particular qualities of the relevant Landscape Character Area.
Supplementary Planning Guidance
The Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Countryside Design Summary (April 2002) recommends that within the North Wessex Downs Countryside Character Area:
Siting of new built development should take into account long views to and from the open downs. Development should be associated with existing settlements. Narrow country lanes should be protected from urbanisation.
The North Wessex Downs Management Plan (January, 2004) states the importance of conserving remoteness and tranquillity. On page 52 of the Policies for Delivery section, the aim of Objective 9 is: “To maintain and enhance the open and remote character of the North Wessex Downs”.
The site lies in Landscape Character Area 10: Litchfield Down of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Landscape Assessment, June 2001. The characteristics of this Landscape Character Area that apply to the local area are as follows:
lies in the North Wessex Downs AONB and generally possesses an unspoilt, remote, quiet and rural character, with few detracting influences. generally large-scale fields, predominantly reflecting 18th & 19th century enclosure. isolated farmsteads and villages/hamlets scattered throughout the area interconnected by narrow, winding roads. moderate to low intervisibility within the area, confined by the woodland and hedgerow structure. The above characteristics all apply to the immediate area of the proposed dwelling and any development should ensure that these are preserved and enhanced. Appendix 14 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2008 contains the Countryside Design Summary which is also a material planning consideration. This describes the character of the North Wessex Downs AONB as being very open landscape with long views over large-scale arable fields. It goes on to state that a patchwork of arable fields and woodland blocks leads down to the Test and Bourne
42 of 66 Valleys in the south of the area, creating a more enclosed landscape. It states that within the AONB new development would not normally be considered. New development should be smallscale, reflecting the traditional patterns of settlement growth. Siting of new built development should take into account long views to and from the open downs and scarp. Development should be associated with existing settlements and be placed carefully in relation to existing woodland, trees and hedgerows. Where necessary, it should be accompanied by native tree and shrub planting to create shelter and screening. Narrow country lanes should be protected from urbanisation. Planning History In 2002, application BDB 52255 was granted planning permission for the erection of two polytunnels and a packhouse on the site. As part of the proposals the land would be used for crops and the applicant provided a Forward Cropping Plan to demonstrate that the 4.12ha site had sufficient capacity to justify the new buildings. As the new buildings were only allowed on the basis of this need, Condition No. 3 of the approval stated: "If the buildings/polytunnel hereby permitted cease, either individually or collectively, to be used for agricultural purposes in relation to the agricultural use of the holding that building/polytunnel shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition". Following this application, an application was submitted for a mobile home on the site under BDB 52256. This application was refused as it was considered that there was insufficient justification for an agricultural workers dwelling in this location. In addition, the application was refused due to the design of the mobile home which was considered to be inappropriate. It should be noted that applications BDB 44239 and BDB 47764, have different red lines to the current application site. The redline line for BDB 47764 abuts the southern boundary of this site. Whilst the red line for BDB 44239, abuts the railway line to the far south. However at one point, clearly all the land was within the same ownership as the blue lines for BDB 44239 and BDB 47764 include the land forming a part of this current application. In 2004, it is understood that the current owners bought the site. The use of the land was changed from agriculture to equestrian without the benefit of planning permission and the applicant erected two polytunnels and a packhouse on the site. In 2007, an application was submitted under BDB 65055 for the erection of a field shelter building and the change of use of the land for the keeping of horses and use of existing barn as ancillary use. This application was refused by the LPA for the five reasons relating to the following concerns:
Size, siting and design, the pack house and field shelters would have a harmful impact upon the landscape and scenic quality of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Also, visual harm would be caused by the amount of hard surfacing required for the car park and turning area, and the additional traffic that would be generated by the proposal using the lane. Increased use of access causing interference with the safety and convenience of highway users. Lack of on site parking and turning. Increased pressure for a new dwelling in the countryside.
Following this refusal, advice was given from the Head of Planning and Transport that the use of the land and the buildings were not in connection with an agricultural business and this was a breach of planning control (given the presence of Condition No.3 on BDB 52255). The applicant was advised that the use of the land and buildings for
43 of 66 equestrian activities was unauthorised and that this needed to be regularised. It was advised that to deal with the broader unauthorised activities on site, an application be submitted to regularise the use of all buildings and structures and the use of the surrounding land. No such application has been forthcoming, however correspondence from the applicant at the time suggested that they had decided to start a small holdings (agricultural) business after having a number of applications refused. In May 2009, an application for a temporary agricultural workers dwelling (BDB 70268) was withdrawn following concerns regarding the size and siting of the dwelling proposed. In August 2009, a revised application (BDB 70843) for a temporary dwelling was refused for the following reason: "Whilst the agricultural justification for a temporary dwelling at Twiggy's Farm is accepted, the proposed temporary dwelling, due to its excessive size and siting away from the existing development, would be harmful to the landscape character of the area and would not preserve the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the guidance of Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. The proposal would also be contrary to Policy C3 of The South East Plan, Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East 2008, and Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011. The proposal would have a negative impact on landscape character, as defined in the Landscape Character Area 10: Litchfield Down of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Landscape Assessment, June 2001 and the Countryside Design Summary, Appendix 14 of the Design & Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document 2008. The proposal does not meet Objective 9 of The North Wessex Downs Management Plan (January, 2004) as it would not maintain and enhance the open and remote character of the North Wessex Downs". In planning terms, it is considered that the land is now in an agricultural use, however an element of equestrian activity remains given that horses are kept in stables, exercised and grazed on the land. There also remains uncertainty over the lawfulness of the packhouse and polytunnels on this site. There are also several other structures including a lean-to attached to the packhouse, a general store to the rear of the packhouse, a metal shipping storage container and field shelters which have all been erected on the land over the past few years without the benefit of planning permission. Ideally, the applicant would have regularised the breaches of planning control by either removing the unauthorised structures or seeking planning permission for their retention. Whilst this has not been done, it is considered that this application can be determined independently of the unauthorised development and uses given that there is an active enforcement case which will investigate the alleged breaches of planning control and take appropriate action should this be considered necessary to do so.
Principle of a temporary agricultural dwelling
In order to justify a temporary dwelling within the countryside for an agricultural worker, an applicant must demonstrate that there is a firm intention to develop the enterprise, that the enterprise is planned on a sound financial basis, and that there is a functional need.
The LPA has consulted Reading Agricultural Consultants (RAC) on two previous proposals (BDB 70268 and BDB 70843). Whilst the supporting information has not been submitted again with this application, reference is made to the comments of RAC previously. RAC have been consulted on this current application and have advised that their previous comments are applicable to this application and they raise no objection to the development overall.
