ITEM NUMBER: 1
APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/06718/REM APPLICANTS NAME(S): Sennybridge Ltd SITE ADDRESS: Land At Castle Farm Sennybridge Brecon Powys LD3 8PS
GRID REF: E: 291930 N:228375 COMMUNITY: Maescar DATE VALIDATED: 25 April 2012 DECISION DUE DATE: 15 August 2012 CASE OFFICER: Mr Ryan Greaney
PROPOSAL Reserved Matters Application to consider Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale (Outline Application P20942)
ADDRESS Land At Castle Farm, Sennybridge, Brecon
CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS Consultee Received Comments
Brecknock Access 8th Jun 2011 We wish to object to this application for three Group reasons. 1. Totally inadequate Design and Access Statement. It gives no details of access to or into the properties (Gradients, surface materials etc.) 2. Toilets are not to Part M Building Regulations 3. The staircase has not been planned for the use of stair lifts, for possible adaptations at a later date Brecknock Access 20th Jul 2011 With reference to the amended plans, we wish to Group place another objection that no gradients of the entrance to the site, namely the pathway from the main road (A40) are being given. It is essential to provide this information to ensure access for the disabled into such a large development is provided and to consider the Equality Acts 2010 and 2011. This information was requested in our previous objection.
CADW Ancient 27th Jun 2011 The site is located a minimum of 40m to the west of Monuments the monument, at the base of the hillock on which it stands. There is to be no direct impact upon the scheduled area. The setting of the monument has previously been compromised by the piecemeal construction of modern houses adjacent to and within metres of the surviving fragments. The present access road to Castle Farm and the houses that occupy much of the castle site physically divides the development from the ruins. More significantly, the position of the recent houses dictates that any views of the area to be developed from that of the scheduled area are likely to be very limited. The significant views from and of the upstanding medieval tower are across the valley to the south, which both it and the 20th Century fortifications were undoubtedly positioned to overlook. These key aspects will not be affected by the proposed development.
Countryside Council 22nd Jun 2011 We wish to make representations on this proposal, For Wales but until such time that WG provide its direction it would be premature to comment on the proposal. We will therefore consider this matter further when we are in receipt of WGs direction. Countryside Council 21st Jun 2011 The CCW has recently responded to a consultation For Wales from the Welsh Government's (WG) with respect to their Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening direction request on this application. The CCW indicated, in a letter of 13 June 2011, our view that an EIA is required for the proposed scheme. We wish to make observations on this proposal, but until such time as WG provide its direction it would be premature to comment on the proposal. We will therefore consider this matter further when we are in receipt of WG's direction. Countryside Council 29th Jul 2011 The application will need to be accompanied by an For Wales Environmental Statement and it would be premature to comment until this is available.
In the meantime, the Countryside Council for Wales would object to the issue of consent for this proposal. Countryside Council 9th Sep 2011 The EIA should consider the impacts on the For Wales following:
- Statutory nature conservation sites - Non-statutory nature conservation sites - legally protected species - UK and Local Biodiversity Action Plan habitats and species; and - Landscape Countryside Council 18th Jun 2012 Object to the proposed development at the present For Wales time pending the provision of further information relating to:
- surface water disposal - sewage disposal - water supply - landscape and layout - hedgerows/bat flightlines. Countryside Council 28th Mar 2013 Subject to conditions, CCW are satisfied that a For Wales significant effect on River Usk SAC via change in water quality is unlikely.
The design proposed is inappropriate for this site and will appear as a visually prominent, modern edge of town new housing estate of distinctly different character to the rest of the main street detracting from the National Park qualities and character.
Dwr Cymru Welsh 13th Jul 2011 No objection subject to conditions and advisory Water note. Dwr Cymru Welsh 12th Sep 2011 The EIA should include a section on Drainage. Water Dwr Cymru Welsh 19th Jul 2012 No objection subject to conditions and advisory Water note. Dwr Cymru Welsh 8th Jul 2011 Measures are now in place to maintain future water Water - Developer supplies to existing customers and the proposed Services development.
Concerns were raised over the proposed development back in 2005, with regards to our Waste Water Treatment Works in Sennybridge. However, since then the performance of the WwTW has improved and at present we are not aware of any known compliance issues within the Usk SAC.
A combined sewer overflow serving the Sennybridge catchment downstream of the development has in the past experienced some flooding. This was due to an operational issue which has now been overcome and to the best of our knowledge we are not aware of any other operational issues.
Dwr Cymru Welsh 20th Jul 2012 No objection subject to conditions and advisory Water - Developer notes. Services Dwr Cymru Welsh 21st May 2013 Having sought further advice in relation to your Water - Developer enquiry, we reply as follows: Services We assess the impacts of development on our assets and in particular to the Waste Water Treatment Works (WwTW), the discharge licence imposed on us by the Natural Resources Wales (NRW). We ensure that all discharges to the environment meet these obligations. We can confirm that we are operating Sennybridge WwTW within our licence conditions. However, should you wish to understand what these consents are then we would refer you to NRW as our environmental regulators for further details.
Environment Agency 4th Aug 2011 We will not be commenting until the ES is received. Wales Environment Agency 2nd Aug 2011 The EAW will not be commenting on this proposal Wales until the Environmental Statement is submitted. Environment Agency 25th Jun 2012 No objection subject to condition. Wales Environment Agency 6th Feb 2013 We have no further comments Wales Health And Safety 26th May 2011 There are sufficient reasons, on safety grounds, for Executive advising against the granting of planning permission in this case. Health And Safety 10th May 2012 HSE does not advise on safety grounds against the Executive granting of planning permission in this case. Linesearch 20th May 2011 In the zone of interest:
Mainline Pipelines Ltd National Grid Gas Maescar Community 18th May 2012 Highlighting issues with are made with specific Council reference to Policy G3: Development in the National Park Maescar Community 24th Jan 2013 Object to the development on the following Council grounds:
- density (i.e. due to the excessive number of dwellings proposed) - lack of open space for children - vehicular access to the site - small scale development is more appropriate for a rural village the size of Sennybridge. Mainland Pipelines 27th May 2011 No Comments Limited Mainland Pipelines 14th Jul 2011 Proposed work outlined will not affect to Mainline Limited Pipeline at this location Natural Resources 5th Aug 2013 I have received your email from my colleagues Wales/Cyfoeth Catherine Howe and Annina Kortesniemi for a Naturiol Cymru response as I am the Environment Management Team Leader covering Sennybridge. My team deals with pollution control and Water Quality issues in this area.
I am not aware of any recent issues with the sewage network in Sennybridge and we have not received any recent complaints about pollution in this area. We will however review our files further and contact Welsh Water to get additional information about the incident that your husband reported in April. Pete Jones will contact you next week with the outcome of this and address any other points raised in your email.
In the meantime, if you notice any further pollution in this area please call our pollution hotline on 0800 80 70 60. This free phone number is manned 24 hours a day and allows us to respond to incidents as and when they are reported. NP Ecologist 3rd Jun 2011 The nature and scale of all clean and foul water drainage systems associated with the proposed development site are provided to the NPA and written confirmation sought from Powys CC, Welsh Water and EAW confirming that such systems are acceptable and that the infrastructure outside the application site is sufficient in capacity to effectively remove all likely significant effects on the River Usk SAC. NP Ecologist 8th Aug 2011 Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this further application relating to the above site. On the basis of our recent discussion I note that this specific application relates to the inclusion of appropriate footpath access. I have therefore no comments to make in relation to this specific matter beyond the remarks I have previously made regarding this proposal. NP Ecologist 14th Sep 2011 Thank you for your email of 24th August 2011 requesting my opinion on the scope of the information that should be included in an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) following the screening views provided by the Welsh Government in their letter of 20th July 2011.
The Welsh Government's screening direction identified three key areas where they considered there was a likelihood for significant effects on the environment, which included:
o The likely impact of the development on the National Park landscape; o The likely impact of the development on the River Usk SAC, the River Usk (Upper Usk) SSSI and the River Usk (Tributaries) SSSI; and o The likely impact of the development on European Protected Species.
I have therefore restricted my main comments to these areas of likely impact. These comments are provided without prejudice to any future sought from myself regarding this proposed development.
Landscape Impact
I would echo the views expressed by the Countryside Council for Wales, in their letter of 8th September 2011 which stress the need to assess the impact on the special qualities of the National Park and equally the localised area of the Senni Valley. The required Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) should follow the accepted published standard guidance and methodology with specific reference made to the LANDMAP system as highlighted in CCW's written response.
