East Northamptonshire Council Cedar Drive THRAPSTON Northamptonshire NN14 4LZ
APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 6 January 2010 INDEX OF APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
Application Location Recom. Page
EN/09/01313/FUL Land Adjacent Walters Coppice, Main Street, Grant 2 Hemington
EN/09/01329/FUL Caravan Site, Mill Road, Yarwell Refuse 10
EN/09/01330/FUL Caravan Site, Mill Road, Yarwell Grant 25
EN/09/01380/FUL The Water Tower, Ashton Wold, Ashton Grant 33
EN/09/01867/LBC The Water Tower, Ashton Wold, Ashton Grant 39
EN/09/01855/FUL 1 Pightles Terrace, Rushden Grant 43
Development Control Committee 1 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 Committee Report Committee Date : 6 January 2010 Printed: 16 December 2009
Case Officer Carolyn Tait EN/09/01313/FUL
Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 19 August 2009 3 September 2009 29 October 2009 Barnwell Hemington
Applicant Mr T Littler
Agent Stuart Long Architect
Location Land Adjacent Walters Coppice Main Street Hemington Northamptonshire
Proposal Two proposed detached houses (renewal of consent EN/06/01452/FUL)
This application is brought before Development Control Committee after an objection was received from Hemington, Luddington and Thurning Parish Council.
1 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 That permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.
2. The Proposal 2.1 The application proposes two detached houses. This proposal is the same as a previous application that was approved under reference EN/06/01452/FUL, which at the time of receiving this application was still extant. That permission is however no longer extant.
3 The Site and Surroundings 3.1 The application site is currently vacant and is situated at the end of a row of large detached residential properties which were built on land allocated within the East Northamptonshire District Local Plan Policy HE1. This policy is no longer saved.
3.2 To the East of the site is a wooded area known as Walters Coppice which separates the site from a further row of old cottages situated beyond the curve in the road.
3.3 To the south of the site is a row of smaller affordable housing built as a rural exception site. To the north of the site is open countryside.
4 Policy Considerations 4.1 National Planning Policy Guidance PPS1– Sustainable Development PPS3 – Housing
4.2 East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 2 – Promoting Better Design Policy 3 – Distribution of New Development East Northamptonshire Local Plan There are no relevant saved policies
Development Control Committee 2 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 4.3 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 – Strengthening the Network of Settlements Policy 9 – Distribution and Location of Housing Policy 10 – Distribution of Housing Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 - Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction
4.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance Planning Out Crime In Northamptonshire February 2004 Highway Authority Standing Advice for Planning Authorities, Working Draft, July 2008
4.5 Other Documents Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan (Inspector’s Modifications, 8 July 2009) The Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan went through an examination process in 2008 and 2009. Following this examination on 8 July 2009 the Inspector found the document sound. However, as yet the council has not adopted the Plan as a Development Plan Document as such the Council is still treating the document as emerging policy. Policy 1 – Settlement Roles Policy 2 – Windfall Development in Settlements
5 Relevant Planning History 5.1 03/01230/FUL Erection of two detached dwelling houses. REFUSED. The Officer report describes the site as not being located within the settlement boundary as defined in the Local Plan and would lead to an increase in size of the village. It also discusses the proposal being contrary to GEN2 of the Local Plan and would result in overdevelopment of the site by virtue of the cramped appearance. Subsequently, an appeal was submitted that was then dismissed. In the report, the Inspector states that the plot should not be left vacant as it would not contribute to the street scene. The Inspector considered the site to be within the confines of the village due to a strong relationship with existing buildings and the changes in the street scape that take place beyond. It is considered that the Inspector agreed to the principle of development on this site, however, had concerns regarding the design of the proposals. The houses would have been in line with one another with parking to the front and gardens to the rear. The Inspector pointed out that housing in this location could re-establish a frontage at this important bend in the road, accomplishing a visual transition between the new detached houses to the west of the site, agricultural buildings and the woodland adjacent. However, the siting of the two proposed dwellings would be a continuation of the line of previous detached houses and the siting would fail to respond to the bend in the road and would not enclose the street scene. The close spacing and narrow width with their tall, fully gabled roofs, the side by side spacing on the site and deep form plan accentuating the narrowness of the separation would lead to a cramped appearance.
5.2 06/00237/OUT Outline residential development (All matters reserved). PERMITTED. This application followed the previously refused application. The principle of development on this site was considered acceptable based on the Inspector’s appeal comments and on the basis that the RNOTP was subject to change at this point. The visual impact of this proposal was discussed in the Officer report where it was stated that appropriately designed properties could address the curve of the road and enhance the visual impact. The report stated that new development could be stepped around the curve to create a gateway to the village. It was considered that smaller properties would not adversely affect the character of the street scene and that the site if designed appropriately could enhance the appearance of the village.
5.3 06/00578/FUL Erection of two detached houses. WITHDRAWN.
Development Control Committee 3 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 5.4 06/01452/FUL Two detached dwellings (resubmission of planning permission 06/00578/FUL). PERMITTED. This proposal is the same as the current application and was given a three year time limit for the commencement of development. This three year time limit expired on 8 November 2009.
5.5 08/01417/OUT Residential development comprising of one detached dwelling and three terraced dwellings with improved access to Main Street. REFUSED. This application was refused for three reasons. The first reason was the proposal was located outside of the settlement boundary. This proposal included the detached dwelling being located in the same location as the houses proposed in this application, and three further terraced dwellings being located to the east of the site and therefore located outside the village settlement as identified in the Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan. It was also considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact to the ecology of the site and the application failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not have an adverse impact to the trees within the site.
6 Consultations and Representations
6.1 Neighbours: Comments received from Coppice House on 17 September 2009 and 30 September 2009. Comments can be summarised as: • Fumes and noise from traffic using the proposed driveway would affect bedroom windows. • Flooding would be caused by additional hardstanding. • Possible damage to Oak trees. • The development would encourage on road parking on a dangerous bend. • Traffic using the proposed new access would cause damage to fencing.
6.2 Parish Town Council: Objection received on 30 September 2009. Comments can be summarised as: • The proposed site boundary crosses the village boundary as identified in the RNOTP. • The proposal would involve the destruction of 185m2 of woodland, thereby causing a loss of amenity value to the village. • The site is not suitable for two houses. • Proposal will lead to an increase in people parking on the road. • The proposal will exacerbate flooding problems. • Concerns regarding the preservation of the Oak tree.
6.3 Site Notice posted: 10 September 2009 on a post to the front of the site.
6.4 Conservation Officer:
6.5 Design Officer: Objection received on 15 September 2009. Comments can be summarised as follows: • The scheme of design of the proposal is not of sufficient quality to warrant an approval and would be contrary to the principles of PPS1 and Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. • The layout of the scheme is not considered acceptable, as the proposed small dwellings that vary significantly in scale and proportion to the large detached properties to the west, and are not in keeping with the character and urban grain of adjacent development with which it would be visually connected. • Properties along Main Road generally have proportionately wide frontages, this characteristic is not shared by the proposal. • The rear car parking spaces provide an over engineered design and the land take for driveways and parking is disproportionate to the development, and would significantly reduce the amount of amenity space. • Appropriate measures should be taken to protect the Oak trees on the adjacent site. • Reduction in natural surveillance.
Development Control Committee 4 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 6.6 Local Highway Authority: “No objection in principle to this proposal subject to our standard conditions for the construction of a vehicle access being met however if you are minded to give approval to this application please impose conditions with any permissions granted”.
6.7 Sustainability Officer: Comments received on 7 October 2009. “It is considered that whilst the proposal does not explain sufficiently with regard to the 3 policy requirements how the development will address the main issues, the commitment to achieving Code for Sustainable Homes 1 would address the policy requirement and it is recommended that conditions are placed on the permission to ensure that these targets are achieved”.
6.8 Housing Strategy Manager: “I can confirm that I have no objection to the proposed housing mix, as it fits with the requirements for the area. The 2007 North Northants Strategic Housing Market Assessment concludes that more medium sized market dwellings are required for the ward of Barnwell, and 3 bedroom dwellings can reasonably be considered medium sized”.
7 Evaluation 7.1 The main considerations in the determination of this proposal are the principle of development, its visual impact; the impact on neighbouring amenities, highway safety and the impact on trees.
7.2 Principle
7.2.1 One of the reasons for the previous refusal on the site was that it was outside the village boundary. In his consideration of 03/01230/FUL, the appeal inspector concluded that the site had a continuous relationship with the properties to the west and that the visual relationship does in fact end at Walters Coppice where the road curves. Since the decision by the planning inspectorate, the Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan went through an examination process in 2008 and 2009. Following the examination of the Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan on 8 July 2009 the Inspector found this document to be sound. However, as yet the Council has not adopted the Plan as a Development Plan Document as such the Council is still treating the document as emerging policy. The majority of the application site has been included within the settlement identified in the Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan. In addition to this planning permission was granted for the exact same proposal under reference EN/06/01452/FUL on this site. This permission expired on 8 November 2009 and as such this application is not for a renewal and therefore all current relevant policy must be assessed in determining this application.
7.2.2 This scheme differs from the scheme submitted in 2008 (08/01417/OUT) as part of the proposal (three terraced dwellings) falls outside the settlement boundary of Hemington and therefore in that application the principle was refused.
7.3 Visual Impact 7.3.1 In his appeal decision, relating to application 03/01230/FUL, the inspector states that any dwellings on this site should be used to enclose the street scene and acknowledge the change that is taking place in the grain of development at this location. This would thereby acknowledge the curve in the road and the houses to the east of the site. He noted that the site has the character and appearance of a further plot and appropriate development could re-establish a frontage at this bend in the road.
7.3.2 The proposed dwellings are small detached properties which have been staggered within the plot to acknowledge the bend in the road creating an appropriate visual feature which defines the street frontage and would ensure that the properties are viewed from all angles as separate properties. The staggering of these properties utilises the width of the plot ensuring that they will not appear cramped within the space. The properties are of a simple form with bay window features which would
Development Control Committee 5 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 provide interest within the street scene. In addition to this the properties would draw the eye around the bend when viewed from the west and would create a much softer visual appearance by stepping around the bend rather than the existing fence which creates an abrupt visual appearance when entering the site from the East. It is therefore considered that the proposal would enhance the existing street scene by re-defining the street frontage and appropriately addressing the bend.
7.3.3 The Council’s Design Officer does not consider the proposal acceptable for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is that it is considered that the proposed small dwellings are not in keeping with the character and urban grain of adjacent development with which it would be visually connected. Another reason is that many surrounding properties have wide frontages, the proposed have narrow frontages that are not characteristic of the surrounding area. Another reason that the Design Officer refers to is the long driveways and rear car parking spaces. It is considered that the driveways represent an over engineered design, and the land take for such driveways and parking is disproportionate to the development.
7.3.4 However, the Planning Inspector’s appeal decision must also be taken into account as a material issue and it is felt that this proposal addresses the issues raised within that decision.