44 of 66
Functional Need
In respect of functional need, paragraph 4 of Annex A states:
“A functional test is necessary to establish whether it is essential for the proper functioning of the enterprise for one or more workers to be readily available at most times. Such a requirement might arise, for example, if workers are needed to be on hand day and night:
(i) in case animals or agricultural processes require essential care at short notice; (ii) to deal quickly with emergencies that could otherwise cause serious loss of crops or products, for example, by frost damage or the failure of automatic systems”.
RAC have visited the site and assessed the applicants business plan and financial information. RAC have concluded that the diversity of the proposed enterprises leads to an increased functional requirement, with a constant throughput of day-old chicks; sows farrowing throughout the year and additional horticultural requirements. As such, RAC conclude that the diversity of this proposed enterprise leads to a requirement to have “one or more workers to be readily available at most times.”
Concern was raised by Officers following receipt of RAC comments regarding the need for a worker to live on site throughout the year. RAC's labour calculation gave the labour requirement of 188 SMD's (Standard Man Days) which is nearly a third lower than the full time requirement of 275 SMD's. Given that the advice in criterion (ii) of paragraph 3 of Annex A states “the need relates to a full-time worker, or one who is primarily employed in agriculture and does not relate to a part-time requirement”, Officers were concerned that the labour requirement did not meet the full-time requirement and would therefore not justify a dwelling on this site.
In response, RAC have stated that it is evident that the labour requirement of the proposed enterprise is not yet full-time, however RAC are of the opinion that it is evident that the need relates to a worker who is "primarily employed in agriculture". Furthermore, RAC are of the view that the proposed development of the enterprise at Twiggys Farm will lead to there being an essential need "for the proper functioning of the enterprise for one or more workers to be readily available at most times" to provide the necessary supervision of both the livestock and horticultural activities.
On this basis, although the need at the present time does not relate to a full time worker, RAC are satisfied that to develop the unit and ensure its proper functioning there is a need for an on-site presence at all times and a dwelling is therefore justified. As such, the LPA must accept that there is a functional need for this dwelling.
Financially Sound Basis
RAC consider that the applicants have submitted a thorough business plan to support the proposal for a temporary dwelling on this site, which encompasses the likely cropping levels and livestock production, showing specific time scales, total sales and gross and net profits for this proposed enterprise. The full costs of setting up the enterprise have been given, and the projected costs for the 2009/2010 financial year show a likely net profit of around £16,000. No projected costs for 2010/2011 or 2011/2012 have been provided, however RAC are satisfied that there is “clear evidence that the proposed enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis".
45 of 66
Firm intention to develop the enterprise Since purchasing Twiggys Farm in 2004, the applicant has developed the facilities available with the erection of the packhouse and two polytunnels. Whilst there is some doubt over the lawfulness of the structures on the land at present, the costs of work undertaken to date is approximately £47,000, which is a significant investment. RAC are of the opinion that the supporting documentation submitted within the application shows a firm commitment to the development of this enterprise. The applicant has undertaken courses to develop skills in being a small holder, and a business plan has been produced. RAC conclude that the applicants have shown clear evidence and ability to develop the enterprise concerned, both with the investment in new farm buildings and their thorough business plan and forward thinking in relation to the development of such an enterprise. In conclusion, RAC have raised no objection to the provision of a temporary agricultural workers dwelling at this site and are satisfied that there is a functional need and that the standard data available supports the requirement for a stockman to be readily available at most times. RAC consider that the financial budgets submitted represent a realistic expectation for the enterprise and are satisfied that the proposed enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis. On this basis, the LPA accept RAC's conclusions as its advisors in this matter and raise no objection to the principle of siting a temporary dwelling on this land for an agricultural worker. However, as the mobile home is not the type of dwelling the LPA would wish to see retained on a permanent basis, and given that the business is a new venture that may not prove successful over time, the Council will only grant planning permission for a three year temporary period to allow the situation to be reassessed in the future. Therefore, if the business does fail, the dwelling can be removed from the site as there would be no justification for its retention. Similarly, if the business continues to develop and remains viable, then a more permanent solution can be found at the end of the temporary period. Impact on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area
Landscape Character Policy E6 of the BDBLP requires proposals to comply with the Borough Landscape Character Assessment and states that they should respect visual amenity and scenic quality. The landscape character of the site and its locality is one of large-scale agricultural fields with high hedgerows and tree belts. The area has isolated farmsteads, set on valley slopes or on the edge of settlements, partially or wholly screened by woodland belts, copses and hedgerows. Narrow, winding, rural lanes dissect the area. These are screened from neighbouring land by high native hedges on steep banks. The landform of this character area is one of rolling hills. The character of the area is remote and tranquil, despite its location close to the settlement of Freefolk. Dwellings in this area are located within settlements, or on the edge of settlements in clusters (such as the nearby South View Cottages) or are part of an existing established farmstead, such as Berehill Farm and Wooldings Farm. The location of the temporary dwelling has changed from previous proposals and is now aligned to the west of the existing packhouse, to the east of the polytunnels. Whilst it is noted that there are questions over the lawfulness of some buildings within this site, given the proposed location of the mobile home, it is considered that the dwelling would be viewed as part of a farmstead, rather than as an isolated building.
46 of 66
Notwithstanding this, the Landscape Officer has recommended the refusal of the application advising that the current proposal does not adhere to the recommendations of the Countryside Design Summary as the siting of the development does not take into account the long views north across the Downs, is not associated with existing settlements and would contribute to the domestication and urbanisation of Priory Lane.
The Landscape Officer, in her detailed comments goes on to state: "The North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan (2009-2014) states the importance of conserving remoteness and tranquillity. Objective 1 is: “To maintain and enhance the distinctive landscape character of the North Wessex Downs”. The introduction of a domestic dwelling within the AONB would erode the remote character of the North Wessex Downs. ... Policy E6 emphasises the importance of respecting and improving the particular qualities of the relevant Landscape Character Area, which the proposed dwelling does not".
The Landscape Officer has concluded that "To grant permission for this dwelling would set an unacceptable precedent for this area of open, unspoilt rural character. A number of adjacent fields (some within the AONB and some along its boundary) already contain caravans. Should permission be granted for this dwelling to be constructed it could lead to other landowners applying for the right to build dwellings on their land. The proliferation of such dwellings would have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the character of the AONB, increasing urbanisation and extending development out from the Settlement Policy Boundary surrounding Laverstoke & Freefolk. Alone, this development would have an unacceptable impact upon local character, but when the potential impact of future development is considered its impact is even more negative. As noted above, existing dwellings in this area are located within settlements or on the edge of settlements in clusters (such as the nearby South View Cottages) or are part of an existing established farmstead. The proposed dwelling is not consistent with any of these, and as such is out of character with the local area".