Statutory Designated Sites
In line with my previous consultation comments on this application I recognise the close proximity of this proposed development to the River Usk SAC/SSSI. The EIA should assess the direct and indirect impacts on the designated features of this protected site, with particular focus on the potential deterioration of the water quality as a consequence of possible increased surface water and foul water discharges from the proposed development and localised water abstraction.
In conjunction with the completion of the EIA it will necessary for the applicant to generate sufficient information to inform a separate Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) as required under the Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. To enable the National Park Authority to conclude beyond all reasonable scientific doubt at the relevant stages of the HRA it will be necessary for the applicant to provide the appropriate level of proof in their appraisal of the likely impacts. I would agree with CCW that for the sake of clarity in concluding this process the applicant's evidence base and assessment should be provided as a separate document distinct from the Environmental Statement.
Non-statutory Sites
Wildlife Sites/SINCS
On the basis of the BBNPA's records the nearest 'wildlife sites' or Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) are Tir Capel woods and pasture just under 3 kilometres to the south west of the application site. It is my opinion that the proposed development is unlikely to have direct or indirect effects on the biodiversity interests associated with these localities, and therefore I would not consider it necessary to include a further appraisal within the EIA for these non-statutory sites.
Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Habitats
The EIA should assess the impact on BAP habitats within and on the fringes of the application site. I note from CCW's response that there may be some level of doubt over the continued accuracy of their original Phase 1 Vegetation & Habitats Map. I would therefore support their recommendation for a Phase 1 survey to be completed as part of the EIA for the application site and its boundaries, in particular the woodland fringe and hedgerow on the western edge. This survey should be completed in accordance with the published guidance during appropriate survey season. Any significant impacts on BAP habitats should be described within the EIA and suitable mitigation measures proposed where necessary.
Protected Species
European Protected Species
The BBNPA do not hold any records for European Protected Species within the actual site. We do hold records for bat roosts associated with buildings within the settlement of Sennybridge, 200 metres to the east and west of the application site. The recorded evidence of otters associated with the nearby River Usk is noted from CCW's response.
As part of the desk-based appraisal for the EIA the Biodiversity Information Service (BIS) for Powys and Brecon Beacons National Park should be consulted to provide a full list of those species that may need to considered within the EIA. Where necessary further survey work should be completed to determine the likely presence or absence of species that are highlighted by the BIS consultation. The EIA should include an appraisal of any likely impacts on these species and recommend appropriate mitigation measures to conserve and enhance the identified populations.
As previously expressed it is my view that the most likely European Protected Species to be potentially significantly affected would be bats through the disruption of their foraging and commuting routes, in particular along the woodland fringe and hedgerow on the western boundary of the application site. The EIA should therefore give full consideration to the likely scale of impact on bat activity within and around the application site and how this can be minimised.
UK Protected Species
Red kites, protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), are regularly observed above the application site and the surrounding area. The EIA should include a survey to determine the potential for nest sites in close proximity to the application site. The likely impacts from the development on any recorded nest sites should be fully assessed.
Other Species
Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) and NERC Act Section 42 Species
The likely presence of BAP and S.42 species should be considered in consultation with BIS. Appropriate surveys completed in accordance accepted standard techniques to confirm the likely presence or absence of relevant species. The impacts on any recorded species should be assessed and appropriate mitigation measures detailed as part of the EIA.
NP Ecologist 25th Jun 2012 A number of concerns regarding significant deficiencies in the ES with particular reference to chapter 8 Land Drainage and Chapter 9 Ecology.
It is my opinion that there are basic flaws in the EIA and insufficient information to provide the required level of certainty necessary for the National Park Authority to accept the conclusions of the ES and therefore secure compliance with the Habitat Regulations 2010. Until the recognised discrepancies and uncertainties are addressed, I object to the proposed development. NP Ecologist 22nd Apr 2013 I have read through the Castle Farm reserved matters application (11/06718/REM) and will be submitting comments soon. Before I do so, would it be possible to ask for a more detailed response from Welsh Water regarding sewerage capacity in Sennibridge? This matter was raised in previous comments from the National Park Ecologist and the, then, CCW response. Welsh Water have stated that "No problems are envisaged with the Waste Water Treatment Works for the treatment of domestic discharges from this site." They have also indicated that surface water run-off and domestic discharges will be separated or should be as a condition.
As the competent authority, however, the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority has to conclude that the proposed scheme will NOT have a significant likely effect on the River Usk SAC. While I must rely on Welsh Water to provide us with the information to draw a conclusion of this sort, the statement noted above does not give me the confidence to draw this conclusion with any degree of certainty.
What would be useful are some data to back the statement up. For example, a statement like "the current WWTW have capacity for X litres/ day and current discharges are Y, with the new development projected to discharge an additional Z volume. Therefore there is sufficient capacity." Welsh Water may alternatively say that they will be upgrading the system and its capacity in year A. Anything to this effect that I can use and then note in the future if our conclusions are ever challenged would be of assistance. NP Ecologist 22nd May Welsh Water's comments indirectly answer the 2013 query regarding capacity at the WWTW.
I have no further comments or queries. NP Senior Heritage No comments received Officer (Building Conservation) NP Tree Consultant 14th Jun 2011 This application does not have any impact upon the trees outside of the site boundary to the northwest. NP Tree Consultant 25th Jul 2012 With regard to the amended ES, I have read through Chapter 9 Ecology and agree with the proposals in section 9.101 with regard to fencing off the woodland.
The proposed works would have little impact upon the adjacent woodland.
I therefore have no objection to the proposed works and recommend approval.
Powys Affordable No comments received Housing Officer Powys County 31st May 2011 No comments Council Building Regulations Powys County 29th Jul 2011 No Additional Comments Council Highways Powys County 6th Feb 2013 Recommend most strongly that permission is Council Highways refused. Powys County 16th Jul 2013 Further to our correspondence on the above site I Council Highways now detail the continued concerns this Authority have on the submission. I have attempted to use headings similar to my email to Ryan Greaney of 7th June 2012 and your Consultation Response Action Sheet. o The parking schedule appears to need revision/ Garages seem to have been counted as parking spaces/Parking is still below CSS standards.
It is accepted that the instructions within the CSS booklet are somewhat unclear but the Sustainability Assessment has been incorrectly carried out. Only a single level score should be achieved from each of the four categories. A maximum of 10 points offers a reduction of 2 spaces per dwelling and this can be achieved by having the closest or most frequent of facilities for each of the categories.
Based on the facilities listed on the assessment for Castle Farm only 3 points would be scored for the Local Facilities, 2 points for Public Transport, 0 points for the cycle route and -1 for the frequency of public transport as none of the services through Sennybridge extend from 7am to 7pm nor offer even an half hourly operation. This totals 4 points and therefore does not warrant any reduction in the specified level of parking provision.
No revised parking schedule referencing the plot numbers, house size and parking provision has been provided to accompany the latest Highway Strategy Plan which indicates the parking offered. No visitor parking appears to be included within the scheme and the dimension of parking spaces do need to meet the minimum standard detailed in the CSS booklet. A significant number are scaling as unacceptably short and would result in vehicles overhanging the pedestrian footways. This shortage in provision is fundamental to many of the concerns that follow. o The Swept Path Diagrams are very difficult to read and appear to show areas where manoeuvres are extremely tight.
I remain unconvinced by the swept path diagrams of the refuse vehicle that such manoeuvres of Powys vehicles could be achieved. With no detail as to the size of the vehicle depicted, my assessment against the 21m line on the sheet is that it is not the size of a Powys refuse lorry. No evidence is provided that any consultation with the refuse collection teams have been undertaken in respect of lorry size or number of boxes/bins that make up the recycling system as required by MfS.
You refer to MfS allowing 12m reversing if the roads are straight and free from obstacles but your drawings clearly show distances in excess of 21m including, in the case of Courtyard E, accessing a narrow road in the same manoeuvre. A lack of obstacle also cannot be assured when considered against the low level of off-street parking being provided.
The swept path drawings of the 7.5T box van are wholly irrelevant as they indicate manoeuvres which are outside the adoptable limit or straddle adoptable and private areas. All vehicles utilising the public highway should be able to turn within the adoptable turning heads at B, C and E. o The roads serving courtyards A & E are too narrow for simultaneous access and egress.
It is shown that refuse vehicles will require access to courtyard E but the limited width and possible on- street parking issues due to the limited off-street parking are likely to lead to the prevention of simultaneous access and egress. Furthermore, these limited road widths will have a serious impact on the ability to carry out gully emptying and road maintenance. Access to properties is likely to be severely restricted for such operations. The proposed road widths are not appropriate in this case. o Centreline and Junction radii need to be detailed on a drawing.