7.3.5 In his appeal decision the inspector states that any dwellings on this site should be used to enclose the street scene and acknowledge the change that is taking place in the grain of development at this location. This would thereby acknowledge the curve in the road and the houses to the east of the site. He noted that the site has the character and appearance of a further plot and appropriate development could re-establish a frontage at this bend in the road.
7.3.6 The proposed dwellings are small detached properties which have been staggered within the plot to acknowledge the bend in the road creating an appropriate visual feature which defines the street frontage and would ensure that the properties are viewed from all angles as separate properties. The staggering of these properties utilises the width of the plot ensuring that they will not appear cramped within the space. The properties are of a simple form with bay window features which would provide interest within the street scene. In addition to this the properties would draw the eye around the bend when viewed from the west and would create a much softer visual appearance by stepping around the bend rather than the existing fence which creates an abrupt visual appearance when entering the site from the East. It is therefore considered that the proposal would enhance the existing street scene by re-defining the street frontage and appropriately addressing the bend.
7.4 Neighbouring amenity 7.4.1 Due to the size and scale of the proposed development the only property likely to be effected is Coppice House. The main consideration is the impact of house 1 which will be closest to Coppice House. House 1 is set further forward in the street scene than Coppice House which would reduce the impact. Proposed windows on the west elevation would look out over the driveway and the windows on the front elevation would look out over Main Street so therefore it is not considered that a loss of amenity would occur to this property in terms of loss of light or overlooking. The comments regarding fumes from traffic using the access road for house 1 have been noted but it is not considered that this access which would serve 1 three bedroom property would significantly increase the impact over the existing road to the front. Therefore it is considered that the impact on neighbouring properties would be acceptable.
7.4.2 The proposed dwellings would overlap each other by a distance of approximately 6m reducing the level of light into the proposed properties, however given that these will be new build properties and therefore new occupiers will be aware of the situation before purchasing the properties it is not considered that this would warrant refusal.
Development Control Committee 6 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 7.5 Highway Safety 7.5.1 The proposal includes the creation of a new access and the extension of an existing access which both utilise existing dropped kerbs. It is not considered that the proposal for two dwellings would have a significant impact on the rural road network and the parking to the rear ensures that vehicles are able to enter and leave the site in a forward gear.
7.5.2 Conditions have been recommended to ensure that highway safety requirements are met.
7.5.3 It is considered that there is sufficient off road parking for a 3 bedroom house to prevent on street parking. Each property proposes two parking spaces.
7.6 Trees 7.6.1 Adjacent to the site are trees which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order. The proposal will not result in the loss of any of these trees and it is Officer opinion that the construction of the access road for house 2 can be suitably conditioned so that no harm will be caused to the trees. Therefore it is considered that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on the adjacent TPO trees.
7.6.2 The Parish Council state that the proposal would involve the destruction of 185m2 of woodland, thereby causing a loss of amenity value to the village. However, in the Inspector’s appeal decision, as previously discussed, he considered that the site should not be left as a vacant plot as it does not contribute to the character and appearance of the street scene. The site does not appear as an area of woodland but as a vacant plot that has been left to overgrow.
7.7 Housing Mix 7.7.1 The Strategic Housing Manager has commented that 3 bedroomed dwellings in the village of Hemington would be considered acceptable as fits with the requirements for the area within the 2007 North Northants Strategic Housing Market Assessment.
8 Other issues 8.1 Crime and Disorder - this application does not raise any significant issues.
8.2 Access for Disabled - this building would not be subject to any public access and therefore does not raise any significant issues.
8.3 The site is not located within a flood zone and therefore it is considered that the proposal will not lead to an increased risk of flooding.
9 Recommendation 9.1 That the application be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
Conditions/Reasons
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Statutory requirement under provision of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. Prior to the commencement of development samples of the proposed facing and roofing materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity
Development Control Committee 7 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 3. Notwithstanding the submitted details, a Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development and shall be in accordance with BS5837:2005. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with these details. Reason: To ensure the protection of trees on site.
4. Notwithstanding the submitted details, details of a no dig method construction method for the driveway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with these details. Reason: To ensure the protection of trees on the neighbouring site.
5. Prior to the commencement of development, design details for the proposed access point, minimum 4.5 metres wide for the first 10 metres to the rear of the highway, with provision of vehicle visibility splays either side of the access, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
6. Pedestrian visibility splays of at least 2.4 metres x 2.4 metres (2 metres x 2 metres where there is turning space within the site) shall be provided on each side of the vehicular access. These measurements are taken along and to the rear of the highway boundary within the cartilage of the site. The areas of land forward of these splays shall be reduced to and maintained at a height not exceeding 0.6 metres above carriageway level. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
7. Sight lines shall be provided to give visibility along the road over a distance of at least 43 metres in both directions, from a point measured 2.05 metres back along the centre line of the proposed junction. These dimensions to be measured from and along the nearer edge of the carriageway. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
8. The access points shall remain ungated. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
9. Adequate provision shall be made to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water discharge from the accesses and driveways to the highway, details of which shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the measures implemented before the development is brought into use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety
10. Prior to the commencement of development details of the proposed slab levels of the dwelling hereby permitted shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual and neighbouring amenity
11. Prior to the commencement of development details of boundary screening to the site shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
12. The dwellings shall achieve Level 1 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. A copy of the Interim Design Stage Assessment Certificate shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the code level 1 will be achieved. Within 5 months of completion a copy of the Final Certificate shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority
Development Control Committee 8 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 certifying that Code Level 1 has been achieved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To provide a sustainable form of development.
Informatives
1. The drawings to which this decision relates are as follows: Plans received by the Local Planning Authority on 19 August 2009, drawing numbers: 539/4 Sketch scheme, 539/5 Block plan and LC/1 Location plan at a scale of 1:1250.
2. The reason for the above decision is because the development proposed accords with the Development Plan and other material considerations as required by Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. In particular with:
National Planning Policy Guidance PPS1– Sustainable Development PPS3 - Housing East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 2 – Promoting Better Design Policy 3 – Distribution of New Development North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 – Strengthening the Network of Settlements Policy 9 – Distribution and Location of Housing Policy 10 – Distribution of Housing Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 - Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction Supplementary Planning Guidance Planning Out Crime In Northamptonshire February 2004 Other Documents Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan (Inspector’s Modifications, 8 July 2009)
3. The proposed access will be subject to a Section 184 licence and shall be constructed in accordance with the County Council's specification. Any new sewer connections required for this development within the Public Highway where a section 50 licence must be initiated, to comply with the New Road and Street Works Act 1991. Contractor undertaking works within the highway to be fully conversant with the Traffic Management Act 2004 and notice period, to enable works to be undertaken within the highway.
Development Control Committee 9 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 Committee Report Committee Date : 6 January 2010 Printed: 17 December 2009
Case Officer Sue Wheatley EN/09/01329/FUL
Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 20 August 2009 13 October 2009 12 January 2010 Prebendal Yarwell
Applicant Vermont Properties Ltd - Mr M Best
Agent Rural And Urban Planning Consultancy - Mr I Butter
Location Caravan Site Mill Road Yarwell Peterborough Northamptonshire PE8 6PS
Proposal Use of land for the stationing of touring caravans and tents plus details of drainage system
This application is reported to the Development Control Committee because the proposed development exceeds the threshold in the scheme of delegation.
1 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 The application be REFUSED.
2 The Proposal 2.1 The application is for the change of use of land for the stationing of touring caravans and tents, at an existing caravan park and a drainage system for the proposed use. The site plan shows the extent of the existing caravan park hatched. The proposed extension is to the east of the existing site. The site area is 3.8 Ha. The Planning Statement indicates that it is anticipated that: “the touring caravans and tents on the proposed development site will be subject to the same occupancy period as existing ( 1st March to 31st October)”.
2.2 In addition to the Planning Statement the application is accompanied by the following documents:
• Flood Risk Assessment • Phase 1 Habitat Report • Impact and Justification Statement • Proposals for Wastewater Treatment Plant • Transport Assessment • Statement of Community Involvement • The Holiday Parks Market – An Overview • Visual Assessment and Landscape Proposals
3 The Site and Surroundings 3.1 The application site is located on the outskirts of Yarwell, with access from Mill Road. It is 1Km North East of Nassington and 2 Km South of Wansford.
Development Control Committee 10 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 3.2 The site has been in use as a caravan park since well before 1948( 10.92 Ha of land). At the moment there are a number of static caravans on the site, although they do not cover the full extent of the site that could be used for caravans. In addition, there is an area which is being used for the storage of touring caravans. Close to the site entrance there is a group of buildings. One of these, the former Mill is listed. Former agricultural buildings are the subject of a separate application, which is also on this agenda ( ref 09/01330/FUL), for conversion to holiday let accommodation. The River Nene runs through the site and there is also a Mill Stream. There is also a private fishing lake within the site.
4 Policy Considerations 4. 1 Planning Policy Guidance Notes/Statements PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS9 - Nature conservation PPG13 – Transport PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment. PPS25 – Development and Flooding and accompanying Guidance Note Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism
4.2 Regional Spatial Strategy 8: East Midlands Regional Plan March 2009 Policy 1 – Regional Core Objectives Policy 18 Regional Priorities for the Economy Policy 24 Regional Priorities for Rural Diversification Policy 26 – Protecting and Enhancing the region’s Natural and Cultural Heritage Policy 27 Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment Policy 29 – Priorities for Enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity Policy 35 – A Regional Approach to Managing Flood Risk Policy 42 Regional Priorities for Tourism
4.3 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 – Strengthening the Network of Settlement Policy 9 – Distribution and Location of Development Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles
4.4 Northamptonshire County Structure Plan None relevant
4.5 East Northamptonshire District Local Plan None Relevant
4.6 Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan (Inspectors Modifications 8 July 2009) The Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan went through an examination process in 2008 and 2009. Following this examination on 8 July 2009 the Inspector found the document sound. However, as yet the Council has not adopted the Plan as a Development Plan Document as such the Council is still treating the document as emerging policy. Policy 1 – Settlement Roles Policy 7 – Flood Risk Policy 10 – Protection of Local Sites of Conservation Interest and Designation of Local Nature Reserves Policy 11 – Enhancing Biodiversity
4.6 Supplementary Planning Guidance- None
Development Control Committee 11 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 5 Relevant Planning History and Site Licence History
5.1 02/01010/FUL – Conversion of water mill to 6 residential units. Permitted 5 November 2003. 5.2 02/01108/LBC - Conversion of water mill to 6 residential units. Permitted 5 November 2003. 5.3 03/00827/LDP – Use of land as a caravan site without condition or limitation, granted on appeal November 2004. (see hatched area). 5.4 09/01330/FUL Conversion of farm buildings to 2 holiday accommodation units- pending consideration
5.5 In addition to planning permission a caravan site requires a site licence. Within a caravan site the total number of caravans, their density etc is controlled by the site licence. The existing site licence allows for the stationing of 175 caravans on the existing caravan site, of which 120 of these can be touring caravans.