As such, the Landscape Officer has advised that the current proposal does not adhere to the recommendations of the Council's adopted Policies as the dwelling would:
create a detracting influence in a landscape of unspoilt, remote, quiet and rural character. not maintain or enhance the open and remote character of the North Wessex Downs. not be associated with an existing settlement, existing cluster of dwellings or established farmstead, which has an adverse effect upon the open, tranquil and rural character of the landscape. be domestic, with its associated paraphernalia (bins, washing lines, garden furniture, play equipment and other items of a domestic nature) and would cause ‘urbanisation’ of a narrow country lane.
Visual Amenity
Views of the site are limited from public vantage points (roads and Public Rights of Way). This is due to the high hedges/woodland that line roads, rises and drops in landform and intervening vegetation between public vantage points and the site.
Looking west into the site from Priory Lane, the roofline of the existing barn is partially visible, more notably when travelling from the north than from the south, where the roofline 47 of 66 is screened to a further extent by hedgerow trees. Even when passing the site on foot along Priory Lane the site and its associated structures are only glimpsed where gaps exist in the high hedge, as this hedge is very dense. Although on site there are views out to surrounding hills, none of the points from which it appears that the site could be seen are public views – they are mostly open fields or blocks of woodland. The most elevated position in the locality lies to the west of Cowlease Copse – at a height of 126m AOD. However, there is no public access to this high point. PROW 3b and 4 skirt around the east of this rise in landform, but both are at much lower points (between 90 – 100m AOD) and thus views from these PROWs are screened by intervening vegetation and landform. The only other views into the site are private views (from shared access, adjacent fields and neighbouring barn). There are no public footpaths close to the site; the nearest (PROW 5) lies to the east of Winterhill Plantation (approximately 800m away) and is screened from this site by a high hedge adjacent to the footpath and another belt of field boundary hedges/trees adjacent to the site, as well as a rise in landform.
Wooldings Cottages lie approximately 400m to the north of the site and South View Cottages lie approximately 300m from the site, to the east of Priory Lane. These dwellings appear to be screened from the site by intervening vegetation.
Overall, the Landscape Officer has concluded that the proposed development would have a limited impact on visual amenity and scenic quality, as it would be screened from roads, Public Rights of Way and most residential dwellings as described above. The only additional impact would be a possible partial view of the roofline from Priory Lane, which due to the speed at which vehicles would travel along this road is considered to be of a low significance.
Assessment
Given the above considerations, the proposal is considered to be detrimental to the landscape character of the area` on its own merits. However in this instance, there is an agricultural justification for the proposed development, therefore Officers must balance the objective of preserving the Landscape Character of the area against the need of providing a dwelling to meet an agricultural need. As such, the assessment needs to consider if the size of the dwelling is appropriate to the size of the holding, and whether the dwelling is sited in a location so as to cause the least harm to the landscape character and visual amenity of the area.
Paragraph 9 of Annex A states "Agricultural dwellings should be of a size commensurate with the established functional requirement. Dwellings that are unusually large in relation to the agricultural needs of the unit, or unusually expensive to construct in relation to the income it can sustain in the long-term, should not be permitted. It is the requirements of the enterprise, rather than those of the owner or occupier, that are relevant in determining the size of dwelling that is appropriate to a particular holding". It is noted that this is a test for a permanent dwelling, and that there is no such guidance given for temporary structures. However, temporary structures are granted planning permission where it is proven that there is a need for them, and once the business has been established for three years and remains profitable, it is often the case that an application for a permanent dwelling is submitted. Therefore it is logical to assess the size of the dwelling at the temporary permission phase. In this regard, the Local Planning Authority does not have any adopted guidance for assessing the size of dwellings, whether for temporary or permanent permission, and therefore the assessment is based on reasoned judgement.
48 of 66 Previously proposed dwellings have not only been sited forward of the existing packhouse in a more prominent location, but they have also proposed larger dwellings. The dwelling proposed under application BDB 70843 was 111m² and contain an entrance hall, a kitchen and lounge, a utility room, three bedrooms and two bathrooms. With this scheme, Officer's were of the opinion that the size of the dwelling could be reduced to lessen the impact on the wider area, whilst still providing an appropriate level of accommodation for the applicant and family. Furthermore, it was considered that the location of the dwelling could also be amended to ensure that the dwelling was sited closer to existing buildings on site. The application was therefore refused as set out above. The justification for the Officer's assessment of BDB 70843 came from knowledge that there had been recently constructed market dwellings in the Whitchurch area which provide for a three bedroom family home over 80m². In addition, an appeal for a temporary dwelling at Wadwick Farm in 2006 under BDB 64698 resulted in a dwelling with a total length of 12.1m and a total width of 3.9m. It similarly contained a kitchen, diner and lounge area; a shower room and a w.c; and three bedrooms. The total floor area covered by this dwelling was 47.19m². The holding at Wadwick Farm was some 201 ha, a substantial holding compared to that at Twiggy's Farm which is just 4.12ha. Bearing in mind the advice at Paragraph 9 of Annex A as set out above, Officer's considered they were justified in seeking a smaller dwelling at Twiggy's Farm.
This current proposal seeks a dwelling which measures 10.6m x 3.7m which provides a total floor area of 38.1m². The mobile home provides a lounge, kitchen, diner, bathroom and three bedrooms as required by the applicant, however its size means that it has a minimal footprint. Given its siting aligned with the existing packhouse, and given its modest scale, it is now considered that the proposed dwelling is commensurate in size to the needs of the holding. As such, although the proposal does result in inappropriate development in the AONB by virtue of the intrusion of built development into the established rural landscape, it is considered that the size of the dwelling is justified against the functional need of the holding to accommodate one worker to be readily available at most times.
However, to assist further in mitigating the impact of the development on the AONB, Officers considered that landscaping proposals should be provided to enhance Landscape Character as defined in Policy E6 of the BDBLP. Furthermore, as the extent of the residential curtilage is unknown, a condition is recommended to ensure that an appropriate curtilage for the dwelling is provided to control the location of domestic paraphernalia such as bins and washing lines to prevent further encroachment in the countryside.