Whilst much of this information has been provided on the Shear Design Proposed Road Layout drawing the radius dimension around courtyards B and C have been omitted. o Forward Visibility around plot 10
The forward visibility splay has been correctly shown on the drawings but the layout of the driveway for the plot will allow for obstruction of this splay by parked cars. How this will be prevented is not clear. o Courtyard E has no service margin/vehicle overhang provision.
The service margin/vehicular overhang is required around the entire courtyard and not just on the access road. The short length of parking spaces will also result in a further reduction of what should be a public turning area. Parking spaces abutting garages should be at least 6m in length to allow for a parked car and retain the ability to open a garage door. o Long Sections showing gradients are required.
Although the long sections have been provided the gradients are not detailed. Cross sections will also be required. o Disabled Access Points
There is a DAP shown on the corner by Plot 48 but no corresponding point outside plot 6. o Site Access Visibility/Individual Access Visibility
Although you state that the appropriate amendment has been made to show 45m visibility can be achieved it is not clear on which plan this has been depicted. Furthermore, it would be extremely easy to overlook the vitally important junction visibility splay along the trunk road and inadvertently obstruct it with planting, fencing etc. This should be shown as being considered and maintained.
Again, the statement that amendments have been made is not supported by details as to which plan this is now shown. o There is no surface water drainage detail shown on the drawings provided:
A plan is now provided but I would make the following observations regarding the lack of detail and clarity available. 1. No Gully positions are shown 2. The soakaways on the village green and on plots 4, 9-10, 46 and 50-51 are too close to the adoptable areas. 3. The highway drain through private courtyard A will require an easement. 4. No detail is offered as to the connection, easements and approval for connection to the trunk road drainage system. 5. Porous paving adjacent to highways and buildings are the equivalent of soakaways and therefore not permitted without the appropriate separation.
Powys County No comments received Council Land Drainage Department Powys County No comments received Council Public Protection & Environmental Health
CONTRIBUTORS Thea Ebbeling, Bwthyn Ger Yr Afon, 1 Tredegar Row Gwen Newton, Brynawel, Castell Du R J Davies, Castle Du Farm, Sennybridge Gwen Newton, Brynawel, Sennybridge Mrs B P V Pengelly, 1-2 Castell Du Cottage, Sennybridge Mrs M Clifford, Carn Y Castell, Sennybridge Mrs IsobelI Cooper, Tawelfa, Sennybridge Mrs F Thomas, Ty Onnen, Sennybridge Mr And Mrs J N Powell, Min-Y-Ffordd, Sennybridge Mr D A Matthews, Caerlan, Sennybridge Mr And Mrs Goodman, Castell Lodge, Sennybridge Mr Nigel Kenchington, Almora Villas, Sennybridge Mr John Clifford, Carn Y Castell, Sennybridge Mrs Elizabeth Maclean, Glan Wysc, Sennybridge Mrs Elizabeth Maclean, Sennybridge Village Residents Group, C/o Glan Wysc Thomas Mccourt, [email protected], Malcolm Hill, Dan Y Coed, Sennybridge D A Matthews, Caer-Lan, Sennybridge Jennifer Davies, Milestone Cottage, Sennybridge Isobel Cooper, Tawelfa, Castell Du Mari Williams, 2 Riverside View, High Street Mr Richard Camp, Nyth Y Wennol, Sennybridge Mr R P Thomas Mr And Mrs Pryce, 1 New Houses, High Street
PLANNING HISTORY
App Ref Description Decision Date
P20942 Outline Planning Permission for Permit 19th May 2008. residential development was granted on 19th May 2008. 11/06717/FUL Construction of garage block and Pending Decision laying out of residential gardens in association with reserved matters application under outline P20942.
OFFICER’S REPORT
Introduction
This application relates to land at Castle Farm, Sennybridge, and comprises the erection of 53 residential dwellings. It is a Reserved Matters application which relates to Outline Planning Permission reference P20942 which was approved on 18th May 2008.
It should be noted that the Outline Planning Permission does not cover the entire field as the application site excluded a strip of land along the western boundary. Accordingly, a Full application (ref: 11/06717/FUL) has been submitted to accompany this Reserved Matters. Both the Reserved Matters and the Full will be linked via a Unilateral Undertaking.
This application is to be heard by the PAROW Committee due to its scale and at the request of Councillor Evan Morgan. Moreover, the Outline application to which it relates was also heard by the PAROW Committee.
Site Description
Sennybridge is located in the Maescar Community Council area which extends from the northern scarp of Mynydd Eppynt southwards across the National Park boundary, the River Usk and the A40T, and up the Senni valley to Fan Nedd and the headwaters of the Afon Mellte. Approximately half its area and most of its population are within the National Park.
The Senni valley is an area of scattered farms with a strong agricultural tradition. By contrast, the Usk valley corridor is an important east-west through route.
The largest settlement in the community is Sennybridge, whilst Defynnog lies on the A4067 south of Sennybridge. Other settlements in Maescar are Pentre'r-Felin, a hamlet split by the National Park boundary 2km north of Sennybridge; and Heol Senni, located in the Senni valley, consisting of a scatter of old houses along a minor road.
Sennybridge is an important source of employment, with the army camp, sawmills, haulage contracting, agricultural related stores and local shops. It plays a significant role for the farming industry with its market and related feed and equipment facilities, making the town a hub for the surrounding farming community. The village includes a variety of facilities including shops, pubs, cafes, a community hall, a primary school with sports facilities, and a health clinic. The army camp is known as the Sennybridge Training Area (SENTA) and is thought to be the 3rd largest military training area in the UK.
The application site is located within the key settlement of Sennybridge as defined in the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority Definitive Local Development Plan (Approved December 2013). It is located on the western edge of the settlement and immediately adjacent to the A40 Trunk Road. It comprises an undulating field at present, bounded by hedges and post and wire fencing for the most part, although part of the western edge of the site is bounded by mature trees.
The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of property type. The Sennybridge Service Station (petrol filling station and shop) is located to the north on the opposite side of the A40 Trunk Road; single storey dwellings are located to the east; a large detached dwelling (Glan Wysg) to the north west; and, two large detached dwellings to the west. The linear development along the A40 is characterised by a mix of dwelling types from terraced dwellings and semi detached units to larger detached dwellings. Those nearest the application site, on the north side of the A40 are of the larger detached nature.
Further afield, the area is characterised by undulating agricultural fields and mature woodland and the River Usk SAC is located some 40m to the north.
Proposal
As referred to above, this application comprises the Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale Reserved Matters relating to Outline Planning Permission P20942. It is proposed to erect 53no. residential properties, including 12no. affordable housing units, and associated works including the demolition of the existing barn.
Access
It is proposed to access to the proposed development via the public highway that leads from the A40 to Castle Road. It should be noted that it was a condition of the Outline permission that access to the site could not be taken directly from the A40 Trunk Road. Accordingly, the proposed access arrangements would result in the discontinuation of the existing informal agricultural access on the northern boundary of the site.
Appearance
A combination of different render and stone finishes are proposed together with grey/blue manmade slates. Upvc windows, rainwater goods and fascias are also proposed as are reconstituted stone cills.
Landscaping
A landscaping strategy has been prepared for the scheme. The existing hedgerow will be retained and interplanted with native woodland species. The northeast corner of the site and the eastern boundary will be planted with native hedgerows. Shrub planting will be put in place throughout the scheme, along the front of dwellings and bordering some of the on- plot parking spaces. A wildflower area and reinstated verge is also proposed along the north and east boundaries.
Also included within the landscaping proposals are the planting of shrubs and ornamental trees. These would include such specimens as Geranium Sanguineum, Hebe red edge, Lavandula Angustifolia and Prima Vulgaris.
There will also be a village green in the centre of the site measuring some 400m2.
Layout
The proposed development comprises a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced two- storey dwellings, as well as a small number of flats. The Affordable Housing units would consist of 4no. one bedroom units, 7no. two bedroom and 1no. three bedroom unit. These units are primarily proposed to be focused within the northwest corner of the site.
The remaining market units comprise 1no. one bedroom unit, 19no. two bedroom units, 15no. three bedroom units and 7no. four bedroom units.
As referred to above, there will also be a village green in the centre of the site measuring some 400m2.
In terms of the road layout, the site will be accessed from the east via the public highway that leads from the A40 to Castle Road. The road will be designed to adoptable standards in part, with the addition of 5no. courtyard areas.
Site History
Outline Planning Permission (Ref: P20942) for residential development was granted on 19th May 2008.