6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Neighbours – 20 letters of objection have been received, the concerns have been grouped under the following headings for ease of reference
Effect on the Landscape
• Visual effect on very attractive area of landscape with fantastic views • The proposed landscaping will not mitigate the development • Past screening has failed due to the poor quality of the land • Replacement of touring caravans with static units which will no doubt be left in place • Before the expansion of the site the touring caravans were removed in the winter, now with static caravans there is a permanent blot on the landscape. • No timescale on landscape proposal. Who would be responsible for checking? How long would it take to obscure the caravans?
Traffic and Highway Safety
• Traffic increase for which the narrow local roads, with their bends, parked cars and speeding traffic, have insufficient capacity • Current traffic does not follow the proposed routing agreement route, despite the presence of signs. • Traffic generation levels are already high • Touring caravans will lead to larger vehicles using the roads • Mill Road is a bus route • The junction of the site with Mill road is already hazardous, with inadequate sight lines and potholed. • Current use of the site causes damage to the verge opposite the junction from vehicles turning right • Little improvement to visibility will be gained by changing the road markings and it will make the situation less safe • Object to the changes to the junction, which is a longstanding arrangement, for profit • Although it is reported that there are no recorded collisions, there have been numerous unreported incidents. One resident provides details of incidents. • There are no footpaths along Mill Road and pedestrians walking along this road between Yarwell and Nassington are already vulnerable and the situation would get worse. The road is also used by cyclists and horse riders. • Reference is made to the outstanding appeal for an equine and cattle enterprise ( ref 09/0445/FUL), which if successful would add more traffic • Lorries often park in Mill Road, when collecting grain; school buses also park vehicles also access a field.
Development Control Committee 12 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 Effect on village and contribution to local economy
• Unlikely to contribute to the local economy – Originally visitors did integrate with the village however more recent visitors have created disturbance, and not supported the local community, the existing caravan users do not use the pub in Yarwell. • The requirement to sustain and improve the local economy should not be at the expense of an attractive area of countryside. How many new jobs will be created_
Floodrisk
• Flooding – loss of floodplain and additional hardstanding and roads • it would not be possible to use the public footpath as a means of escape during flood events as the path floods regularly • It is proposed that a steel footbridge be used as a means of escape but this currently has a sign suggesting it is dangerous and should not be used. • It cannot be assumed that flooding will only take place during winter months. • Do not understand how the proposal can be a water compatible use – what percentage of visitors actually use the site for water based recreation • Recently caravans would appear to have been moved to higher ground – presumably to avoid the risk of flooding
Drainage
• How practical is it that the new touring facilities will be some distance from the existing sanitisation facilities • In relation to the proposed sewage system there is no mention of inspection chambers or rodding points – what precautions will be in place to prevent raw sewage entering the Nene?
Future intentions for site
• Future intentions – will there be a requirement for restaurant, bar, a club house or shops in the future_
Effect on Residential Amenity
• Car fumes and noise • Moving the give way markings will effect the privacy of the occupiers of 12 Mill Road
Effect on right of way
• Nene Way goes through the site • Whist NCC rights of way suggest that a right of way is not affected this contradicts the site notice which has been displayed • Building work could affect walkers • There are at least 2 footpaths with hidden accesses to the road in the vicinity of the site
Effect on Wildlife
• Remarkable that the study finds no presence of bats as there were bats on the site; presumably the result of the amount of lighting at the site • Swallows will be effected as lighting will increased and if planning permission is granted providing alternative nests should be conditioned • The current site only houses 29 static caravans however there are a total of 175 static
Development Control Committee 13 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 caravans shown on the site plan. • Would double the size of the village and impact on village life. In the 2001 census the population was 294. It is estimated that the people residing on the site would be 616. • The application site is an area of grassland used by birds in winter • Even though there are no protected species this does not make the site unworthy of protection. A habitat survey carried out on one particular day does not take account of seasonal variations. • Confused by the condition about the provision of a barrier to public access to the river suggested by Natural England • There is an active badger set in close proximity to the site • Planting schemes should be implemented long before the submission of planning applications to protect and enhance local wildlife
Other
• Schools currently visit the site to observe the workings of the lock this would not be possible during building work • Disappointing that there has been no local consultation
A petition with 64 names has also been submitted, this states:
“Aim of Petition: To stop further erosion of the Nene valley, Countryside and Wildlife due to further development at Yarwell Caravan Site. Plus objection to increased traffic using local country roads and lanes to access the site.”
6.2 Yarwell Parish Council – Object on traffic grounds. The roads are not suitable and the access to Mill Road substandard.
6.3 Nassington Parish Council- Comments awaited.
6.4 Elton Parish Council( neighbouring Parish in Huntingdonshire) – concern expressed about the impact of increased traffic that could be generated through the village of Elton.
6.5 Natural England – No objection
6.6 Badger Group – Before work commences the hedge should be checked for the presence of badgers
6.7 – Northants Bat Group – No roosts are affected
6.8 Wildlife Trust –concerned to note that, within the “Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report” document it states in Paragraph 4.2.1 that “There is the potential for indirect adverse impacts to the lake as a result of the increase in recreational activity as a result of increased visitor numbers.” Having made this statement, the Application neither provides any further examination or explanation of such adverse impacts, nor, crucially, does it attempt to provide any mitigation measures in turn. Further information is therefore required. Indeed, in line with all relevant good practice, guidance and policy, this Application should be delivering a net gain for biodiversity – including all of the established natural assets that are already present in-and-around this location; such as the Yarwell Mill Lake LWS.
Development Control Committee 14 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 Accordingly, care needs to be taken, both during the construction operations and subsequent use of this location, in order to protect the lake site and its wildlife from possible adverse impacts. In particular, our concerns are as follows :
1. Unauthorised vehicular traffic not to run close to the designated LWS area. 2. Avoid dumping or storage of materials on the area around the designated LWS both during and after the construction phase. 3. Avoid the possibility of pollutants and contaminants, including soil run off, from entering the LWS. In our opinion, it is important to not introduce any non-native or invasive species into either terrestrial or aquatic environments. Therefore, any soft landscaping elements that it is intended to include within this development proposal should be provided for by the use of native species ( of plants, shrubs and trees ) only. Ideally, these species should be chosen as ones that are typical of that part of the county and they should all only be sourced from a local and a known provenance. Therefore, The Wildlife Trust is pleased to see the details included on the Drawing entitled Landscape Proposals 3.5 ( in the “Visual Assessment and Landscape Proposals” document ). Furthermore, we would recommend that the use of some structural strategic planting be used to provide an element of ‘soft fencing’ in association with the Yarwell Mill Lake LWS in order to attempt to protect this biodiversity asset from the potential detrimental impacts arising from the increased levels of activity at this location.
6.9 Environment Agency – Object in principle to the proposal as the site lies within Floodzone 3b “functional floodplain”. The proposal is for a “more vulnerable” use which is not compatible with and should not be permitted. If ENC are minded to grant planning permission they should re-consult the EA and if the objection stands then the application will need to be forwarded to the Secretary of State.
6.10 Environmental Health – object due to the: • Density and spacing of the units • Inadequate welfare facilities • Drainage system
6.11 Conservation (TPO) – Note that the proposed area defined for the new touring pitches is set within the bottom of a shallow valley and as such these new pitches do have the potential to have a visual impact on the surrounding area.
However, a landscaping scheme has been submitted which, I would suggest, will help to screen the new touring sites in time. The development of this planting will not be a quick process and will take time to establish. Although I do note that relatively quick growing species have been proposed with a relatively high planting density.
Should it be required, I would suggest that it may be worth while considering a planning condition in connection with the submitted landscaping schemes outlining that the soil structure should be analysed prior to the planting and ameliorated accordingly.
6.12 Highways Agency – No comment
6.13 Local Highway Authority – Comments:
• The visibility splay required is 99m not 90m as stated in the Transport Assessment (TA). • Does not support the promotion of the carriageway being reduced in width to 4.5 metres due to the towing of vehicles • Suggests the applicant consider a mini roundabout at the junction of the site access with Mill Road, which would reduce the vehicle visibility requirements and the use of traffic calming measures
Development Control Committee 15 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 • The proposed “Local Routing Strategy” is noted and should be conditioned if planning permission is granted Concludes by advising that before the application is determined further details should therefore be submitted
6.14 NCC Rights of Way –Withdrew their initial objections and make the following comments:
There are public rights of way, Footpath PG2 and the Nene Way surrounding the development. • Footpath PG2, which forms part of the long distance walking route the Nene Way, travels across the access to the proposed development and over Mill Stream and the Weir. The footpath has an awarded width of approx 1 metre however this is not relevant to this part of the footpath and the width should be determined by the boundaries on the ground • The minimum width of footpaths is 1.5m on field edged paths according to the Rights of Way Act 1990. There is concern where the pedestrians will share the access to the caravan site and safety from increased traffic. How is the applicant going to mitigate the impact of increased traffic from walkers as the Transport Statement only refers to mitigation for vehicles. • Suggest the provision of a segregated footway at least along the access road where it shares with footpath PG2, if not potentially to meet the highway Mill Road/Main Street. This would encourage visitors to access the villages of Nassington and Yarwell local services. • The cumulative impacts of this and the other application ( ref 09/01330/FUL) need to be considered. • What refuge or separation is there for vehicles and pedestrians on the bridges • Suggest the provision of a 1.2 m high fence along the gardens of new properties that border the public highway • The Nassington and Yarwell circular walk goes along the footpath. Would wish the caravan site to promote this walk and have available a supply of the leaflets. • The usual construction requirements should be followed • There needs to be provision for cycle parking
6.15 Ramblers – No comment
6.16 Crime Prevention Design Advisor – No comment
7 Evaluation 7.1 The following issues are relevant to the determination of this application: Principle of development, the planning history of the site, design and visual impact, effect on setting of the Mill, which is a listed building, impact on neighbour amenity, the impact on ecology and flood risk. However before looking at these issues it is important for Members to be fully aware of actually what the proposal is for.
7.2 Clarification of the scope of the application 7.2.1 The application, which is to be considered, does not relate to the existing caravan site, but is for an extension to the caravan site to the west. Whilst the existing site may have been used in an un-intensive way in the past, there is a lawful development certificate in place for the use of the site without limitation or condition. Under planning there is no limit on the number of caravans that can be placed upon the existing site which extends to 10.92 Ha and is identified on the plan by hatching. Therefore whilst the plans show 175 static caravans within the existing site which is far more than is on the site currently, these do not require planning permission.
7.2.2 The only control that the Council has is under the site licence, which is a separate piece of legislation, the purpose of which is to ensure the health and safety of the occupiers of the caravans.
Development Control Committee 16 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 7.2.3 The information submitted as part of the application proposes160 touring caravans, together with tents, on the planning application site.