Therefore in conclusion, although it is acknowledged that a dwelling in this location will harm the landscape character of the area, there is a proven need for a temporary agricultural workers dwelling in this location as identified by the Council's agricultural consultants. Officer's consider that the location and size of the dwelling proposed would be the least harmful and therefore raise no objection to the proposal.
Other Matters
The concerns of the objectors in respect of this proposal are noted and have, to some extent been addressed in the main body of this report. In terms of light pollution, having an agricultural activity and dwelling in this location is inevitably going to cause some light pollution at night which otherwise would not be found in this area. However the neighbouring properties are considered to be a substantial distance away so as to ensure that their amenities are not harmed by the light from the site. There have been concerns
49 of 66 raised regarding the level of business activity taking place on site. Officers have visited the site several times in the past 12 months and have noted that the agricultural activities are not constant and do permit the applicant free time throughout the day. However Officer's cannot dispute that the agricultural consultants have established that there is a need to accommodate a worker on site to meet the needs of the business. The situation can of course be reviewed in three years, when the applicant will need to demonstrate that the business is profitable, viable and that a need still exists to remain living on the land.
In respect of Section 106 contributions, Policy C1 of the BDBLP permits development where there is adequate provision in the locality for community facilities and infrastructure. However as this application is only for a temporary dwelling, section 106 contributions will not be sought in this instance. However if a full application for a permanent dwelling is sought on this site in the future, the applicant would be expected to provide the necessary contributions to improving community facilities and local infrastructure at that point.
Reasons for Approval
(1) There is an identified need for a temporary agricultural workers dwelling in this location based on the view of Reading Agricultural Consultants taking into account the functional and financial requirements of the applicant's business. In accordance with Annex A of Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.
(2) Adequate parking would be provided to serve the proposed development and a satisfactory access is available to the highway. As such the proposal complies with Policies E1(iii) and A1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
(3) Although it is acknowledged that a dwelling in this location will harm the landscape character of the area, there is a proven need for a temporary agricultural workers dwelling in this location and on this basis, the location and size of the dwelling proposed would be the least harmful to the landscape.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is RECOMMENDED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:
Drawing no. 3 - Plans and Elevations 1 received 9 November 2009 Drawing no. 4 - Plans and Elevations 2 received 9 November 2009 Drawing no. 5 - Sketch details of sceptic tank and soakaway received 9 November 2009 Drawing no. 2 - Site Plan received 13 November 2009 Drawing no. 1 - Site Location Plan received 13 November 2009
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
50 of 66
2. The building hereby permitted shall be permanently removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before 11 February 2013. REASON: To enable the Local Planning Authority to re-assess the agricultural viability of the holding to see whether there is a continuing need for on-site accommodation, in accordance with the advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and Policy D7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and to enable the Local Planning Authority to re-assess the situation given the temporary nature of the building in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
3. The occupation of the mobile home hereby permitted shall be limited to a person solely or mainly working, or last working, in the locality in agriculture as defined in Section 336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or a widow or widower of such a person, and to any resident dependants. REASON: The site is in an area where new dwellings are not normally permitted except where there is an overriding need in the interests of agriculture or forestry in accordance with the advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and Policy D7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
4. Within one month of the date of permission hereby granted, a 1:200 scale plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority setting out the proposed residential curtilage for the dwelling hereby permitted. The plan shall include an area for the parking and turning of two vehicles, an area for refuse and recycling storage, and an area to be used as a domestic garden. The plans shall also provide details of the type, location and height of appropriate boundary demarcation of the curtilage area. The plan must be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the area of curtilage approved shall be implemented within one month of approval and retained thereafter for the duration of the use hereby permitted. REASON: To enable the Local Planning Authority to protect the landscape character of the area from further harm in accordance with Policy E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
5. Within one month of the date of the approval of Condition 4 above, a scheme of landscaping, which shall specify species, planting sizes, spacing and numbers of trees/shrubs to be planted, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works approved shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following approval. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 3 years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To improve the appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policies E1 (ii) and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
51 of 66 Notes to the Applicant:
1. 1.1 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.
1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre- commencement conditions have been met.
1.3 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £85 per request or £25 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.
52 of 66
Minor and Other Application
Cttee: 10/02/2010 Item No. 05
Application no: BDB/71762 For Details and Plans Click here
Site Address Brickledons Farm, Clappers Farm Road, Silchester, Reading, RG7 2LG Proposal Construction of an agricultural track (part retrospective)
Registered: 23/12/2009 Expiry Date: 17/02/2010 Type of Full planning Case Officer: Gemma Page Application: permission 01256 845314 Applicant: Mr S Macklin Agent: Simmons & Sons Ward: Pamber and Ward Member(s): Cllr K G Chapman Silchester Cllr Mrs M J Tucker* Parish: Silchester OS Grid Reference: 465780,161731
Recommendation: Approve
General Comments
This application is brought to the Development Control Committee at the request of Councillor Tucker for the following reason:
I have attended the Stratfield Saye Parish Council and they are very unhappy about this proposal. Part of the suggested track apparently is extremely high up (I believe the second highest spot in Hampshire) and they believe that the track and any traffic on it will be visible for miles. In order to view it by the committee (as you and I discussed) they have offered to transport the members of the committee in large land rover(s) as the bus would not be able to go along the route of the track. As stated previously, Councillor Chapman and I believe this should be a committee decision following a viewing. Councillor Chapman has supported this request. Description of Site
Detached two storey dwelling, rendered with slate roof tiles. Large outbuildings to the north and west. Accessed off a long private road, which serves this farm and one neighbouring property (Haskers Farm). Surrounded by fields in all directions, with public footpaths running along the north-west boundary and to the north-east.
Proposal
The installation of an agricultural track, measuring no more than 4.0 metres in width. The track would connect Park Lane to Brickledon Farm via an existing public footpath and established access point. This application is part retrospective as part of the track has already been constructed up to Butlers Land Copse. The remainder of the proposed track 53 of 66 to Park Lane has not been developed. The proposal also involves modifying the existing access from Park Lane with hard core. The applicant states that the track is required for agricultural purposes.