Policy Context
The following Brecon Beacons National Park Local Development Plan (adopted December 2013) were considered relevant to the determination of this application:
National Park Policies
SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4 and SP11 Policy 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 22
Spatial Policies SP10 KLP1, KLP2 and KLP3
Topic Policies
SP5, SP6, SP7, SP15 and SP17. Policies 24, 28, 52, 53, 56, 58, 59, 60 and 61
Material Planning Considerations
The main material considerations in this case are the potential impacts upon the character and visual amenities of the area, the amenities of nearby residents, highway safety, provision of Affordable Housing, sustainability, drainage, ecology, high pressure gas pipeline, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage.
Neighbour Responses
Numerous letters have been received from neighbouring residents objecting to the proposed development for the following reasons: It constitutes the development of a greenfield site There is little room for extension outside the built up area The Deposit LDP has identified Sennybridge as a Level 4 settlement therefore development cannot proceed Mrs Maclean (on behalf of the Sennybridge Residents Group) alleges that the Outline application (P20942) was granted by the PAROW Committee on 10th January 2006 in "unusual circumstances": - No discussion minuted explaining why the Case Officer considered that an exception from the adopted Local Plan should be made because of the advanced stage of the UDP. - Objections to the outline application were not recorded and no response was received from the Case Officer. - Members who declared an interest left during discussion and not after - There was no consultation that the site was allocated for 42 dwellings in the UDP. - The Outline decision notice does not make any reference to the number of dwellings nor the relevant policies of the UDP. There should be no development on this site as the Deposit LDP does not identify the site as housing land despite the previous UDP allocation and the granting of outline planning permission The site has changed as an additional full application has been submitted relating to land to the west of the site. The development would effect to the trees to the west of the site There is a lack of car parking Concerns regarding access onto the A40 There would be impacts in terms of sewage and drainage The drainage should be completed for the entire site prior to the erection of the first dwelling The number of dwellings is excessive There is a lack of infrastructure to cope with the impact of an increase in population to the village Proper procedures were not followed by the BBNPA in terms of notification/consultation to neighbours and interested parties The type of housing proposed is not appropriate (no bungalows) The "young" would not be interested in the affordable housing as there are no local employment possibilities, all would need cars and the bus service is not adequate Mixing privately owned and council housing on one estate does not work Has a risk assessment on traffic been undertaken? Has the soil been analysed The proposed dwellings are "coloured" and are an eyesore Where will refuse be located The hill on Castle Road is very dangerous during snow and ice The housing density is too high Insufficient levels of outside space are proposed Development is not in keeping with the rural character of the area There will be a lack of interest in buying the proposed houses given the current economic climate The proposal will result in an increased risk of flooding to existing river side dwellings Is there cycle provision made within the development The proposal would have a detrimental impact upon protected species, the SAC and SSSI The proposal does not take into account the needs of the disabled The development does not take account of the distinctive character of Sennybridge The development does not comply with the Code for Sustainable Homes The proposal would result in noise pollution The proposal would have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of neighbouring dwellings The proposal would result in light pollution No detail of waste facilities and composting has been submitted The development does not comply with TAN 12 Design as it is an off the peg design not suitable for a national park in Wales. PPW stated "good design is inclusive design" - so why were the neighbours not included in the process The degree of earthworks has not been well indicated on the drawings. There would be increased parking on Castle Road The site may be contaminated given its proximity to a petrol station
Comments from neighbouring residents supporting the development include:
Do not object in principle to the development The inclusion of Affordable Housing is applauded in rural areas
Appraisal
Principle of Development
Whilst the concerns of nearby residents in relation to matters such as the greenfield nature of the site and Sennybridge's place in the LDP Settlement Hierarchy are noted, the principle of a residential development at this site was effectively established by the approval of the P20942 Outline application on 19th May 2008. Indeed, the purpose of this application is to seek the approval of the Reserved Matters of the P20942 Outline permission.
Visual Amenity
Overall, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in planning and visual amenity terms.
As above, the concerns raised by neighbouring residents in relation to the proposed density of the development, layout, dwelling design (non-compliant with TAN 12) etc. are noted. However, it is considered that, further to negotiation, the applicant has achieved a design that is reflective of the character of Sennybridge as a whole.
It is acknowledged that a wide variety of properties can be found within the Settlement with varying finishes and design features. For example, single storey stone and render mix bungalows are located to the east of the application site, while two storey detached stone and render mix dwellings are located to the north east on the opposite side of the A40, adjacent to a detached rendered dwelling. Moving back eastward along the A40, again a mix of stone and render, two storey, single storey, semi-detached, detached and terraced properties are found.
It is reasonable to suggest that features such as stone frontages, a mix of stone and render finishes, chimneys, window detailing, reconstituted stone cills and porches of different sizes will give the development a traditional appearance in keeping with the surrounding area generally. Indeed, it is considered that the proposed development would achieve the objectives set out under 'Character' in TAN 12: Design. These are:
- Sustaining or enhancing local character - Promoting legible development - Promoting a successful relationship between public and private space - Promoting quality, choice and variety - Promoting innovative design
It is detailed within the submitted Design and Access Statement that a manmade slate substitute will be used on the roofs and that the windows will be made using upvc. Notwithstanding this, it has been agreed with the applicant that these elements can be conditioned out of any consent via a suitably worded planning condition. Such a condition will require details and/or samples of a natural slate roof tile and timber windows to be submitted for approval. Thereafter, the development will be completed in accordance with the approved details.
In terms of landscaping, the strategy for this scheme has been to retain existing vegetation as well as to introduce new features. Along the south, west and much of the north boundaries of the site, existing hedgerow will be retained and interplanted with native woodland species. The northeast corner and eastern boundary will be planted with native hedgerows. Shrub planting will be put in place throughout the scheme, along the front of dwellings and bordering some of the on-plot parking spaces. A wildflower area and reinstated grass verge also aid in creating a natural environment along the north and east boundaries of the site. Also included within the landscaping is the planting of shrubs and ornamental trees. These would include Geranium Sanguineum, Hebe red edge, Lavandula Angustifolia and Prima Vulgaris. There will also be a village green in the centre of the site measuring some 400m2, which will be put to community use and designed in consultation with the local neighbourhood and Community Council.
Whilst concerns have been raised by nearby residents that the proposal will affect neighbouring trees to the west, it is clear that a buffer zone will be maintained between these trees and any built development ensuring that there would be no impact in this regard. The National Park Authority's Arboricultural Consultant has confirmed this and, accordingly, staged no objection to the proposals.
It is reasonable to suggest that the landscaping plans would serve to soften the impact of the proposed development on the wider area as well as achieve a high quality development that promotes a successful relationship between public and private space.
It is acknowledged that the Countryside Council for Wales (now Natural Resources Wales) has raised concerns with regard to the impact of the proposed development on the landscape. CCW consider that the design proposed is inappropriate for the site and will appear as a visually prominent, modern edge of town new housing estate of distinctly different character to the rest of the main street, detracting from the National Park qualities and character.
Furthermore, in their submissions concerning this site's inclusion as an allocation in the LDP, CCW made the following comment:
"CCW consider that the proposed housing density, of 54 units (now 53), is likely to constrain the ability to design a scheme for the site that maintains and enhances the quality of the national park landscape, and that it is therefore inappropriate.
The site occupies a "gateway" position in the west of Sennybridge. One of the key issues of developing the site will therefore be to design and deliver a form of development that sympathetically integrates with the character of the settlement and surrounding landscape, particularly the main street through the settlement (A40T), which is predominantly characterised by Victorian terraces and villas.
The Landmap Visual and Sensory aspect assessment for Sennybridge (BRCKNVS936) highlights the Main Street (along with the river corridor) as one of the two key positive elements within the town to enhance. We strongly endorse that finding, and consider it important that development at this site should not result in an obvious modern edge of town new housing estate of distinctly different character to the rest of the main street, and detract from the National Park qualities and character.
The bungalow development immediately to the east of the site is of lower density than the rest of the main street through the settlement, and provides a phased reduction in density from the high density Victorian development to the open countryside beyond the settlement boundary. Care will therefore be required with the development of the Castle Farm site to ensure that a visually distinctive separate block of development is not created at the western gateway to Sennybridge.
The sloping nature of the site (9 metres from road front to its highest points) also increases the visibility of the site from the main street. This poses a further difficulty in designing a suitable scheme for the site that avoids the geometry of a modern estate layout, and which does not stand out incongruously in views along the street and to the hillside behind the site.
There may be a need for development to be set-back from the A40 to make the development less a part of the street scene, with a swathe of landscaping at its northern edge. Further, the built mass of the development might need to be broken up with planting and landscaping to soften the impact of the development in views across the sloping site and in the street scene. There is also likely to be a need to reinforce the landscaping/planting on southern boundary to break up views of the housing from the south to south-east as well as providing a partial backdrop in views from the A40 as houses at the south of the site will be viewed against the skyline.