7.3 Planning Policy
7.3.1 PPS7 indicates in paragraph 39 that: “In considering planning policies and proposals for static holiday and touring caravan parks and holiday chalet development, planning authorities should: (i) carefully weigh the objective of providing adequate facilities and sites with the need to protect landscapes and environmentally sensitive sites, and examine the scope for relocating any existing, visually or environmentally-intrusive sites away from sensitive areas, or for relocation away from sites prone to flooding and coastal erosion. (ii) where appropriate ( eg in popular holiday areas) set out policies in LDDs on the provision of new holiday and touring caravan sites and chalet development, and on the expansion and improvement of existing sites and developments ( eg to improve layouts and provide better landscaping) and: (iii) ensure that new or expanded sites are not prominent in the landscape and that any visual intrusion is minimised by effective high quality screening”.
7.3.2 The Government’s “Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism” refers to PPS7 and states:
“Planners should carefully weigh the objective of providing adequate facilities and sites with the need to protect landscapes and environmentally sensitive sites. They should examine the scope for relocating any existing visually or environmentally-intrusive parks away from sensitive areas, or for re-location away from sites prone to flooding or coastal erosion. However, the high land values associated with holiday parks, the cost of infrastructure and possible planning issues relating to a proposed site may make such proposals impractical and unviable. This advice recognises that planning provides an opportunity to improve the attractiveness of such developments to those who visit them and as features in the landscape. The Environmental Code for Holiday Parks, Caravan and Camping Sites, and Park Home Estates advises park owners on fulfilling the industry’s commitment to environmental protection. Holiday Parks: Caring for the Environment – a guide to good practice (1991), published by the Countryside Commission, remains an important reference document that includes many case studies directing holiday park operators toward best practice. Planners should work with owners and developers of sites to ensure that the most is made of these opportunities. Where there is an identified demand for new or expanded sites, planners should ensure that environmental impacts and impacts on visual amenity are minimised. New sites that are close to existing settlements and other services will generally be more sustainable as some local services may be accessed by means other than by car. Similarly caravan storage facilities that are close to existing settlements may have less adverse impact and be more sustainable. However, there may be valid reasons for extending or improving existing holiday parks that are not be located close to existing settlements by virtue of their support for successful local businesses and the provision of employment. Authorities should also consider how the proposal will affect tourism in the area, particularly in terms of its economic and environmental impacts.”
7.3.3 The Regional Plan notes that 90% of tourists to the Region are day visitors spending only small amounts per trip and that therefore increasing the proportion of visitors who stay overnight is a priority. Policy 42 sets out Regional Priorities for Tourism, highlighting the need to ensure that tourism growth maximizes economic benefit whilst minimizing the impact on the environment and local amenity.
7.3.4 Overall then, subject to the need for the tourist accommodation and the contribution it will make to the local economy, and the environmental impact there is policy support for the proposal.
Development Control Committee 17 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 7.4 Need for the Development and Economic Benefits 7.4.1 The submitted Statement “ The Holiday Parks Market-An Overview”, indicates that caravaning is one of the fastest growing leisure industries.
7.4.2 It highlights that there are only 11 holiday parks within a 40 mile radius of Yarwell, all outside the District. The nearest parks are:
• Road End Farm Stamford ( 9 miles); 20 camping pitches • Ferry Meadows Caravan Club Sit Peterborough (10 miles); 254 pitches • Northey Lodge, Peterborough (15 miles); 74 pitches for touring caravans and motorhomes • Wing hall, Wing, Rutland(15 miles); 200 pitches, camping and lodges • Rutland camping and caravan Site, Oakham (18 miles); 60 pitches • Deepings caravan park, market Deeping ( 18 miles) 129 mixed static and touring pitches. All the rest are more than 20 miles away.
7.4.3 It goes on to indicate that research work into the local economic value of holiday parks suggests that each static holiday caravan can contribute approximately £26,000 of tourism revenue per annum into the local economy and that each touring caravan approximately £6,500 per annum. It therefore estimates that once fully developed the caravan park could be generating £5.4 m per annum into the local economy, and that the application proposal itself would generate £600,000.
7.4.4 Local residents have however suggested that currently the site does not make a significant contribution to local facilities. Within Yarwell itself the only local facility is a public house. Improving the footbridge could help to provide a more attractive route into the village at least during daylight hours. This has been raised with the applicant who has responded by advising that the ownership of this bridge is being clarified. Nassington is identified in the Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan as a Smaller Service Centre. It has a number of small specialist shops which could benefit from the proposed expansion of the caravan site.
7.5 Visual Impact on the Landscape 7.5.1The application is accompanied by a document entitled “ Visual Assessment and Landscape Proposals”. This explains that a desk top study using computer simulation was undertaken to determine the visual envelope of the proposal and that following this field work was carried out from public viewpoints to determine where the proposal could be viewed from.
7.5.2 The report identifies that the site is within the Nene Valley Landscape Character Area.
The conclusion of the report is that views towards the site will be fairly restricted from a number of directions due to topography and intervening vegetation. It concludes that there are no views from any of the surrounding settlements due to the landform. The following are the directions/properties where it is concluded, by the report, that the proposal will be viewed from:
• 7 properties on the western side of Mill Road, at the southern edge of Yarwell will have clear and uninterrupted elevated views of the site. It is suggested that the proposed landscaping will mitigate the effects of the development. • A couple of the newly constructed properties at Waterside will have restricted but elevated views across the development. It is suggested that the impacts will be limited due to intervening vegetation and the existing caravan site and that the proposed landscaping will screen development.
Development Control Committee 18 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 • Residents of properties at New Lane End Stibbington will experience material impacts. The report suggests that these properties will be less impacted than those on Mill Road as they are set back from the road and often in gardens with significant planting. It also notes that the single storey nature of many of these buildings means that they will be less affected and also that they are more affected by the existing site and that the proposed screening could improve the situation. It is suggested that the proposed new planting will help screen the development. • The occupiers of Headlands, Elton Road are relatively close and in an elevated position and will be affected. It is suggested that the proposed new planting will help screen the development. • Users of Footpath PG2 The Nene Way will be affected. It is noted that whilst this is closer to the site than the houses in Mill Road it is at a lower level and that the existing and approved development will provide screening. • River users will be affected however the existing/approved development already alters their perception. • The only roads effected are Elton Road and Mill Lane. It is noted that there is no footpath along Elton Road and there is an existing hedgerow. The conclusion is that the impact on both of these roads is not significant.
7.5.3 The document goes on to advise that the landscape scheme has been designed to screen the existing/approved development as well as the approved development. Paragraph 6.3 notes that 6700 new native trees and shrubs will be planted comprising:
• Feathered Trees 1.75-2.4m high and bare rooted 285 • Shrubs 1.5m high 500 • Shrubs, whips and transplants ( 400-900m high) 5990
7.5.4 Three broad categories of planting are proposed: • New woodland planting – along the eastern boundary of the site • Shrub belt/informal hedge planting – A number of groups of planting are proposed along the northern and southern boundaries of the site • New boundary hedgerow – along the western boundary of the existing site.
7.5.5 The submitted photomontages are not particularly clear as they do not show the location of the proposed caravans. Further information was requested. Plans were submitted marking the approximate location of the units with the red line, which do not show clearly the impact that the proposed units would have. Notwithstanding this, it is possible to make an assessment of the principle of stationing touring caravans on the site. Due to the presence of the existing/approved site, the extension of the site would be unlikely to have an adverse impact on the landscape in the longer term. Although the Council’s Tree Officer does note that the development of this planting will not be a quick process and will take time to establish but that relatively quick growing species have been proposed with a relatively high planting density. It is not recommended that the application should be refused on visual amenity grounds or on the effect that the proposal would have on the landscape.
7.5.6 The submitted layout plan appears to show the caravans sited very close together and this is a concern of Environmental Health. Further information was therefore requested as there was concern that there would little spacing between the caravans, particularly when the towing vehicles are in place. For visual reasons it would be beneficial to have more space between the caravans.
Development Control Committee 19 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 7.5.7 One local resident has drawn attention to the poor quality of soil locally and suggested that this could inhibit the establishment of planting. The Council’s Tree Officer advises that a planning condition could be imposed to address this concern requiring analysis of the soil structure prior to planting and the use of amelioration measures.
7.6 Flood Risk
7.6.1 The Environment Agency objected in principle to the proposal in their original comments, advising that the site lies within the functional floodplain (Floodzone 3b) with an annual probability of flooding of 1 in 20 or greater and that the proposed use is a “ more vulnerable” use as defined in PPS25. They referred to table D1 and D3 which make it clear that the type of development proposed is not compatible with Floodzone 3b and advised therefore that the proposal should not be permitted.
7.6.2 The applicant questioned this advice and submitted further information by letters dated 22 November 2009 and December 2009 referring to advice in PPS25 and the accompanying Good Practise Guide, to a project within Huntingdonshire, which it was suggested had raised similar issues and to the submitted Flood Risk Assessment which states: “Yarwell Mill Holiday Park receives Flood Warnings issued by the Environment Agency for the Nene at Yarwell. These warnings are issued when “trigger levels” in the river at Islip and Lilford( 64KM and 47KM upstream of the development site respectively) are exceeded, providing ten hours warning of potential flooding. There should therefore be sufficient advance warning to ensure adequate public safety for the staff and occupants of the Holiday Park”.
Reference was made to the fact that the holiday park already has a defined flood risk strategy and has the means and opportunity to cause the application site to be vacated by complete departure from the park and/or into a compound above the identified flood level. The applicant also advises that the ten hours response time is from the point of a flood warning being triggered and issued, and that flood advisories will have been issued before this. The park would therefore have deterred pre-booked customers and warned those already on site in accordance with the evacuation strategy.
7.6.3 Further advice was therefore sought from the Environment Agency, who have maintained their objection and have also advised that the case in Huntingdonshire is not comparable.
7.6.4 The whole principle behind PPS25 is to direct development to areas with less risk of flooding.
7.6.5 The Good Practice Guide which accompanies PPS25 includes a section on the Functional Floodplain, which is “land where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood”. PPS25 makes it clear that only water compatible and essential infrastructure are suitable development types in the floodplain. The proposed use is not to be permitted. There is no allowance for such development to be permitted even if the sequential and exception test is passed as would be the case if the proposal were located in an area with a lower risk of flooding.
Development Control Committee 20 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 7.6.6 The use of land for the stationing of caravans is a change of use application and whilst PPS25 states in paragraph D15 that change of uses should not be subject to sequential and exception tests( but still need a site specific flood risk assessment). The Good Practice Guide however makes it clear that this is not the case for the use of land as caravan sites referring to paragraph D19 in PPS25, which recognises that land used for caravans gives rise to special problems in relation to flooding. This indicates that the instability of such structures places the occupants at special risk and that they are likely to be occupied at times when flood risk is likely to be high, although it does note that touring caravans are less likely to be occupied at times of flooding and that they are “more vulnerable” uses whilst static caravans are “highly vulnerable” uses.. Therefore if the application site was within an area with less risk of flooding then there would be a need for a sequential and exception test however as set out in paragraph 7.5.5 such development is not to be permitted within the functional floodplain.