Relevant Planning History
BDB 14398 Alterations and extensions to rear Granted 17/03/83 BDB 28113 Erection of poultry workers cottage on Refused 0.08 Ha 03/01/90 BDB 28702 Siting of mobile home for poultry worker Granted 18/04/90 BDB 33309 Erection of agricultural workers dwelling Granted 15/07/92 BDB 33953 Continued siting of mobile home for Withdrawn poultry worker/farm manager 07/12/92 BDB 38234 Variation of conditions 1 & 2 of BDB Granted 33309 to extend time limit for the 15/08/95 submission of reserved matters and commencement of development of an agricultural worker's dwelling BDB 52044 Erection of single storey side extension Granted forming double garage, single storey side 23/04/02 and rear extension, demolition of existing conservatory and erection of conservatory in new location. Erection of first floor rear extension and alterations to roof involving creation of room in roof space including dormer windows in all elevations. BDB 54882 Erection of an egg packing shed RNO 12/02/03 BDB 55023 Erection of a two storey side extension Refused including raising the existing roof. 02/04/03 Erection of a triple cart shed type garage and store with storage over BDB 55552 Erection of a two storey side extension Granted including raising the existing roof. 03/06/03 Erection of a triple cart shed type garage and store with storage over BDB 66442 Erection of an agricultural barn RNO 11/07/07 BDB 66788 Erection of an agricultural barn Granted (Retrospective) 20/12/07 BDB 70224 Construction of an agricultural track (part Refused retrospective) 16/04/09 BDB 70875 Construction of an agricultural track (part Withdrawn retrospective) 03/08/09
54 of 66 Consultations Silchester Parish Council: No Objection
'I can confirm that my council have reviewed the application submitted for Brickledons Farm, Silchester. My council raise no objection to the application as presented. They believe the idea to be a sensible solution to an agricultural requirement and therefore are in full support of the proposal'. Stratfield Saye Parish Council: Objection 'The Council is still firmly opposed to this application and wish to refute several of the points made in the attached Simmons & Sons report paid for by Mr Macklin.
1. Pictures showing other local farm tracks point 6.4– several of the tracks highlighted are in fact entrance tracks to the farm house & buildings and NOT there as an agricultural track – Lavell’s and Wigmore’s being 2 of them. They are farm entrances in exactly the way that Brickledon’s has access via Clappers Farm Road. 2. The photo supplied of the proposed track on to Park Lane is taken in the winter – hence no leaves on the trees and undergrowth or hedgerow growth as would be present in summer ( when they would wish to use the entrance most) , nor do they make it clear that they are on the side of a thick wooden area. In summer this will present a real threat to vehicles along this road due to poor visibility there will not be a satisfactory sight line. 3. The Council fail to see that the second objection, safety to walkers/pedestrians has been addressed. These are public footpaths and rights of way and people use them constantly and large vehicles on them will always present a real danger as walkers will be unaware of exactly where the footpath lies. 4. The sporadic flooding reported at Clappers Lane and Clappers Farm Lane is a matter to be dealt with by BDC who should ensure that they maintain & clear the Foundry brook correctly. This is not a reason to establish an extremely long and intrusive second track to this farm from the other direction. The Parish Council noted information supplied to them by two local farmers as more reasons to refuse this application:- 5. Agricultural vehicles always have, and will, gain access to the fields by the headland. All subsequent vehicles used, whatever their size, move along the same ruts in the field in line with the original sowing, so do not require any additional track. Agricultural vehicles are specifically built to operate in fields without tracks or roads. 6. On their advice the size of this farm approx 150-160 acres (2 fields) will only need access to the fields, their stated reason – in the spring/autumn for a maximum of 14 days a year – so this large intrusive track is out of all proportion to the need. 7. The egg business referred to is just a business bringing in the eggs, packaging them and sending them to the suppliers – an operation which could be carried out on an industrial estate and has little or nothing to do with farming diversification. The lorries used in this enterprise will presumably be using this new track to enter and exit the farm and if they increase the unit a resulting increase in the traffic is inevitable. see 19 below
The Council understand that Mr Macklin’s brother, who farms on the other side of the road in Silchester area, has developed a large amount of industrial units first by converting existing buildings and then by rebuilding another, despite BDC objections to the application which was granted on appeal, which has caused a lot of traffic problems with the numerous heavy lorries using the site. 55 of 66 This is exactly what they fear Mr Stuart Macklin is planning in the future – to develop more industrial units which is the real reason for wanting this new track/road.
Below is a summary of the main objections by the Council already sent in relation to the previous application which are still valid and to be added to those listed above:
8. The area is a very high hilly meadow area of outstanding beauty, with extensive views of the surrounding countryside and a lot of wildlife (Cllr Best later stated he believed this is the 2nd highest hill in Hampshire). 9. The landowner wants to put a totally new track/access road, with solid hardcore foundations, right up one side of the hill, over the top and down the other side to join the existing road, the Devils highway mid way along before the junction at Butlers Lands Farm. This would mean allowing wheeled commercial vehicles into an area where they have not been present before and would cross or overlay several existing footpaths. 10. The landowner started construction which was stopped as BDC informed him it needed planning permission, which he submitted but which was refused by BDC for the following reasons: a) Against the Council’s policy for road development in the countryside. b) The safety of walkers using the footpaths from the influx of vehicles. c) The landowner had not made a sufficient case for the need of the new track. 11. The farm has been operating for 35 years on existing tracks/headland access so why is it necessary now. 12. As farm vehicles are designed to operate perfectly well on fields a hardcore road surface is totally unnecessary. 13. The construction is in effect a road, not a farm track, therefore opening the very real possibility of an increase in ordinary commercial vehicles, for whatever purpose, in the future. 14. Entrance from Devils Highway large. The existing headland track is adequate for use. Farm vehicles have historically always used headland access so cannot see why it is inadequate in this farm situation. 15. The footpaths in the affected area and the surroundings are in constant daily use by local residents and outside walkers. 16. This manmade road will blight the area and spoil the countryside as used by the public. 17. Are there wider issues which so far have not been disclosed. The construction of such an extensive, expensive and large track/road would suggest that there are future development plans for the site which have not been disclosed at this time. It was noted that the other farmer in the area N Hall used, and found perfectly adequate, a wide headland access to any secondary fields on his farm which abut the farm in question. 18. Parishioners were extremely concerned about the type of material being used for the track. 19. One resident had been informed that the track was necessary for access for the commercial vehicles involved in the egg production business at the farm not for those involved in general farming/harvesting requirements. 20. The problem of flooding at the existing entrance had never been an issue in the past 35 years so there was no reason to see it as a problem now. The flooding is a BDC problem to clear
The Council feel that all the points noted above are valid reasons to deny this application for an unnecessary and very long – approximately a mile in length – track in a rural
56 of 66 location much used by both local and outsiders as a place to walk to view the countryside and wildlife of the area.