Therefore whilst we cannot say that a suitable design cannot be found for the site, we consider that the density proposed in the LDP is inappropriate and that a lower density is required to deliver an acceptable design solution that has full regard to National Park purposes".
Whilst CCW's comments are noted, Officers consider the proposed development to be acceptable in visual amenity terms.
Turning firstly to the issue of the site occupying a "gateway" position; it should be noted that the site is very well screened by mature vegetation when approaching from the west along the A40 Trunk Road. As a result, it cannot be said that long views are afforded into the site from the western approach which limits the potential visual impact on the wider area.
It should also be noted that the principle of development has already been established on this site by the approval of the Outline application. This approval was made on the basis of the (at that time) emerging UDP which indicated that 42 units would be appropriate on this site. Whilst it is acknowledged that this proposal seeks approval an additional 11 units over and above the indicative number for the allocation (at 37.9 units per hectare), it should be noted that 12no. of these are flats comprising 2no. two storey buildings containing 4no. flats each and 4no. flats over garages. It is considered, therefore, that taking the total number of units and measuring this against the size of the site does not convey the whole picture in this case. Effectively, the 12 units referred to would be provided in 5 separate buildings which has ensured that the remainder of the development has been designed at a much lower density. Indeed, it is considered that any visual difference between this development and a standard 30 dwelling per hectare scheme it would not be wholly apparent from long views into the site.
It should also be noted that LDP Policy 61 states that all residential development will be required to be developed at a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare where this is compatible with the existing character of the area.
In terms of CCW's 'character' objection, as addressed above, it is considered that the proposed development has been designed to reflect the varying character of Sennybridge. Accordingly, Officers do not agree with CCW's view in this instance and, generally, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in visual amenity terms. In this regard, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of the detail submitted relating to the 'layout', 'appearance' and 'landscaping' reserved matters.
Neighbour Amenity
It is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in neighbour amenity terms. Due to the proximity of the site to other residential properties, as well as the orientation of the individual dwellings within the development, it is considered that the proposal would not result in a loss of light, an overbearing impact or a loss of privacy that would warrant the refusal of the application on this basis.
It is noted that some neighbouring residents have raised concerns regarding the consultation exercise carried out by the Authority. It should be noted that the Authority has consulted on this application on numerous occasions further to additional and amended information being submitted (a matter also commented upon by local residents) and on each occasion this has been done in excess of the minimum requirements set out in the Procedure Order.
Highway Safety
Throughout this application, there has been extensive dialogue between the applicant's agent and the Powys County Council Highways Authority. This has led to the road and courtyard layout of the site being amended on several occasions. Notwithstanding this, there remains a disconnect between the applicant and the Highways Authority in terms of their interpretation of the Manual For Streets document and the required highway and parking standards for the site. Each of the points raised is addressed below:
In their most recent consultation response, the Highways Authority state:
"I refer to the latest correspondence from Asbri Planning in which a significant number of statements and assumptions are made and would wish that the following response be considered when this matter is put before the Planning and Rights of Way Committee next week. I must also reiterate my previous view that this application should be refused until these matters are adequately addressed.
Parking Our concerns over the levels of parking provision do not just hinge on the garage issue, although I acknowledge that this is a very important point to address. Our experience shows that garages on similar developments are seldom used for parking. In this instance, based on the proposed layout of the garages and adjoining driveways, I would contend that it is very unlikely that they would be used as parking spaces. Whilst I note that the internal dimensions of the garages are in accord with the minimum dimensions stipulated within the CSS document, the length of the parking spaces allocated on the driveways serving them fall well short of the lengths stipulated in the same document. Parking spaces provided on driveways serving a garage must be a minimum of 6m long not the 4.8m stated in your latest communication and shown on your drawings. In effect cars parked in the manner suggested would leave no space for the garage door to be opened unless the parked car on the driveway was parked in such a way as to "over sail" the footways. Such an arrangement renders them effectively unusable and will no doubt result in "on-street parking". In addition to this, the proposal also includes parking arrangements whereby two vehicles will be parked on the driveway serving a garage. Not only are the lengths of these spaces far below 11m, anyone wanting to use the car "parked" in the garage would first need to move the two cars parked on the driveway. Again our experience shows that in reality at least one of those cars will regularly be parked on the footway or roadway outside the property in question.
I note that no reference has made to the "visitor parking requirements" in the latest correspondence. The CSS document requires an allocation of 1 space per 5 units which for this development would equate to an allocation of 10 spaces. There is no such allocation provided with the submission which will again ultimately result in "on-street parking".
The comments in respect of the "sustainability assessment" are noted, although I would contend that I have applied the calculation appropriately. In any event, a minimum of 7pts must be accrued before any reduction in parking levels can be applied to a residential setting. The 10% reduction claimed in the latest correspondence has been applied incorrectly and is a reduction not applicable in a residential setting.
I trust the above clearly demonstrates the reasoning behind the Highways Authority's objection to the parking proposals.
Swept Path Diagrams If appropriate engagement had been undertaken with our refuse department, as stipulated within MfS and recommended by ourselves, then the agents would be aware that PCC do use refuse vehicles with attachments that result in overall vehicle lengths of up to 12m long. Such engagement would have also made the agents aware of the amount of recycling bins provided to each household and hence the space required for collection purposes.
The reference to 21m reversing distances for a refuse vehicle is, I would maintain, totally relevant. MfS actually states that reversing causes "a disproportionately large number of accidents" and further recommends a "maximum reversing distance of 12m". Whilst longer distances can be considered, the tight geometry of the site layout and the unquestionable parking issues highlighted above do not provide routes "free from obstacles".
Roads Serving Courtyards A&E are too narrow I am confused by the comments in relation to access for refuse vehicles, as the agents have previously supplied swept path drawings suggesting it was the intention for such vehicles to access these areas. If this statement is to be considered I would expect to see detail of a comprehensive refuse strategy showing refuse collection points capable of serving the multiple recycling and waste containers required for properties served from these areas and also detail on where refuse vehicles would be expected to park to collect from these areas.
I am also not sure how such concerns could be overcome by the adoption of a "shared surface" as suggested by the agent's comment to our concern at the lack of service margin or vehicle overhang around Courtyard E. If this is to be an adoptable street, then it must be capable of accommodating vehicular movements and manoeuvres of those vehicles likely to use it without entering onto third party land. The previous objections raised therefore remain.
In respect of carriageway widths again the agent is being very selective with reference to MfS and minimum standards. Whilst MfS does suggest that 4.2m will afford simultaneous use for 2 cars, this is again only really applicable over short straight sections of road. Further examination of MfS also highlights that there are many other factors that need to be taken into account when considering the minimum values suggested within the layout. These include parking, junction arrangements, street widths and pedestrian activity to name a few; clearly these have not been taken in consideration. Furthermore a vehicle entering courtyard E will require more space for the associated turning movement as will any vehicle attempting to leave courtyard E making simultaneous access/egress impossible. MfS also states that a 2m wide footpath should be provided on both sides of the road.
Long Sections, Forward & Junction Visibility & Long Sections All of the comments and observations raised by this department have been made for constructive not obstructive reasons. If we do not have the requisite information/detail submitted at this stage and we feel that the scheme cannot accommodate such revisions as required in its current format, then the applicant could end up with a consent loaded with highway conditions that may not be capable of discharge in the future. It should also be appreciated that any future desire to have the roadways adopted by the Highways Authority may well be compromised.
Drainage I would have expected the agents to have consulted extensively with our Land Drainage Department over the proposals. The drainage strategy for the development depends largely upon consent from the Welsh Government for the outfall proposal and also upon the soakaway proposal. The fact that they have seemingly made no attempt to consult with either party is a concern. I could simply ask our Land Drainage Department to impose a suitably worded condition but again this may well leave the applicant with a consent that cannot be implemented.
In short, I have no hesitation recommending refusal of this application on highway safety grounds. Such a refusal is based on the unacceptable levels and layout of the parking, inadequate carriageway extents, inadequate turning facilities and lack of detail regarding the surface water drainage proposals."
In response, the applicants agent has provided an amended layout together with a letter stating the following:
"I write pursuant to our submission of the above planning applications and, more recently, the consultation response received from Mrs Alison Brown (Powys County Council, Highways Officer), dated 4th September 2013.
The contents of Mrs Brown's letter are noted, and we have taken the time to respond in detail. In the interests of consistency and for ease of reference, the response is ordered under the same sub- headings.