7.6.7 The Environment Agency advise that the site within Huntingdonshire is not comparable. They advise that the application to which the applicant is referring to is for the variation of conditions of a previous planning permission. They further advise that in comparison the Yarwell Mill application is for full planning permission to create an extra 133 touring caravan pitches and increase the site area by 3.5 hectares and that there are highly significant differences between the two sites, for example, the Yarwell Mill site has watercourses on all four sides, with only one means of access and egress, across a watercourse in a flood event.
7.6.8 The applicant had suggested that the Environment Agency had just objected on grounds of principle without considering the circumstances of the case. From the above advice this would certainly not appear to be the case. It has to be remembered that this is an extension to an existing caravan park, which has a site license for a maximum of 175 static caravans. There must clearly be a limit to how many vehicles can exit the site safely. On the basis of the advice received from the Environment Agency it is therefore recommended that the application be refused.
7.6.9 Whilst the applicant has questioned this and highlighted to officers that the Council does not have to take the advice of a statutory consultee in a case such as this where Policy advice is clear, that such development should not be permitted in the functional floodplain and the Environment Agency are highlighting the poor access and egress to the site and the issue is safety, this would be an inappropriate course of action. Members are also reminded that if they are minded to grant planning permission contrary to the advice of the Environment Agency the application would need to be referred to the Government Office.
7.7 Effect on Wildlife
7.7.1 An Extended Phase 1 habitat survey accompanies the application. This notes that there is one statutory site, Old Sulehay SSSI, which is 1.3km to the North West of the application site. It also notes that there are 11 non-statutory sites within 2km of the application site. One site Yarwell Mill Lake Local Wildlife Site, is situated within the caravan site itself. This site is designated due to its “diverse marginal vegetation and breeding waterfowl despite heavy human activity. This extends the Nene Valley habitat corridor and makes a good invertebrate site, particularly for dragonflies and damselflies”. Yarwell Gravel Pit Local Wildlife Site is located adjacent to the northern boundary of the site. Members will be aware that Local Wildlife Sites have county level importance for wildlife interest.
Development Control Committee 21 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 7.7.2 Details of protected species within 2km of the site are noted within the submitted document. A Field Survey was also carried out and the results of this are noted in the report.
Birds- a range of bird species associated with the aquatic, hedgerow and adjacent woodland habitats were recorded within the site.
Water voles - No signs of water vole were found within the site nor have any been recorded within 2km of the site. The report does however note that the River Nene, the millstream and their banks does provide suitable habitat for water voles. It is however noted that the watercourses are not to be disturbed by the proposal and that therefore if water vole are present there should be no impact.
Otters - Review of the records, showed that one otter had been recorded within 1.3km of the site. No evidence of the presence of otters was found within the site. The report notes that the watercourses within the site provide sub-optimal habitat to support breeding otters. It does however note that the millstream and River Nene could provide suitable habitat for commuting otters, which could be affected by the installation of lighting and the proximity of caravans to the watercourses.
Great Crested Newts – The report notes that the site does not provide a suitable habitat for great crested newts.
Bats – Whilst there are 9 records of bats within 2km of the site the trees which will potentially be affected by the proposed works are immature or semi-mature, and were assessed as having no potential to support roosting bats. The report therefore concludes that the proposal would be unlikely to have an adverse impact on roosting bats but notes that depending upon the proximity of artificial lighting close to the water courses, lighting has the potential to disturb foraging bats.
Badgers - There are 11 records of badgers within 2Km of the site. No signs of badgers were found during the survey and the report concludes that it is unlikely that there would be an adverse impact on badgers.
7.7.3 The report makes the following recommendations:
• Any tree removal is between late August and mid-February, in order to avoid the bird breeding season. If removal has to be at this time then the trees should be surveyed for nesting birds before work is carried out. • If works will disturb banks or will be within 5m of the banks a further water vole survey should be undertaken. • Lighting close to the watercourse should be avoided where possible. If lighting is required close to watercourses it is recommended that down lighting and cut off beams are used to reduce the potential for disturbance to foraging bats and commuting otters.
7.7.4 Natural England initially objected to the application. Further information was supplied to Natural England, which indicated that there would be no removal of semi-mature trees, and that existing vegetation would be supplemented, that lighting would be low level shielded bollard lighting. On the basis of this, they withdrew their objection subject to the imposition of conditions in respect of the use of native species, lighting to be low level, works or tree removal to be outside the bird breeding season.
7.7.5 The Bat Group and Badger Group have confirmed that they have no objection to the application
Development Control Committee 22 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 7.7.6 The Wildlife Trust have expressed concern that, within the “Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report” document it states in Paragraph 4.2.1 that “There is the potential for indirect adverse impacts to the lake as a result of the increase in recreational activity as a result of increased visitor numbers.”
Having made this statement, the Application neither provides any further examination or explanation of such adverse impacts, nor, crucially, does it attempt to provide any mitigation measures in turn. They advise therefore that further information is required. In the absence of this information, it is considered that the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the Yarwell Mill Local Wildlife Site. However, as the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey has been prepared for the existing site as well as the proposal for additional touring caravans, further information has been requested, as the application site, apart from a section of the access road, is not close to the LWS.
7.8 Effect on Highway Safety
7.8.1 The Local Highway Authority expressed concern about the proposal and it is understood has been in consultation with the applicant. Notwithstanding this the applicant was advised, that if the requirements of the Highway Authority were likely to require significant amendment to the application which would require re-consultation there would not be time to carry this out. At the time of writing the report amended highway access details had not been submitted.
7.8.2 Local Residents and the Parish Councils raise highway issues as a major concern.
7.8.3 Highways recommend that a condition be imposed in respect of the proposed routing agreement. It is interesting to note that existing users of the caravan site do not always use this route. Routing agreements can also be very difficult to control.
7.8.4 On the basis of the submission, it is therefore recommended that the application be refused on highway safety grounds. However, if the applicant reaches agreement with the Local Highway Authority this reason may need to be reconsidered.
7.9 Effect on Right of Way
7.9.1 The Nene Way long distance route runs through the site. It is the access route to the site for the touring caravans which effects this right of way not the site where the change of use is proposed itself. It runs along parts of the access road into the caravan park but not along its full length. The most likely point of conflict is at the front of the Mill building where space is particularly restricted. Whilst Rights of Way suggest the use of segregated footpaths, there is insufficient space to provide these. In addition, as the footpath runs along the access, in part, to the existing caravan site, it would be unreasonable to require the provision of a segregated footpath for the additional 160 touring caravans.
7.10 Effect on Residential Amenity
7.10.1 The additional car fumes and noise that would be generated by the proposed touring caravans would not have such a harmful effect on residential amenity such that refusal of the application on these grounds would be justified.
7.10.2 Overlooking of properties in Mill Road from the road would also not be so harmful as to justify refusal of the application.
Development Control Committee 23 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 7.11 Future Intentions
7.11.1 Whilst the future intentions of the applicant are not a material planning consideration, particularly whether there will be a proposal for a club house, it is of concern that the scheme does not include the necessary amenity facilities that, under the site license, will be a requirement for the proposed touring caravans. Inadequate information has therefore been submitted to fully assess the proposal for the touring caravans.
7.12 Drainage
7.12.1 The submitted information explains that the drainage for the existing caravan park is to a Biodisc treatment plant. It is explained that consideration was given to installing a pumped main connection to the mains or local treatment works this was ruled out for technical reasons. The mains in the immediate area would not be adequate to carry the additional throughput and a connection to the works would involve crossing a road and gas main. Instead a further waste water treatment system is proposed which would be located in the same area as the existing system. This could either replace the existing system or run in series.
7.13 Effect on Setting of Listed Mill
7.13.1 The proposed touring caravan site is sited some distance from the Mill and would not have an impact upon its setting.
8 Other issues 8.1 Crime and Disorder -This application does not raise any significant issues 8.2 Access for Disabled –N/A
9 Recommendation 9.1 It is recommended that the application be REFUSED.
Conditions/Reasons
1. Touring caravans are defined in PPS25 as a "more vulnerable" use and PPS25 indicates that they should not be permitted within the functional floodplain (Floodzone 3b) within which the site lies. The proposal would therefore conflict with the principles contained within PPS25 in that development should be directed to Floodzones with the least probability of flooding. The proposal would conflict with the purposes of floodplain which is "land where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood. In particular the one access and egress to the site would represent a particular flood risk for users of the caravan park and also its surroundings. .
2. The proposed changes to the highway contained within the Transport Assessment would not adequately mitigate against the increased vehicular traffic using the site, the proposed visibility splays would also not be adequate. The proposal would therefore be harmful to highway safety.
Informatives
1. The drawings to which this decision relates are as follows: Drawing no.s 392 - FIG 5780 503 D 5780 503 E Received by the Local planning authority on 20.08.2009
5780 503 G Received by the Local planning authority on 13.10.2009
Development Control Committee 24 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 Committee Report Committee Date : 6 January 2010 Printed: 17 December 2009
Case Officer Sue Wheatley EN/09/01330/FUL
Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 20 August 2009 2 November 2009 28 December 2009 Prebendal Yarwell
Applicant Vermont Properties Ltd - Mr M Best
Agent Rural And Urban Planning Consultancy - Mr I Butter
Location Caravan Site Mill Road Yarwell Peterborough Northamptonshire PE8 6PS
Proposal Conversion of farm buildings into two holiday accommodation units including car parking and alterations to access
This application is reported to the Development Control Committee because the proposed development exceeds the threshold in the scheme of delegation of 1 new dwelling in the open countryside.
1 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 The application be GRANTED subject to conditions.
2 The Proposal 2.1 The application proposes the conversion of existing former farm buildings into 2 holiday lets.
2.2 The submitted building survey identifies that there are 6 barns:
Barn A – 2 storey with open frontage used for general storage Barn B – single storey with open frontage Barn C – single storey fully enclosed storage accommodation Barn D – single storey , full enclosed storage with loft space Barn E – large single storey ( two storey in height) fully enclosed storage accommodation Barn F – single storey fully enclosed storage accommodation with loft space
2.3 It notes that the barns appear to be in excess of 100 years old, and highlights that they are constructed from a mixture of materials. The majority of the walls are stone, however roofing is a mixture of slate, clay tiles, corrugated and profiled metal sheeting. A steel framed structure with corrugated asbestos cement sheeting is located within the centre of the barns and this is to be demolished.
2.4 One 3 bedroomed unit plus one two bedroomed unit is proposed together with a family/games room. On the whole the scheme uses existing openings and maintains the character of what were obviously previously farm buildings.