The Council is adamant that no adequate reason for this track, solely for agricultural purposes, has been made (see point 6 above), and still insist that the track represents encroachment into the surrounding countryside for which there is no justification, to the detriment of the visual character of the surrounding area by virtue of it’s scale, siting and materials – any covering of soil will be quickly eroded by passing vehicles. There will also be an inappropriate traffic generation of heavy lorries and vehicles when the egg lorries use the track (see 19 above).
Local Highway Authority: No Objection, subject to conditions
'The Applicant will require a licence from the Highway Authority before any work is carried out on the verge, carriageway and or other land forming part of the public highway. I acknowledge that the visibility sight line, looking right, is not within the control of the Applicant but visibility is reasonable, the Applicant confirms 160m is provided and this is already an agricultural access, which based on the intended use, should not generate an intensity of movement that would inconvenience existing highway users. Therefore, subject to conditions I raise no adverse highways objection to this application'
Hampshire County Council Access and Development Team: No Objection subject to condition
'Whilst, as the agent suggests in the Design and Access Statement, that part of the track which runs over the same line as Silchester Footpath No 19 is indeed approximately 4 metres wide, some of the machinery shown in the photographs submitted would require all of this width. As this would only be an intermittent problem, we would not wish to see the width increased any further. However it would be useful if a condition could be applied requiring that the verges be managed as appropriate, so that walkers can at least step to the side on those few occasions.'
Landscape Officer: No Objection
'The application relates to agricultural land relating to Brickledons Farm, Silchester. This is to construct an access track across existing agricultural land. The aim is to serve the farm more efficiently by linking it to the surrounding road network.
The land on which it is proposed to construct the track rises and falls as part of the generally rolling landform in the area. Intersected by public rights of way, it is also bordered by a copse in its northernmost section. Given the rising landform, generally open nature of the immediate landscape as well as the footpaths, the track would be visible from a number of public vantage points.
The proposed track will have a subtle and naturalistic appearance, with a topsoil surface that will become naturalised and self seeded over time. This is very typical of informal agricultural tracks within the rural landscape, and it will therefore not have an alien appearance in views from the surrounding public footpaths. It’s proposed width, which varies from between 3 and 4 metres is again typical of informal tracks, and is not of a width that will dominate the landscape.
57 of 66
It is therefore considered that although there will be some impact on the character and visual amenity of the landscape in this setting, this will be limited, and will not be adverse or unacceptable'.
Biodiversity Officer: No Objection, subject to condition
'Acceptable, subject to the following condition:
No storage of vehicles or cement, fuels, oils or solvents, soil or other materials shall take place inside Butler’s Land Copse Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) during the construction of the proposed development. REASON: Butler’s Land Copse is a feature of recognised nature conservation importance and lies immediately adjacent to the proposed track along part of the route. The above measures are required to safeguard biodiversity, in accordance with Policy E7'.
Forestry Commission: No Objection
'If the proposed track is of a standard that will allow the movement of harvesting equipment and timber lorries then the track may indirectly support the future management of Butlers Land Copse - with associated biodiversity and environmental benefits. If the spec for the track is not sufficient for such a purpose it may be worth considering increasing the specification at least for the length of the track that runs adjacent to the woodland. Ideally there should be a buffer strip between the wood land and the tract, the bigger the better, but should not be less than 2.5 metres. Any run off from the new track should not pollute or affect the hydrology on the adjacent woodland. No waste material should be stored or disposed of within the woodland'.
British Horse Society: Comment
If this path (A-B) is to be given a suitable surface for vehicular use, we would like to see it upgraded to bridal way status and connect to the track (B-C) which passes under the railway line. This would provide a safe off road route for riders and cyclists to cross the railway. The original route (B-D) now crosses at the railway at grade and should probably be extinguished. This would improve the connectivity of the Rights of Way network in line with the Rights of Way Improvement Plan for Hampshire.
West Berkshire: No Objection
'Thank you for consulting West Berkshire Council on the proposed development at Brickledons Farm, Clappers Farm Road, Silchester, Reading. Having made a site visit, and considered the submitted plans and information, I have no comments to make'.
Public Observations
1 letter of objection:
The track would result in loss of beautiful long distance views The track would result in inappropriate traffic generation The track is unnecessary as agricultural vehicles are designed to go on agricultural land without roads
58 of 66 If track is constructed, it will not be possible to monitor those who use it Agricultural justification does not fall within the five reasons set by Government Policy (paragraph 27, PPS7) Possible flooding is mentioned as a reason for the application, but it is not clear if it is a significant risk The applicant mentions his egg delivery business and the only apparent reason for mentioning this would be that he may want his frequent egg delivery vehicles to be driven over the proposed new road Reference made to the fact that other farms have tracks is not relevant to application Reference to costs obtained by the applicant is not relevant to application
24 letters of support:
The track will reduce the amount of large agricultural vehicles in Clappers Farm Lane The track will maintain the economic viability of farming operations The track would not affect enjoyment of walks along the existing footpath The track will offer alternative access in cases of flooding to Clappers Farm Track will allow emergency services to area The track will ensure that the existing mud track immediately adjacent to Butlers Land Copse will not be made a mess of
Planning Policy and Material Considerations
Principle
The site is located outside of any recognised Settlement Policy Boundary and as such lies within the Countryside. The track would run around the periphery of Butlers Land Copse, a Site of Important Nature Conservation (SINC) and would be in close proximity to Haskers Copse SINC. There is a Public Right of Way running along part of the track. The proposal must therefore be assessed against the relevant countryside, design and amenity policies of the Local Plan.
National Guidance
Planning Policy Statement 7, 'Sustainable Development in Rural Areas' (PPS7) relates to development in the Countryside. This guidance states that the 'Government's overall aim is to protect the Countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all'.
Adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011
Policy E1 states that all proposals for new development will be permitted provided that they are of a high standard of design, make efficient use of the land, respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and do not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety.
Policy E6 states that planning permission will only be granted where it is demonstrated that the proposal will be sympathetic to the landscape character and quality of the area concerned.