Parking I will not be entering further into a debate on the acceptability of garages being used as part of the car parking requirements. To my mind, we have provided garages of sufficient dimensions such that they are capable of use - Mrs Brown's assertion that it is unlikely that they will be used in reality is, with respect, utterly subjective and without any founding. Crucially, the use of garages is supported by national planning policy, is Manual for Streets (MfS) compliant and there is nothing to support Mrs Brown's stance to the contrary. Again, I encourage the National Park Authority to over-rule in the interests of common sense.
The comment made about parking spaces on driveways serving garages needed to be 6m in length requires further discussion. Should it be our intention to provide roller shutter doors for each garage (something that the NPA would have the ability to control and retain via planning condition), then there will be no need for such a requirement. Nevertheless, I note that there will be a need for the most immediate parking space to be of 6m length in cases where an up and over door arrangement is to be used. To cover this eventuality, we have sought to amend the layout so as to ensure that the length of any such parking spaces located on driveways in front of garages achieve a dimension of 6m in length. Layout revision P is attached for your reference.
By incorporating the above change, we hope that this goes some way to addressing Mrs Brown's concerns about potential on-street parking. In order to further minimise the potential for this, we have further revised the layout so as to incorporate 7 no. visitor car parking spaces. These are to be provided at locations which we consider to be acceptable and pose no detrimental impact on highway interests. Nevertheless, I note that Manual for Streets (MfS) shows roads of 5.5m width to be designed as such so as to allow for instances of on-street visitor parking. I would invite the NPA to consider this matter in the context of any requests for on-street visitor parking, together with the intended visitor parking provision and against any potential problems that could occur. In addition, I note that paragraph 6.6.2 of MfS states as follows:-
"In a residential environment, flow is unlikely to be high enough to determine street widths, and the extent of parking provision will depend on what is appropriate for the site."
The document 'Car Parking: What Works Where' (2006) states, in summary, that there is no single best solution to providing car parking. MfS provides information on known advantages of on-street parking including inter alia: it adds activity to the street: it will be well overlooked, providing improved security; and it can provide a useful buffer between pedestrians and traffic. At page 105, MfS states that on-street parking may pose a road safety problem where traffic speeds are above 20mph and where there are few places for pedestrians to cross with adequate visibility - neither of which is applicable in the context of this scheme. Moreover, any such on-street parking will be small-scale (of the 10 visitor spaces that are required, we are providing 7 off-street, with the residual only being 3 spaces), and therefore any such provision will not be visually dominant.
Swept path diagrams In discussions with the Council's Refuse Section, we understand that the largest vehicle currently in operation is a Olympus Twin Pack 6x4 wide smooth body RCV. The overall length of such a vehicle is 9.22m (10.275m with the tailgate raised). Having regard to BS 5906, MfS suggests a minimum street width of 5m for use by refuse vehicles of max length 11.6m. The width of the main estate road excluding private courtyards exceeds this recommendation, although I do not think that this point is disputed by Mrs Brown. For the avoidance of doubt, it is not our intention for refuse vehicles to access private courtyards and I would ask you to note this point specifically in the context of the points that follow.
The reference to accidents caused by reversing manoeuvres is extracted from paragraph 6.8.8 of MfS. I have no dispute with any empirical data which has informed this overall statement, and we will seek to ensure that reversing distances are minimised. However, I note that the same paragraph permits reversing distances in excess of 12 metres in cases where reversing routes are straight and free from obstacles or visual obstructions. As you will note from the layout, reversing routes are essentially straight and, noting that the great majority of private and visitor parking space requirements can be provided off-site, free from obstacle. Mrs Brown also comments that the site is of tight geometry which, as stated above, I must refute on the basis of vehicles using road widths of 5.5m. I do not therefore see there being any objection to reversing distances being over 12m.
In any case, I must draw your attention to paragraph 6.8.9 of MfS, which reaffirm the key points approved under Part H of the Building Regulations. In summary, residents should not be required to carry waste more than 30m to the storage point, and waste collection vehicles should be able to get to within 25m of the storage point - a total maximum distance of 55m between dwelling and refuse vehicle. We are confident that the proposed layout does not exceed this requirement for any of the dwellings and, in fact, distances are reduced by minimising the distances between collection point and refuse vehicle wherever possible.
Roads servicing courtyards A & E are too narrow As noted above, it is not intended for refuse vehicles to use or access courtyards A and E. We are capable of meeting the requirements of Part H of the Building Regulations (summarised above) for the whole development without the need for vehicles to leave roads of 5.5m width. The need for the submission of a refuse strategy in addition to the substantial details already provided to inform a determination is, in my professional opinion both excessive and irrelevant. However, if the NPA is minded to include this as a planning condition, then we would not object.
Tracking has been provided which shows how private vehicles can access these particular courtyards, if necessary, in association with such purposes as removals, package deliveries etc. The width of Courtyard E is measured at 4.2m, which is sufficient to allow for dual car movements (figure 7.1 refers). Should any private vehicles chose to use this courtyard, then the same common- sense principles would be applicable to those of a single width carriageway, as stated in MfS.
I also note that under paragraph 7.2.2, it is stated that carriageway widths should be appropriate for the particular context and uses of the street. Noting that the volume of traffic and pedestrian activity is likely to be low, with off-street parking provision, a straight geometry and speeds below 20mph, I would question the need for carriageway widths to be anything over 4.2m. To this end, it is important to note the following principle from paragraph 6.8.1 of MfS:
"The design of local roads should accommodate service vehicles without allowing their requirements to dominate the layout."
The suggestion of making the road a shared surface arrangement was made in good faith, proposed as a genuine solution to a perceived problem. Such schemes are acceptable (and work best) in relatively calm traffic environments such as this residential cul-de-sac. It will also result in motorists driving more cautiously (para 7.2.9, MfS) with the removal of demarcated pavements. Such an option will allow the street to be adopted if that is the will of the NPA and highways authority; otherwise we will respectfully ask that this is not, similar to the adjacent private courtyard G.
Long sections, forward & junction visibility and long sections I would assert that we have provided above and beyond the necessary level of information in this regard to allow for an informed determination of the proposed development. I would ask that Mrs Brown states for the record anything else that, in her professional opinion, will be needed to inform detailed design approval. A clear distinction needs to be drawn between such a process and planning approval.
Drainage You will note that drainage has formed part of the Environmental Impact Assessment for the reserved matters application and has therefore been the subject of detailed assessment. Moreover, I trust that the NPA would have requested consultations with all necessary parties (in this case, consultees that would comment from a drainage standpoint) in the course of the determination period. Therefore, I must respectfully question the assertion made that no consultation have taken place. It may instead be the case that Mrs Brown and her department has not been party to such discussions, which is unfortunate."
Overall, it is considered that the applicants views in relation to parking within garages are reasonable. To this end, it is recommended that these be counted as parking spaces, contrary to the advice received from the Highways Authority.
Whilst it is considered that this would reduce the on-street parking concern suggested by the Highways Authority, it is also noted that 7No. additional visitor parking spaces have been incorporated into the most recent layout plan. It is suggested that this may result in a requirement for just 3no. visitors to park within the highway which, in a development where a number of opportunities to cross the road exist and of relatively low speeds, would not be a concern to Officers.
With regard to the swept path diagrams, Officers would again sympathise with the views set out by the applicant. This is on the basis that Officers hold a contrary view to the Highways Authority in terms of the suitability of the off-street parking provision. Accordingly, it is not reasonable to suggest that there would be 'obstacles' within the highway preventing refuse vehicles from reversing safely within the site. However, it would be prudent to attach a condition to any consent requiring a refuse strategy to be submitted and approved. This would serve to clarify the applicant's point in relation to refuse vehicles not requiring to access the private courtyards within the site.
It should be noted that the Powys County Council Highways Authority has not responded to the most recent points raised by the applicant's agent to date. Accordingly, due to the protracted nature of the negotiations between both parties, the relevant Highways Officer has been invited to participate in the Planning Access and Rights of Way Committee within which this application will be presented to and considered by Members.
Provision of Affordable Housing A requirement of the Outline Planning Permission is to provide 20% Affordable Housing as part of this development. The reserved matters submission illustrates that 12.no Affordable Housing units will be provided comprising 4no. one bedroom flats, 4no. two bedroom flats, 1no. three bedroom dwelling and 3no. two bedroom dwellings which equates to a provision of 23%.
Whilst acknowledging the density concerns of local residents, the Community Council and CCW as referred to above, it should also be noted that this development would have provided just 8 Affordable Housing units had only 42 dwellings been provided on site. Evidently, the provision of an additional 11no. units on site would yield an additional 4no. Affordable Housing units in an area of identified need.