Development Control Committee 25 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 2.5 The application is accompanied by the following documents: • Barn Conversion Proposals • Supporting Statement Including Planning Statement • Design and Access Statement • Survey for bats • Building Survey • Impact and Justification Statement • Sustainable Design SPD Checklist • Statement of Community Involvement • Flood Risk Assessment • Flood Risk Assessment Supplementary Statement
3 The Site and Surroundings 3.1 The buildings are located close to the entrance of Yarwell Caravan Park, within a group of other existing buildings. The nearby Mill is Grade II listed. Before the application was submitted the Conservation Officer advised that the buildings in question were not curtilage listed buildings to this mill. A public footpath runs adjacent to the site.
4 Policy Considerations 4. 1 Planning Policy Guidance Notes/Statements PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 – Housing PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS9 - Nature conservation PPG13 – Transport PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment. Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism
4.2 Regional Spatial Strategy 8: East Midlands Regional Plan March 2009 Policy 24 Regional Priorities for Rural Diversification Policy 27 Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment Policy 42 Regional Priorities for Tourism
4.3 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 – Strengthening the Network of Settlement Policy 9 – Distribution and Location of Development Policy 10 - Distribution of Housing. Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles
4.4 East Northamptonshire District Local Plan AG4- Reuse of buildings in the open countryside
4.5 Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan (Inspectors Modifications 8 July 2009) The Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan went through an examination process in 2008 and 2009. Following this examination on 8 July 2009 the Inspector found the document sound. However, as yet the Council has not adopted the Plan as a Development Plan Document as such the Council is still treating the document as emerging policy. Policy 1 – Settlement Roles Policy 9 – Buildings of Local Architectural or Historic Interest Policy 23 – General Approach to Rural Buildings
4.6 Supplementary Planning Guidance- None
Development Control Committee 26 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 5 Relevant Planning History 5.1 02/01010/FUL – Conversion of water mill to 6 residential units. Permitted 5 November 2003. 5.2 02/01108/LBC - Conversion of water mill to 6 residential units. Permitted 5 November 2003. 5.3 03/00827/LDP – Use of land as a caravan site without condition or limitation. Refused 8 April 2004. 5.4 09/01329/FUL – Use of land for the stationing of touring caravans and tents. Pending consideration.
6 Consultations and Representations
6.1 Neighbours – 7 letters of objection, the concerns being: • Traffic • Noise • Effect on landscape • Not possible to use the footpath as a safe means of escape • Remarkable that there is no evidence of bats. There were bats on the site. Have they been forced away by intrusive lighting and noise? • A condition must be imposed in respect of the swallows nest • Object to the changes proposed to the junction • Comments made in relation to the application for the extension to the caravan park are applicable
6.2 Petition with 64 names, which states: “Aim of the Petition. To stop further erosion of the Nene valley, Countryside and wildlife due to further development at Yarwell Caravan Site. Plus objection to increased traffic using local countryside roads and lanes to access the site”.
6.3 Objection from County Councillor:
• Flooding • Effect on landscape • Traffic increase • Site is of no benefit to local businesses
6.4 Yarwell Parish Council – the planned road access alterations are not sufficient. It should be altered to the required visibility splays 4.5 x 90m as shown on the plan to accommodate safely the planned increase in traffic.
6.5 Elton Parish Council – express concern about the impact of increased traffic that could be generated through the village.
6.6 Natural England – No objection subject to the imposition of conditions in relation to swallows and bats
6.7 Environment Agency - the flood risk/surface water drainage aspects of the proposed development falls within cell E4 of their Flood Zone matrix and should be considered in accordance with the Environment Agency’s National Flood Risk Standing Advice.
6.8 NCC Rights of Way – No objection in principle. Footpath PG2, part of the Nene Way surrounds the development. The footpath has an awarded width of approximately 1 metre. There is concern that the new parking area could affect the footpath. Vehicles should not be parked on this footpath. A 1.2m high post and rail fence should be erected along the gardens of the properties. The usual construction requirements are applicable.
Development Control Committee 27 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 6.9 Ramblers – No comment
6.10 Crime Prevention – No objection/comment
6.11 – Northants Bat Group – No objection subject to imposition of condition in relation to swallows
7 Evaluation 7.1 The following issues are relevant to the determination of this application: Principle of development, design and visual impact, effect on setting of nearby listed building, impact on neighbour amenity, highway safety and the impact on ecology.
7.2 Principle of development: 7.2.1 PPS7 and policies in the Regional Plan generally support the development of tourism accommodation. This is a logical place for further tourist accommodation as it is related to an existing tourist use; the Yarwell Mill Caravan Park.
7.2.2 PPS7 states that local planning authorities should plan for and support the provision of general tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres. It further states that local planning authorities should allow all appropriate facilities needed to enhance visitors’ enjoyment, and/or improve the financial viability, of a particular countryside feature or attraction. In addition the Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism, which provides additional supporting guidance to PPS7, confirms that the preference should be to identify town centre sites wherever possible, in line with the PPS6 sequential approach. However, when the accommodation caters for those who seek to enjoy the natural environment and outdoor recreation, accommodation may be better located in a rural area, in or at the edge of the centre of a village or small town. It further states that facilities for visitors are vital for the development of rural areas as it can help to: revitalise market towns and villages; support important rural services and facilities and underwrite environmental schemes and improvements to the built and natural environment.
7.2.3 In principle therefore the conversion of redundant agricultural buildings to holiday units would be acceptable.
7.2.4 Policy AG4 of the local plan and Policy 23 of the emerging Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan further support the principle of the adaptation of rural buildings for employment generating tourism, including tourist accommodation, particularly as the existing buildings are of some architectural merit.
7.2.5 Policy AG4 does however indicate that permission will only be granted for the re-use of rural buildings in the countryside if the form, bulk and general design of the scheme is in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. The following criteria attached to the Policy also need to be met:
(i) extensive alterations, re-building and large scale extensions are not to be permitted (ii) the submission of structural surveys are required (iii)if permission is to be granted permitted development rights are to be removed (iv) proposals which would have an adverse impact on the amenities of surrounding land uses are not to be permitted (v)detailed drawings are required (vi) the local highway network must be capable of accommodating the traffic generated.
7.2.6 The proposed 2 bedroomed unit is to be a combination of barns A, B and C. The three bedroomed unit barnsD, E and F. The freestanding games room is barn F.
Development Control Committee 28 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 7.2.7 The structural survey notes the following:
“the signs of structural movement appear to be relatively historical and longstanding, as considered to be fairly typical for this type and age of barn. There are no recent signs of structural distress to suggest movement is on going and progressive.”
7.2.8 It goes on to state:
“In summary, the barns are suffering from a range of issues, which would appear to be primarily concerned with a lack of maintenance and poor workmanship historically. ….Structural distortion to barns A, B, E, and F, comprising cracking, leaning walls and distorted lintels is noted variously. Barn B should be completely taken down and rebuilt and structural repairs are required to Barns A, E, and F…”
There is therefore no suggestion that the barns ( apart from Barn B which is very small) cannot be converted to the proposed use.
7.2.9 In terms of alterations to the external appearance, apart from Barn E, which is the largest barn, all roof coverings will need to be replaced. Whilst, this is a relatively significant alteration, the replacement of profiled sheet roofs with slate, would be beneficial and ensure that the buildings remain in keeping with their surroundings. A condition is recommended removing permitted development rights to ensure that the simple barn like character of the buildings is retained.
7.2.10 The submitted plans do not show whether the two holiday let units are to be provided with their own amenity space. A condition is therefore recommended in respect of this, together with a condition removing permitted development rights for the erection of means of enclosure.
7.3 Design and Visual Impact
7.3.1 The proposed alterations to the buildings will help improve the appearance of the buildings; the removal of the modern existing building is welcomed. The proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the landscape.
7.4 Effect on the Setting of the Mill 7.4.1 The proposed improvements to the buildings and the removal of the modern existing building will have a positive effect on the setting of the mill.
7.5 Neighbouring amenity: 7.5.1 The Mill has planning permission for conversion into 6 residential units and it is understood that implementation of this permission has commenced although it would appear that the units are not yet occupied. The conversion of the barns to holiday units are far enough away ( 35 metres) from the Mill to ensure that they would not be harmful to the future residents of the Mill.
7.6 Ecology 7.6.1 The submitted bat survey found no evidence of bats apart from a single dropping, in a part of the buildings where roosting was not possible. It concludes therefore that bats do not constrain the development. This view is supported by Natural England and the Northants Bat Group.
7.6.2 Natural England do however advise that a condition should be imposed in relation to swallows.
Development Control Committee 29 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 7.7. Drainage and Flooding
7.7.1 The Flood Risk Assessment Supplementary Statement advises that the majority of the buildings proposed for conversion fall within Flood Zone1, although part of the eastern end of the main barn appears to fall within Flood Zone 2 ( Medium Probability) and the detached barn ( which is to be used as a games room may fall within Flood Zone3( High Probability). It identifies that in both cases there are pedestrian access points which allow direct egress from the buildings into Flood Zone 1. It indicates that the carparking areas for the barns is located wholly within Flood zone1.
7.7.2 The Environment Agency advise that the flood risk/surface water drainage aspects of the proposed development falls within cell E4 of their Flood Zone matrix and should be considered in accordance with the Environment Agency’s National Flood Risk Standing Advice.
7.7.3 Cell E4 relates to more vulnerable development, up to 1Ha in size, in flood zone. This indicates that: • The Environment Agency objects to planning applications which fail to meet floor level standards. • The Environment Agency objects to planning applications for single storey buildings that fail to meet the standards for safe refuge • LPAs must look for assurance that surface water will be managed • LPAs must look for assurance that resilience/resistance and evacuation procedures have been addressed • LPAs must look for assurance that the SFRA has been referred to. • It also indicates that the sequential test will need to be applied unless the proposal is for change of use.
7.7.4 Whilst the submitted Flood Risk Assessment Supplementary Statement provides details of ground levels within the park- these are for the caravan site as a whole and are not specific to the buildings which are the subject of this application. No information is provided of finished floor levels. Further clarification has been sought from the applicant and will be reported on the Update Sheet. It is possible that an additional condition will be required in respect of finished floor levels.
7.7.5 Both holiday let units will have accommodation at first floor level and will therefore provide safe refuge.
7.7.6 The submitted Flood Risk Assessment Supplementary Statement does not provide any information in relation to surface water drainage. This document, the applicant advises, is to be read with Revised Flood Risk that was produced for the application for the caravan park. This proposes that surface water drainage is to be as existing; infiltration/percolation however the possibility of using Sustainable urban Drainage System (SUDS) is noted. This FRA however has been prepared specifically for the extension to the caravan site and it is therefore recommended that if planning permission were to be granted a condition should be imposed in respect of surface water drainage.
7.7.7 The submitted Flood Risk Assessment Supplementary Statement refers to the established flood warning and management system that is already in place for the caravan park. A notice has to be displayed at the site entrance providing a warning about the risk of flooding. A leaflet is to be provided. The operator is to be linked to the Environment Agency’s automatic flood warning system. The flood warning and evacuation procedures currently in place for Yarwell Mill Holiday Park stipulate that in the event of a flood warning the Site Manager will prevent access to the caravan site and request occupants to vacate the site. They would also telephone all pre-booked guests to inform them of the situation.