59 of 66 Policy E7 states that development will be permitted where it would not have an adverse effect on protected species or the conservation status of priority status, harm the nature conservation interest of a statutory or non statutory wildlife nature conservation site or lead to the loss or deterioration of a key habitat type or harm the integrity of linkages between such sites and habituates. Agricultural Justification The principle of the provision an agricultural track in the countryside is acceptable under Planning Policy Statement 7, provided that it can be demonstrated that the main provision of the track would be to facilitate agricultural operations and is essential for agricultural purposes. The site has two main agricultural enterprises; an egg supply business and an arable business spread over approximately 163 acres of land which has been used to grow combinable crops for the last 50 years. Access to the site can currently be gained from Clappers Farm Road, which contains a railway bridge. The applicant states that new, modern agricultural machinery is too large to pass under the railway bridge and therefore are unable to access the site. The applicant is therefore applying for a alternative route which would by pass Clappers Farm Road and the existing railway bridge altogether. The applicant has stated that access to Brickledons Farm has been gained from Park Lane for many years, although the existing track is not official and not made up. The track also runs over the same line as Silchester Footpath No 19, as defined by Rights of Way. The applicant proposes to install hard core surface over the existing track to allow for agricultural vehicles to pass over without loosing traction, rutting the surface of the track and becoming stuck. The track would be 3.0m wide, but where the track would run over the same line as the footpath, it would be increased to 4.0m wide.
Planning application BDB 70224 was refused on the basis that the applicant had not submitted any supporting evidence with the application to confirm the type, amount and frequency of agricultural vehicle movements proposed along the track, nor how the land is farmed or how the site has been operated without such access in the past. Without this information, the proposal would have amounted to a significant encroachment in the countryside for which there is no justification.
The Local Planning Authority is satisfied, through the submission of the Design and Access Statement and the Agricultural Justification, that the track would be used primarily for agricultural purposes. The applicant has explained that it is not financially viable to have all of the machinery required for an arable farm of only 163 acres and therefore employs a contractor to farm the land. The contractor farms approximately 2,500 acres of land in contracts and due to this large acreage they now use significantly large items of machinery. The submitted agricultural justification has shown that some of the agricultural machinery required for the arable operation on the farm cannot access the site from Clappers Farm Road, due to the existing railway bridge. Therefore, in order to continue an economically viable and sustainable farming enterprise at the site, it is considered that an further access track is necessary.
As such, it is considered that the agricultural justification submitted with this application overcomes the first reason for refusal under planning application BDB 70224 and the proposal now accords with the Government guidance contained within PPS7. Therefore there is no objection to the proposal in regards to the agricultural need of the track.
60 of 66 Design/Character of Area
Planning application BDB 70224 was also refused based on concerns that the track, by virtue of its width of approximately 3.0m and overall length, would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would result in an unacceptable visual intrusion into the open countryside. The proposed material would have involved hard core which was considered to be out of keeping and given the extent of track, would have had a significant impact on the visual character of the area.
To mitigate the stark appearance of the existing section of track and to ensure that the new section of track blends harmoniously with the surrounding countryside, the applicant proposes to carry out landscaping works on the track that involve placing soil over the track and seeding it with grass. The Landscape Officer has no objection to this proposal, citing that this type of landscaping is very typical of informal agricultural tracks within the rural landscape. As this would ensure that the track would not have an adverse effect on the setting of the surrounding countryside, it is considered that the landscaping proposals would also overcome the first reason for refusal under planning application BDB 70224. As such, it is considered that the track would accord with Policies E1 and E6 and the guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 7, therefore no objection is raised against the track in this regard.
To ensure that the construction of the track is carried out in accordance with the submitted plans, a condition requesting a detailed construction method, including sections and levels drawn to a recognised metric scale shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before any works commence on site.
Neighbouring Amenities
Due to the rural location of the site, the proposal would not result in any detrimental issues regarding loss of amenities to any of the adjacent neighbouring properties by way of overlooking, loss of light, overbearing nature or noise and disturbance.
Highways
The supporting statement suggests that a secondary use of the proposed track would be as an 'escape route' or a route for emergency services when the primary accesses to the site, Clappers Lane and Clappers Farm Lane are flooded. The Local Planning Authority is mindful that another residential property 'Haskers Farm' lies to the north of the site. It is very possible that in the event of an approval, that both the occupiers of the site and of Haskers Farm would use the track frequently for domestic purposes, given its convenience access to Park Lane. As it would be unreasonable for the Local Planning Authority to restrict the use of the track to agricultural vehicles only, given that the applicant has stated that the track would be required for emergency uses only and taking into consideration that it would not be possible to accurately monitor the site, the Local Planning Authority have to assess the possible impact this might have in highways terms.
Furthermore, it is noted that another agricultural enterprise on the site involves the packaging and distribution of eggs. This in itself is considered to be an agricultural activity and whilst the need for a track to serve this business only would be unlikely to be justified, the use of vehicles in association with this agricultural enterprise would fall within the description of the track being used for agricultural purposes. Therefore the possible highways implication this might generate must also be assessed.
61 of 66 The Highways Officer raises no objection to the scheme, subject to a pre-commencement condition requesting details of the method of construction of the proposed access to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before the commencement of development on site and conditions to ensure the prevention of spoil/mud being deposited on the highway during construction works, to ensure that any proposed gates are set back from the highway and to ensure that no further vehicular accesses are formed at the site without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
The Highways Officer has also recommended a condition to ensure that a suitable visibility splay is maintained from the access onto Park Lane. The applicant has supplied a plan showing that adequate visibility splays, measuring 4.5m by 160m can be provided on site. However, the Local Planning Authority acknowledges that the land to the right of the site at Park Lane is not within the control of the applicant. The Highways Officer has confirmed that as the access is established and given its agricultural use, it should not generate an intensity of movement that would inconvenience existing highway users. Given that the applicant has demonstrated that there are sufficient visibility splays at the access and that this situation has been established for a number of years, it would be considered unreasonable for the Local Planning Authority to recommend a condition regarding the provision of visibility splays,
In reference to any possible domestic use of the track, it is unlikely that the track would be used for domestic purposes to an extent by either the applicant or by the occupiers of the neighbouring property, that would result in an inappropriate traffic generation to the site or would result in an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside. The use of the track domestically would be ancillary to the main use of the track for agricultural purposes and its occasional use for purposes other than agriculture would not be excessive to warrant a refusal of this application.
In regards to the use of the track for the use of the existing egg enterprise, the Local Planning Authority would be unable to restrict the use of this track for arable purposes only, given that the egg enterprise is agricultural and the proposal is for an agricultural track. On the provision that the track has adequate visibility splays onto Pack Lane, the use of this track for agricultural purposes would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety. Furthermore, tracks of this nature are typical for agricultural purposes such as those existing on the site. Whilst the track would allow for the generation of traffic, this would not be to an unacceptable level or over and above what is required to ensure that the existing farm remains viable. As such, it is considered that the scheme accords with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011.