Given that Officers consider that these additional units have been incorporated into the overall layout with little or no discernible impact upon the visual amenities of the wider area, it is considered that the additional Affordable units yielded represents an acceptable 'trade-off'. It is considered that the proposal serves to contribute towards achieving the National Park's Duty to foster the social and economic wellbeing of local communities (by providing Affordable Housing) without impacting upon the National Park's first Purpose to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. The provision of the Affordable Housing will be controlled by way of a planning obligations.
Sustainability Concerns have been raised by local residents relating to the fact that the proposal has not been accompanied by a pre-assessment against the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Whilst these concerns are well placed, it should be noted that Outline Planning Permission was granted for this development prior to the introduction of the Code for Sustainable Homes and Technical Advice Note 22: Planning for Sustainability. As a result, there is no obligation for the developer to achieve the minimum standard of Code Level 3 in this case.
Nevertheless, the developer has committed to ensuring that the dwellings are constructed in accordance with up-to-date sustainability measures where possible. Furthermore, any development will have to accord with the latest Building Regulations and, for example, the following measures are proposed:
- Enhancing the building fabric to improve insulation and minimise energy loss - Ensure that materials are well sourced to reduce transport emissions - Provide refuse and recycling points within the layout as well as bins for each unit - Provide sustainable drainage systems
It should also be noted that the applicant has agreed to construct roofs using natural slate and windows using timber. Details of which are to be agreed subject to the imposition of a suitably worded planning condition.
As a result, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in sustainability terms.
Drainage and Ecology Numerous concerns have been raised by neighbouring residents in relation to drainage from the site and the potential impacts upon the River Usk Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The National Park's Ecologist and the Countryside Council for Wales also raised concerns in relation to the likely significant effects on the River Usk SAC due to increased drainage outputs from the proposed development.
Indeed, it was suggested by CCW that, due to the potential impact upon the SAC, an Environmental Impact Assessment should be carried out and an Environmental Statement submitted for consideration as part of the Reserved Matters application. Further to the Authority issuing a Screening Opinion stating that an EIA was required, the applicant sought a Screening Direction from the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government confirmed that an EIA was required as the development was considered likely to have a significant effect on the environment because of its nature, size and location having regard to the following points:
- The likely impact on the National Park Landscpae - The likely impact upon the River Usk SAC/SSSI - The likely impact of development on European Protected Species.
Accordingly, the Authority issued a Scoping Opinion on 19th September 2011 stating that the EIA should consider the impacts on the following:
- Statutory nature conservation sites - Legally protected species - UK and Local Biodiversity Action Plan and NERC Act Section 42 Habitats and Species - Landscape - Drainage
An ES was subsequently submitted by the applicant in April 2012.
Further to the submission of the ES, It should be noted that the Environment Agency Wales stated no objection at this stage subject to the imposition of a planning condition requiring the submission of a surface water drainage scheme for agreement prior to the commencement of development.
DCWW also stated no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions relating to separate foul and surface water drainage; connection of surface water drainage to the public system; connection of land drainage runoff; submission of a comprehensive scheme of drainage for the site; and, access to existing DCWW assets. It was also stated that "No problems are envisaged with the Waste Water Treatment Works for the treatment of domestic discharges from this site.
However, CCW and the National Park's Ecologist retained their objections to the scheme pending the submission of additional information in relation to the following:
- Details of the Environmental Management Plan - Clarification from Dwr Cymru Welsh Water that sufficient capacity exists at the Sennybridge WWTW and that there is no likelihood that treated discharges or untreated storm water discharges compromise the water quality objectives for the River Usk - Clarification that water abstraction issues or any measures to address them will not lead to failure of the conservation objectives of the River Usk SAC. - Landscaping and Aftercare Plan - Lighting Scheme - Evidence explaining why the surrounding habitat is unsuitable for Red Kites - Number of bird boxes to be provided
Further to these concerns the applicant provided the following response:
"… Environmental Management Plan Your ecologist has requested that a draft Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is prepared and submitted prior to determination setting out its scope and content, including reference to detailed design drawings and the responsibilities for the control of measures during the construction phase, together with the transfer of responsibilities for the maintenance of all adopted infrastructure post- construction.
The production of a detailed EMP is not possible until a contractor has been confirmed to the project, and this will not be possible until the assurance of planning consent is obtained. Moreover, the agreement of strategic principles at the least would be problematic (and possibly abortive) because it is not yet established whether the development will be built out in one or multiple phases - two different scenarios which would require distinctive approached to the EMP. May I draw your attention to the contents of Paragraph 8.69 of the Written Statement which presents some overall principles to be incorporated in future into an EMP. The applicant is not averse to the need for an EMP, but does not think that it is possible to commit to any specific details until the detailed design stage is underway post-decision, when a contractor will be appointed.
It is noted that the CCW response emphasises that an EMP would need to be agreed prior to any works starting on site, but that the detail contained within could be a matter to be controlled under a planning condition.
As an additional point, it is normal for such a document to be requested by the Environment Agency in their consultation response. I note that no such request has been made via their response in this instance.
DCWW Statement on foul drainage and water supply Your ecologist mentions the need to source a clear written statement from DCWW which states that the existing Sennybridge Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) has the current capacity to manage the increased foul water discharges from the proposed development and that such capacity will not be compromised by storm flows. I feel it necessary to return to the contents of paragraph 6 of the Welsh Government Screening Direction dated 20th July 2011, repeated in full below…:-
'As both CCW and EAW had highlighted the issue of the capacity of the public sewerage system, I sought advice from the National Park on this matter, and they in turn asked for advice from Dwr Cymru Welsh Water (DCWW). In their response DCWW said that, on certain occasions in the past during peak demand, the water supply from their Portis Water Treatment Works may have been compromised, but that measures were now in place to maintain future supplies and therefore should not affect their existing customers or the proposed development. They went back to inform us that concerns were raised over the proposed development back in 2005, with regards to the Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) in Sennybridge. However, since then the performance of the WWTW has improved and at present they were not aware of any known compliance issues within the Usk SAC. DCWW also explained that a combined sewer overflow serving the Sennybridge catchment downstream of the development had in the past experienced some flooding, and that this was due to an operational issue which has now been overcome and to the best of their knowledge they were not aware of any other operations issues.'
I am mindful that the Welsh Government chose to adopt the precautionary principle, notwithstanding the apparent clarity of conclusions provided by DCWW. Nevertheless, we have since asked DCWW to provide further clarity on this matter, and this has been expressed in their consultation response addressed to yourself and dated 18th July 2012. For the benefit of third party readers, I enclose a copy of this letter. You will note that this raises no objection to the proposed development regarding drainage capacity, treatment works capacity or water supply capacity.
I would imagine that designs on the actual wording of responses received from DCWW are ultimately subjective (and this may not be to the satisfaction of your ecologist), but noting that both DCWW and Environment Agency Wales (EAW) have responsibility for ensuring the integrity of the SAC designation, then it is fair to assume that an objection would have been received from either or both if there was a suspicion that of there being a significant impact on the conservation objectives of the SAC.
In relation to water supply, you will note that DCWW have not objected to the proposal on this basis through pre-application/consultation response to date. CCW have regard to DCWW's Revised Water Resources Management Plan (dated October 2011) in their response and state that the Portis zone is one of three that are forecast to fall into deficit at some point over the next 25 years (it is noted that CCW state that it is actually the SEWCUS resource zone which supplies the area, and this is one of the other zones forecasted for deficit). The report does not state when within the next 25 years such deficits are likely to hit these zones but, more importantly, it is not stated what are the implications on individual projects. It is the DCWW consultation response which provides an indication on whether there are supply problems with the proposed development and significantly, no mention is made of any future projected deficiencies. As such, I would contend that little material weight can be given to the conclusions of this report, which was published prior to receipt of the consultation response issued more recently in July of this year.
Method of Sustainable Drainage Systems Your ecologist further suggests that much greater effort is given within the proposed development to conserve water by replacing the proposed soakaway system with local rainwater harvesting and grey water recycling for each new property.
In this respect, we are guided by the following extract of the response from the EAW in respect of surface water drainage, which offers no objection:-
'The proposals to reduce surface water runoff from the site to a maximum of 5 litres per second through the use of soakaways and an attenuation and hydro-brake system represents a significant reduction in runoff compared to the existing Greenfield runoff rate...'
Not only does the surface water solution reduce run-off rates, but it also acts to ensure the provision of long-term water charge to the watercourse. The use of soakaways in proximity to a watercourse allows for the recharge of underground aquifers, which is especially of relevance in providing more storage space at times of drought. This provides a welcome alternative to the use of over-ground methods, where surface water is attenuated before entering directly into the watercourse. It is the latter method which would, in this instance, be more likely to have an impact on the River Usk SAC.