Development Control Committee 30 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 7.8 Highway Safety
7.8.1 The Local Highway Authority do not object to the application. Whilst the comments of objectors are noted it is unlikely that the amount of traffic that would be generated by two holiday let units would be harmful to highway safety.
8 Other issues 8.1 Crime and Disorder -This application does not raise any significant issues 8.3 Access for Disabled –This will be covered by building regulations
9 Recommendation 9.1 It is recommended that the application be GRANTED subject to the following conditions.
Conditions/Reasons
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Statutory requirement under provision of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. Prior to the commencement of development details of all external materials shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and development shall be carried out in accordance with these approved details. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no alterations or extensions shall be made to the holiday let units hereby permitted without the prior written approval of the local planning authority. Reason: To protect the simple agricultural character of the barns
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no means of enclosure to the holiday let units hereby permitted shall be erected without the prior written approval of the local planning authority. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
5. The holiday lets shall not be occupied as a persons sole, or main place of residence and the owners/operators shall maintain an up to date register of the names of all owners/occupiers of individual units on the site, and of their main home addresses, and shall make this register available at all reasonable times to officers of the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the approved holiday accommodation is not used for permanent residential occupation as this would be contrary to the advice contained within PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.
6. If development works are not completed prior to the arrival of migratory swallows ( approx late March-April) then access to the buildings shall be restricted to deter swallows from entering the buildings and attempting to construct a nest. Reason: Should nest building take place, an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 may occur if the birds are disturbed which would delay development.
Development Control Committee 31 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 7. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme to provide swallow nests shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To compensate for the swallow nest that will be lost as a result of the proposed development.
Informatives
1. The drawings to which this decision relates are as follows: Drawing no's 300 C 500 C 505 A 227 B 102 A 103 A 228 B 225 A 226 A 101 100 601 C 600 C Received by the Local Planning Authority on 21 August 2009 and 26 October 2009.
2. The reason for the above decision is because the development proposed accords with the Development Plan and other material considerations as required by Section 54a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In particular with: Policies in the Regional Spatial Strategy 8: East Midlands Regional Plan March 2009 Policy 24 Regional Priorities for Rural Diversification Policy 27 Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment Policy 42 Regional Priorities for Tourism Policies in the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 – Strengthening the Network of Settlement Policy 9 – Distribution and Location of Development Policy 10 - Distribution of Housing. Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles
Policies of the Northamptonshire Structure Plan: None relevant
Policies in the East Northamptonshire District Local Plan AG4- Reuse of buildings in the open countryside
Development Control Committee 32 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 Committee Report Committee Date : 6 January 2010 Printed: 17 December 2009
Case Officer Mr Rhys Bradshaw EN/09/01380/FUL
Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 3 September 2009 3 September 2009 29 October 2009 Lower Nene Ashton
Applicant OHL Ltd
Agent David Jackson
Location The Water Tower Ashton Wold Ashton Northamptonshire
Proposal To convert the building to a 3 bedroom fully self contained residential property for holiday use
This application is reported to the Development Control Committee because the proposed development exceeds the threshold in the scheme of delegation of 1 new dwelling in the open countryside.
1 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 The application be GRANTED subject to conditions.
2 The Proposal 2.1 The application proposes the conversion of an existing former water tower into a three bedroom holiday let.
2.2 The application predominantly involves internal alterations to create habitable rooms, although it is also proposed to insert additional windows into the northern and eastern elevations and erect a hipped roof porch to create an entrance to the building.
3 The Site and Surroundings 3.1 The building forms part of the Ashton Estate and is situated some two miles from the nearest public highway. The site is accessed via an access road leading from the village of Ashton and there is a further access from the Polebrook Road.
3.2 The water tower building is situated to the west of the stable block, which has recently been converted into holiday let accommodation.
3.3 Ashton Wold does not have a settlement boundary, either in the Local Plan or emerging Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan. The site is therefore considered to be situated in the open countryside.
4 Policy Considerations 4. 1 Planning Policy Guidance Notes/Statements PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 – Housing PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS9 - Nature conservation PPG13 – Transport Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism
Development Control Committee 33 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 4.2 Regional Spatial Strategy 8: East Midlands Regional Plan March 2009-08-13 Policy 24 Regional Priorities for Rural Diversification Policy 27 Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment Policy 42 Regional Priorities for Tourism
4.3 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 – Strengthening the Network of Settlement Policy 9 – Distribution and Location of Development Policy 10 - Distribution of Housing. Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles
4.4 East Northamptonshire District Local Plan AG4- Reuse of buildings in the open countryside
4.5 Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan Submission Document The Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan went through an examination process in 2008 and 2009. Following this examination on 8 July 2009 the Inspector found the document sound. However, as yet the Council has not adopted the Plan as a Development Plan Document as such the Council is still treating the document as emerging policy. Policy 1 – Settlement Roles Policy 9 – Buildings of Local Architectural or Historic Interest Policy 23 – General Approach to Rural Buildings
4.6 Supplementary Planning Guidance- None
5 Relevant Planning History 5.1 EN/09/01867/LBC – conversion to holiday lets. Pending.
5.2 EN/09/00940/FUL – Conversion of The Water Tower to a four bedroom dwelling. This application was refused under delegated powers as it was considered contrary to Policy 10 of the Core Spatial Strategy, which restricts new dwellings in the open countryside. Similarly, the application did not comply with saved policy AG4 of the Local Plan, which states that permission will be granted for the reuse of buildings in the countryside provided that there is no adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area and that the reuse is for employment, leisure, tourism or residential accommodation for agriculture. As purely residential accommodation, the proposal failed to comply with this policy.
5.3 Applications for the conversions of The Fire Engine building (09/00939/FUL) and The Apple Store (09/00941/FUL) to residential units were also refused for this reason.
6 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Neighbours – No comments received.
6.2 Parish Council: No comments received at the time of drafting the report. Any comments received will be reported to the Development Control Committee via the update.
6.3 Site Notice posted
6.4 Ramblers Association: No comment
6.5 NCC Highways – No comments received at the time of drafting the report. Any comments received will be reported to the Development Control Committee via the update.
Development Control Committee 34 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 6.6 Natural England – No objection. Operations that involve the destruction and removal of buildings shall not be undertaken during the months of March to August inclusive, except when approved in writing by the local planning authority. If breeding birds are discovered during work on the development, the relevant work should be halted immediately and Natural England notified.
6.7 Northants Bats Group – Many of the buildings on this estate are known as bat roosts. It is likely that this building is one, too. A bat survey needs to be undertaken, and, if signs of bats are found, then a Protected Species licence applied for before any works are contemplated. PPS9 applies to such situations. A condition at least of a bat survey and necessary licensing should be added. Some LPAs insist on the surveys before looking at the application.
6.8 ENC Arboricultural Officer – No objection
6.9 ENC Environmental Services – No objection
6.10 Northants Badger Group – No objection
6.11 Wildlife Trust: Comments – Application is close to designated wildlife site therefore care needs to be taken during construction operations and the subsequent use in order to protect the site and its wildlife from possible impacts.
6.12 ENC Conservation Officer: No objection
6.13 Site Notice posted
7 Evaluation 7.1 The following issues are relevant to the determination of this application:
7.2 Principle of development: 7.2.1 PPS7 and policies in the Regional Plan generally support the development of tourism accommodation. Although Ashton Wold is situated some 2.1km from Ashton, 1km from Polebrook and 3km from Oundle, there is potential access for tourists based at the proposed holiday lets, by cycling, walking or public transport to nearby facilities.
7.2.2 PPS7 states that local planning authorities should plan for and support the provision of general tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres. It further states that local planning authorities should allow all appropriate facilities needed to enhance visitors’ enjoyment, and/or improve the financial viability, of a particular countryside feature or attraction. In addition the Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism, which provides additional supporting guidance to PPS7 confirms that the preference should be to identify town centre sites wherever possible, in line with the PPS6 sequential approach. However, when the accommodation caters for those who seek to enjoy the natural environment and outdoor recreation, accommodation may be better located in a rural area, in or at the edge of the centre of a village or small town. It further states that facilities for visitors are vital for the development of rural areas as it can help to: revitalise market towns and villages; support important rural services and facilities and underwrite environmental schemes and improvements to the built and natural environment.
7.2.3 Overall, the conversion of redundant rural buildings to holiday units is considered acceptable. Policy AG4 of the local plan and Policy 23 of the emerging Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan further support the adaptation of rural buildings for employment generating tourism, including tourist accommodation, particularly given the benefit of retaining the existing building which is of architectural merit. This proposal accords with this policy.
Development Control Committee 35 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 7.3 Design and impact on the special architectural or historical interest listed building; 7.3.1 The majority of the proposed alterations are internal. The proposed additional window openings have kept to a minimum and have been designed to compliment the existing ground floor fenestration. These include a new opening on the western elevation of the tower and the replacement of eleven vents on all four sides of the tower with high level windows. The proposed porch to the front entrance is simple in form and design and would not detract from the character of the original water tower. Similarly, the new pitched roof to enclose the main part of the building will be largely hidden behind the existing parapet wall. The impact on the character and integrity of the listed building is therefore considered acceptable, as is the impact on the character of the wider Ashton Wold Estate
7.4 Neighbouring amenity: 7.4.1 No residential properties will be affected by the development given the siting.
8 Other issues 8.1 The property would retain 2 parking spaces, which is considered adequate given the accommodation provided.
8.2 Crime and Disorder - this application does not raise any significant issues
8.3 Access for Disabled – The access and internal arrangement has been designed in accordance with building regulations.
8.4 Protected Species – Whilst the Northants Bat Group has commented on the possibility of bats being present in this building and the need to take measures to protect them, the submitted survey has concluded that there is no potential for this building to be a roost site. The comments received from Natural England are noted. The proposal does not involve the demolition of structures.
9 Recommendation 9.1 It is recommended that the application be GRANTED subject to the following conditions.
Conditions/Reasons
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Statutory requirement under provision of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development the subject of this planning permission shall be carried out using external materials matching those of the existing building, a sample of which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development. The development shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with these approved details. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory elevational appearance for the development.
3. There shall be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site onto any surface waters, whether direct or via soakaways. Trade effluent shall not be discharged to surface waters. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.
Development Control Committee 36 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order amending or re enacting that order with or without modification) there shall be no development within class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to that order without the prior written approval of the local planning authority. Reason: To restrict the use of inappropriate boundary treatments in the interests of preserving the rural setting.
5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order amending or re enacting that order with or without modification) there shall be no development within Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that order without the prior written approval of the local planning authority. Reason: To prevent alterations that could result in an adverse impact upon the simple character and appearance of the building
6. The holiday lets shall not be occupied as a person’s sole, or main place of residence and the owners/operators shall maintain an up-to-date register of the names of all owners/occupiers of individual units on the site, and of their main home addresses, and shall make this register available at all reasonable times to officers of the local planning authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: The reason for these conditions is to ensure that approved holiday accommodation is not used for unauthorised permanent residential occupation.