Footpath
The second reason for refusal of planning application BDB 70224 was recommended following concerns from the Hampshire County Council Access Development Team, who raised an objection to the fact that the applicant had not demonstrated that the track would not cause conflict between the vehicles/agricultural machinery and the pedestrian walkers using this route, given that the route is an established footpath.
The applicant has now demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Hampshire County Council Access Development Team that the proposal would not cause conflict between agricultural machinery and pedestrians. This is has achieved by the applicant proposing to extend the track to 4.0 metres in width where the track and the footpath meet, to allow a verge for pedestrians. The Countryside Services Access Development Team acknowledge that the
62 of 66 meeting of agricultural vehicles and pedestrians would only be an intermittent problem and on the condition that the verges are maintained, to allow pedestrians to step to the side on these few occasions, they raise no objection to the scheme. As such, it is considered that the second reason for refusal under planning application BDB 70224 has been overcome and the Local Planning Authority raise no objection to the proposal in this regard.
Forestry and Ecology
The Forestry Commission raise no objection to the proposed scheme, subject to the provision of a buffer strip of over 2.5m from the track to the woodland area and a condition to ensure that no waste material should be stored or disposed of within the woodland
The Biodiversity Officer also has no objection to the proposal, despite its close proximity to a SINC and along with the Forestry Commission, has recommended a condition regarding the storage of development materials. In light of this, the proposal would accord with Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011.
Other Matters
It is considered that the objectors concerns regarding the need for the track, the agricultural justification of the track, the possibility of inappropriate traffic generation and the use of the track for the egg delivery business have been addressed in the above report.
In regards to the objection regarding the loss of the long distance views on the countryside, the proposed track will not be used to an extent to generate an amount of traffic that would have a permanent effect on the character and appearance of the existing countryside. Furthermore, the track would be landscaped with natural treatment that would to blend in with the features of the countryside. As such, it would be unreasonable for the Local Planning Authority to refuse the application on this basis.
In response to the concern regarding flooding, an assessment of the track has been made with the possibility of domestic use and has been addressed in the above report.
The Local Planning Authority agrees with the objector that the references made within the Agricultural Justification on the cost of the track and the reference to tracks at other farms are not relevant to the application.
In response the comments from the British Horse Society, the Local Planning Authority is not the relevant body to approve an upgrade to the Right of Way.
In response to Stratfield Saye Parish Council's suggestion that the tracks will be used to facilitate future development at the site, the Local Planning Authority has considered the proposal in light of the supporting agricultural justification. Any future development at the site would require planning permission which would then be assessed on its own merits.
Recommendation
In light of the above, this application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.
63 of 66 Reasons for Approval
(1) The track is considered to be acceptable as the submitted agricultural justification has shown that the track is reasonably necessary for agricultural purposes in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 7 'Sustainable Development in Rural Areas'.
(2) The scheme preserves the landscape character and scenic quality of the area and as such is considered to accord with Policy E6 of the Basingstoke & Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
(3) The track would not attract an significant increase in traffic generation to cause issues of highway safety between the vehicles that use the track and the pedestrian footpath users in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011.
(4) The proposed development would not cause an adverse effect on protected species or the conservation status of protected species and as such, is considered to accord with Policy E7 of the Basingstoke & Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is RECOMMENDED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be completed out in accordance with the following approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:
Location Plan of Brickledons Farm @ 1:5000 received 18 December 2009 Location Plan of Brickledons Farm @ 1:2500 received 18 December 2009 Transverse Section of Agricultural Trackway @ 1:20 received 18 December 2009 Visibility Splay Plan @ 1:1250 received 27 January 2010
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority no further development shall take place on site until details of the method of construction of the modification to the existing access onto Park Lane, including the location of proposed verges, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved access details shall be constructed and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that a satisfactory means of access to the highway is maintained in the interest of highway safety and to ensure the safety of the pedestrian users of the Silchester Footpath No. 19 in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
64 of 66
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no vehicular access in relation to the land outlined in blue and red shall be formed without the approval of the Local Planning Authority in writing. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
4. Any gates provided shall be set back a distance of 14 metres from the edge of the carriageway of the adjoining highway and shall be thereafter maintained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.
5. No further development shall commence on site until details of measures to be taken to prevent spoil/mud being deposited on the public highway from vehicles leaving the site during the construction works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such measures shall be fully installed and implemented before the development commences and shall be retained for the duration of the construction period in order that no vehicle shall leave the site unless it has been cleaned sufficiently to prevent mud/spoil being deposited onto the highway. REASON: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Plan 1996-2011.
6. No storage of vehicles or cement, fuels, oils or solvents, soil or other waste materials shall take place inside Butler’s Land Copse Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) during the construction of the proposed development. REASON: Butler’s Land Copse is a feature of recognised nature conservation importance and lies immediately adjacent to the proposed track along part of the route. The above measures are required to safeguard biodiversity, in accordance with Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Plan 1996 - 2011.
7. No further development shall take place on site until a detailed construction method statement submitted showing: existing and proposed levels secured to a fixed datum point from the existing public highway; proposed materials; details of where the track and Silchester Footpath No. 9 cross to a scale of no less that 1:500; and a maintenance plan to ensure the track is retained in accordance with the approved plans has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The track shall then be constructed and maintained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that the track preserves the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape on accordance with Policies E1 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 - 20111.
65 of 66
8. No further development shall take place on site until a plan, drawn to a recognised metric scale, showing the retention of a buffer strip of no less that 2.5m between the track and Butler's Land Copse has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In order to safeguard biodiversity in accordance with Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011.
Notes to the Applicant:
1. 1.1 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the above conditions (if any), must be complied with in full, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.
1.2 This permission may contain pre-commencement conditions which require specific matters to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development CANNOT be made until the particular requirements of the pre-commencement conditions have been met.
1.3 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the Local Planning Authority has a period of up to eight weeks to determine details submitted in respect of a condition or limitation attached to a grant of planning permission. It is likely that in most cases the determination period will be shorter than eight weeks, however, the applicant is advised to schedule this time period into any programme of works. A fee will be required for requests for discharge of any consent, agreement, or approval required by a planning condition. The fee chargeable is £85 per request or £25 where the related permission was for extending or altering a dwelling house or other development in the curtilage of a dwelling house. A fee is payable for each submission made regardless of the number of conditions for which approval is sought. Requests must be made using the standard application form (available online) or set out in writing clearly identifying the relevant planning application and condition(s) which they are seeking approval for.
2. The applicant is advised that a licence must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway and should make contact with the Chief Engineer - Hampshire Highways Basingstoke, Civic Offices, London Road, Basingstoke; Tel: 01256 360091.
66 of 66