Bats and External Lighting Assessment The Countryside Council for Wales have suggested that in order to ensure the integrity and function of bat flightlines and feeding habitat that the hedges provide, and to exclude light spill by means of fencing/screening, it may be necessary to exclude the existing species-rich hedgerow from the land to be developed. It should be noted that the assessment was based on all existing species-rich hedgerows being retained and also that an appropriate design of lighting being used to limit light- spill onto these retained habitats. Moreover, I would stress that the northern and eastern site boundaries are already lit by street lamps. As such, it is not our intention to amend the design to exclude the species-rich hedgerow from the development, and also we would question the need for an external lighting assessment prior to the determination of the application. As with the Landscaping and Aftercare Plan, we would be happy to accept the need for such a lighting plan under planning condition.
Red Kites It is noted that further explanation as been requested in relation to the comment noted in Paragraph 9.75 of the Written Statement, stated as follows:- '...use of these trees by nesting Red Kite is considered unlikely (based on the limited suitability of the surrounding habitat).' Soltys Brewster Ltd, as our appointed ecological consultants to the project, advise that it is unlikely that additional desk study enquiries would uncover any site specific records over and above what has already been established. Red Kite generally prefer to nest in woodland and the small, exposed group of trees present within the southwest corner of the site would therefore be considered sub- optimal nesting habitat. The use of the trees by nesting Red Kite was also considered unlikely based on the close proximity of existing residential properties (i.e. within 50 metres). If construction activities relating to the south western corner of the site avoid the nesting season then we are advised that increased disturbance is unlikely to be a significant issue. It is also of note that these trees are located within or immediately adjacent to, the garden of an existing residential property and that any kites present are already likely to be habituated to the presence of people/buildings in the immediate vicinity.
Bird Boxes Your ecologist has raised questions about the overall provision of nest boxes, with the proposed ratio of 1 per 10 dwellings equating to a total provision of 5 boxes within the scheme. In the interests of clarity, it should be noted that this provision was based on the small amount of scrub/hedge habitat to be lost as a result of the proposed development. As existing boundary hedgerows are being retained, and also that some new planning is being provided, then this both provides and retains a nesting resource. As such, it is considered that this particular aspect of the proposed mitigation is proportional to the size of the scheme and the impacts on existing nesting habitat."
Further to the submission of this detail, CCW confirmed that they note DCWW comments and fully support the suggested condition requiring the submission of details of a comprehensive and integrated drainage scheme. Subject to this condition CCW has confirmed that they are satisfied that a significant effect on the River Usk SAC, via change in water quality, is unlikely.
The National Park's Ecologist is also satisfied with the submitted statement and has stated no objection to the proposed development.
High Pressure Gas Pipeline
Concerns have been raised by nearby residents regarding the proximity of the site to the 2776-28 Feeder Felindre to Brecon pipeline.
Further to investigation, National Grid has confirmed that the pipe is 22.9mm thick given that the section running to the south of the application site is "laid in thick-wall pipe" (15.9mm is the standard thickness on unstrengthened pipeline). Further to providing this information to the Health and Safety Executive, they were able to advise the Authority that the application site is located in the "outer zone" and they would not advise, on safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission in this case.
As a result, despite the concerns raised by nearby residents, the expert opinion received on this particular issue indicates that the concerns do not warrant the refusal of the application.
Cultural Heritage
The application site is located in the vicinity of the scheduled ancient monument known as Castell-Du, Sennybridge (BR126). This comprises ruins of a medieval masonry castle, probably of 13th century date, the main remnant being part of a D-shaped tower projecting from a former range of buildings. This occupies the southern edge of an isolated hillock with broad views to the south across the flood plain of the Senni-Usk confluence. The rest of the monument, probably consisting of some form of walled and ditched enclosure must have stood to the north but has vanished under substantial recent houses. The site is of further interest having been adapted as a gun emplacement in World War II, the remains of a second concrete pillbox surviving within the scheduled area to the west, overlooking the track to Castle Farm.
Further to consultation, Cadw has stated that the site is located a minimum of 40m to the west of the monument, at the base of the hillock on which it stands. There is to be no direct impact upon the scheduled area. The setting of the monument has previously been compromised by the piecemeal construction of modern houses adjacent to and within metres of the surviving fragments. The present access road to Castle Farm and the houses that occupy much of the castle site physically divides the development from the ruins. More significantly, the position of the recent houses dictates that any views of the area to be developed from that of the scheduled area are likely to be very limited. The significant views from and of the upstanding medieval tower are across the valley to the south, which both it and the 20th Century fortifications were undoubtedly positioned to overlook. These key aspects will not be affected by the proposed development.
In Cadw's opinion, the proposed development will therefore have no significant impact upon the Scheduled Ancient Monument or its setting.
Conclusion
It is considered that the detail submitted in relation to the Reserved Matters of Outline Planning Permission P20942 is acceptable in planning terms and should be approved subject to the following conditions and a Section 106 Agreement dealing with Affordable Housing and linking this application with the full application.
RECOMMENDATION: Permit subject to Section 106 Agreement
Conditions and/or Reasons:
1 In the case of applications for the approval of reserved matters, the condition that the development to which this permission relates must be begun before whichever is the later of the following dates: (i) the expiration of five years from the date of the grant of outline planning permission; or (ii) the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved 2 The development shall be carried out in all respects strictly in accordance with the approved plans (drawing nos. NP1v1, NP2v1, NP3v3, NP4v3, NP5v2, NP6v3, NP7v3, NP8v2, NP9v2, NP10v2, NP11v2, NP12v2, NP13V2, NP14v2, NP15v2, NP16v2, NP17v2, NP18v2, NP19v2, NP20v2, NP21v1, NP22v3, NP23V2, NP24v2, NP28v2, NP29v2, NP30v1, NP32v1, NP33v1, NP34v1, NP35v1, NP36v1, NP37v1and NP38v1 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 3 No development shall take place until details or samples of materials to be used externally on walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4 Notwithstanding the detail hereby approved, the roof of each dwelling shall be finished with a natural slate, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Thereafter, the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity. 5 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking, amending and re-enacting that Order) no development of the types described in Part 1; Class(es) A to E of Schedule 2, other than that hereby permitted shall be carried out without the written permission of the Local Planning Authority. 6 Notwithstanding the detail hereby approved, the windows and doors of each dwelling shall be constructed with a timber material, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Thereafter, the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity. 7 Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site. 8 No surface water shall be allowed to connect, either directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 9 Land drainage runoff shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system. 10 No development shall commence until the developer has prepared a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site showing how foul water, surface water and land drainage will be dealt with and this has been approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. 11 The garages and access thereto must be reserved for the garaging or parking of private motor vehicles and the garage shall at no time be converted to habitable accommodation. 12 Prior to the commencement of development a detailed refuse strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and retained as such in perpetuity. 13 Details of any lighting proposed to illuminate the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the use hereby permitted commences and/or the building(s) are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and there shall be no other external illumination of the development.
Reasons:
1 Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2 To ensure adherence to the approved plans in the interests of a satisfactory form of development. 3 To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings. 4 In the interest of the character and visual amenities of the area. 5 In order to safeguard the character and visual amenities of the locality. 6 In the interest of the character and visual amenities of the area. 7 To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system. 8 To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment. 9 To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment. 10 To ensure that effective drainage facilities are provided for the proposed development, and that no adverse impact occurs to the environment or the existing public sewerage system. 11 To ensure adequate off street parking arrangements remain available at all times. 12 In the interest of the general amenity of, and highway safety within, the site. 13 To safeguard local amenities.
Informative Notes:
1 The development to which this permission relates is the subject of an agreement under, inter alia, Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This permission should be read in conjunction with that agreement. 2 The proposed development site is crossed by a public sewer main. Under the Water Industry Act 1991 Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has rights of access to its apparatus at all times. No buildings will be permitted within 3 metres either side of the centre line of the public sewer. 3 The Welsh Government are planning to introduce new legislation that will make it mandatory for all developers who wish to communicate with the public sewerage system to obtain an adoption agreement for their sewerage with Dwr Cymru Welsh Water. A Mandatory Build Standard for the construction of sewerage apparatus and an agreement under Section 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991 will need to be completed in advance of any authoritsation to communicate with the public sewerage system under Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991 being granted by Dwr Cymru Welsh Water. 4 The proposed development is crossed by a trunk/distribution watermain. Dwr Cymru Welsh Water as Statutory Undertaker has statutory powers to access their apparatus at all times. It may be possible for this watermain to be diverted under Section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991, the cost of which will be recharged to the developer. The developer must consult Dwr Cymru Welsh Water before development commences on site.