Informatives
1. The drawings to which this decision relates are as follows: 271-01A 271-02B 271-03A 271-04B Received by the Local Planning Authority on 03.09.09
2. The reason for the above decision is because the development proposed accords with the Development Plan and other material considerations as required by Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. In particular with: Planning Policy Guidance Notes/Statements PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 – Housing PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS9 - Nature conservation PPG13 – Transport Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism Regional Spatial Strategy 8: East Midlands Regional Plan March 2009-08-13 Policy 24 Regional Priorities for Rural Diversification Policy 27 Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment Policy 42 Regional Priorities for Tourism North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 1 – Strengthening the Network of Settlement Policy 9 – Distribution and Location of Development Policy 10 - Distribution of Housing. Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles East Northamptonshire District Local Plan AG4- Reuse of buildings in the open countryside
Development Control Committee 37 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan Submission Document The Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan went through an examination process in 2008 and 2009. Following this examination on 8 July 2009 the Inspector found the document sound. However, as yet the Council has not adopted the Plan as a Development Plan Document as such the Council is still treating the document as emerging policy. Policy 1 – Settlement Roles Policy 9 – Buildings of Local Architectural or Historic Interest Policy 23 – General Approach to Rural Buildings
Development Control Committee 38 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 Committee Report Committee Date : 6 January 2010 Printed: 17 December 2009
Case Officer Mr Rhys Bradshaw EN/09/01867/LBC
Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 25 November 2009 25 November 2009 20 January 2010 Lower Nene Ashton
Applicant OHL Ltd
Agent David Jackson
Location The Water Tower Ashton Wold Ashton Northamptonshire
Proposal Conversion of existing un-used water tower into a four bedroom residential property for holiday use to include interior and exterior works
This application is reported to the Development Control Committee because the proposed development exceeds the threshold in the scheme of delegation of 1 new dwelling in the open countryside.
1 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 The application be GRANTED subject to conditions.
2 The Proposal 2.1 The application proposes the conversion of an existing former water tower into a three bedroom holiday let.
2.2 The application predominantly involves internal alterations to create habitable rooms, although it is also proposed to insert additional windows into the northern and eastern elevations and erect a hipped roof porch to create an entrance to the building.
3 The Site and Surroundings 3.1 The building forms part of the Ashton Estate and is situated some two miles from the nearest public highway. The site is accessed via an access road leading from the village of Ashton and there is a further access from the Polebrook Road.
3.2 The water tower building is situated to the west of the stable block, which has recently been converted into holiday let accommodation.
3.3 Ashton Wold does not have a settlement boundary, either in the Local Plan or emerging Rural North, Oundle and Thrapston Plan. The site is therefore considered to be situated in the open countryside.
4 Policy Considerations 4.1 Planning Policy Guidance Notes/Statements PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment. 4.2 Regional Spatial Strategy 8: East Midlands Regional Plan March 2009-08-13 Policy 2 – Promoting Better Design 4.3 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles 4.4 Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan Submission Document The Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan went through an examination process in
Development Control Committee 39 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 2008 and 2009. Following this examination on 8 July 2009 the Inspector found the document sound. However, as yet the Council has not adopted the Plan as a Development Plan Document as such the Council is still treating the document as emerging policy. Policy 9 – Buildings of Local Architectural or Historic Interest
5 Relevant Planning History 5.1 EN/09/01380/FUL – Conversion to holiday let. Pending consideration
6 Consultations and Representations. The consultation period had not expired at the time of drafting this report. 6.1 Neighbours – No comments received.
6.2 Parish Council: No comments received at the time of drafting the report. Any comments received will be reported to the Development Control Committee via the update.
6.3 Site Notice posted
6.4 ENC Conservation Officer: This water tower is recognised as a building of national importance by virtue of its place on the statutorily list. The building was designed in the Vernacular Revival style and built circa 1900. Its special interest is inextricably linked with its context within the wider Ashton Estate. The proposed scheme does obviously incorporate some alterations to the building, but I do not consider them to be too great. My only reservation about the scheme is that it is disappointing that the living space could not have been on the ground floor, thus limiting the subdivision to the newly created space at first floor. Notwithstanding this however, I do not believe that this work adversely affects the special interest of the building (see 'reasons for designation' in the listing schedule).
All things considered, I have no objections to the proposed scheme, subject to conditions, which I will discuss with you.
6.5 English Heritage: comments received at the time of drafting the report. Any comments received will be reported to the Development Control Committee via the update.
6.6 Site Notice posted
7 Evaluation 7.1 The main consideration in the determination of application is the impact on the character of the grade II listed building.
7.2 Effect on the special architectural or historical interest of the listed building. 7.2.1 The majority of the proposed alterations are internal. These mainly involve the insertion of partition walls to subdivide the building into habitable rooms and the installation of a staircase to access the first floor area. The level of internal subdivision does not represent a marked increase from the current layout of the building, with the first floor living area being largely open plan. Existing features of interest such as internal steel columns and external access ladders are to be retained, as are existing windows
7.2.2 Existing external door openings are to be retained and either fixed shut or an element of glazing added. The proposed additional window openings have kept to a minimum and have been designed to compliment the existing ground floor fenestration. These include a new opening on the western elevation of the tower and the replacement of eleven vents on all four sides of the tower with high level windows.
Development Control Committee 40 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 7.2.3 The proposed porch to the front entrance is simple in form and design and would not detract from the character of the original water tower. Similarly, the new pitched roof to enclose the main part of the building will be largely hidden behind the existing parapet wall. The impact on the character and integrity of the listed building is therefore considered acceptable.
8 Other issues 8.1 Parking – These issues are considered under EN/09/01380/FUL 8.2 Crime and Disorder - These issues are considered under EN/09/01380/FUL 8.3 Access for Disabled – These issues are considered under EN/09/01380/FUL 8.4 Protected Species – These issues are considered under EN/09/01380/FUL
9 Recommendation 9.1 It is recommended that the application be GRANTED subject to the following conditions.
10 Conditions/Reasons
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Statutory requirement under provision of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development the subject of this planning permission shall be carried out using external materials matching those of the existing building, a sample of which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development. The development shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with these approved details. Reason: To ensure the protection of the integrity of the listed building.
3. Prior to commencement of work, further precise details of the windows and internal and external doors including sections and profiles at a scale of 1:10 or 1:20, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Works shall be carried out in accordance with these details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
4. Notwithstanding the submitted details, all internal fixtures and fittings shall remain in situ unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the protection of the integrity of the listed building.
5. Prior to the commencement of development, drawings at a scale of 1:20, for all joinery shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of preserving the historic character, fabric and appearance of the Grade II Listed Building and its setting
6. No works shall take place until the implementation of a programme of building recording has been carried out in accordance with a written scheme of investigation submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the protection of the integrity of the listed building.
Informatives
1. The reason for the above decision is because the development proposed accords with the Development Plan and other material considerations as required by Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. In particular with: Planning Policy Guidance Notes/Statements
Development Control Committee 41 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment. Regional Spatial Strategy 8: East Midlands Regional Plan March 2009-08-13 Policy 2 – Promoting Better Design North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles The Rural North Oundle and Thrapston Plan went through an examination process in 2008 and 2009. Following this examination on 8 July 2009 the Inspector found the document sound. However, as yet the Council has not adopted the Plan as a Development Plan Document as such the Council is still treating the document as emerging policy. Policy 9 – Buildings of Local Architectural or Historic Interest.
2. The drawings to which this decision relates are as follows: Drawing Nos 271 - 01 271 - 02 271 - 03 271 - 04 Received by the Local Planning Authority on 25.12.2009
Development Control Committee 42 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 Committee Report Committee Date : 6 January 2010 Printed: 16 December 2009
Case Officer Mr Rhys Bradshaw EN/09/01855/FUL
Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 23 November 2009 23 November 2009 18 January 2010 Rushden Bates Rushden
Applicant BPS Carehomes Ltd
Agent RJA Designs
Location 1 Pightles Terrace Rushden Northamptonshire NN10 0LN
Proposal Two storey side extension to form five additional bedrooms (all en suite) plus resident's dining room
This application is reported to the Development Control Committee at the request of a local Ward Member because there is a concern that the site is overdeveloped.
1 Summary of Recommendation 1.1 The application be GRANTED subject to conditions.
2. The Proposal 2.1 The application proposes a two storey side extension to an existing care home to provide a dining room and 5 additional en-suite bedrooms.
2.2 The proposed extension would project some 8m from the side of the existing building to a depth of 12.2m
3 The Site and Surroundings 3.1 The application site is situated on the northern side of Pightles Terrace, where a mix of architectural styles and dwelling sizes, including modern detached dwellings and semi detached Victorian properties adds variety to the street scene.
4 Policy Considerations 4.1 National Planning Policy Guidance PPS1– Sustainable Development
4.2 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles
5 Relevant Planning History 5.1 09/00338/FUL – Two storey side extension to form six en-suit bedrooms and a dining room. Refused for the following reasons: • By reason of its scale, siting and relationship with the adjacent property, it is considered that the proposed extension would have an undue overbearing impact on the occupiers of this property. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.
Development Control Committee 43 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 • The proposed extension, by reason of its scale, siting and design would form an unduly obtrusive feature to the detriment of the character of the street scene and the existing building. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.
5.2 EN/92/00740/FUL - Rear single and two storey extensions. Approved
5.3 EN/90/00623/FUL - Two storey side extension. Approved
5.4 EN/89/00639/FUL - Conversion to residential home with single storey extension. Approved
6 Consultations and Representations -The consultation period had not expired at the time of drafting this report. 6.1 Neighbours: No comments had been received at the time of drafting this report. Any comments received will be reported to the Committee on the update sheet.
6.2 Rushden Town Council: Objection. Members consider this to be over development and would cause loss of amenity to neighbouring properties. The proposed development would remove character from the existing building.
7 Evaluation 7.1 The main considerations in the determination of this proposal are its visual impact, both on the street scene and the existing building, the possible impacts on neighbouring amenities and highway matters.
7.1.1 The requirement for an extension of this size has come about as a result of New NCC guidance “Transforming accommodation-based care for older people in Northamptonshire: A five year strategy”. This guidance stipulates that by 2012, NCC will not place older people into shared bedrooms and, by 2014, only use homes that provide en-suite facilities. As this home currently has double rooms, the implementation of this scheme will only increase the number of residents by one as four of the five proposed rooms will accommodate residents currently in twin rooms.
7.2 Design and Visual Impact 7.2.1 This is a resubmission of a previously refused scheme for a similar extension. As originally proposed the extension would have stood some 2m from the shared boundary with 1C Pightles terrace and had an overall width of 9m. The scheme also included an external fire escape and would have accommodated 6 bedrooms and a dining room.
7.2.2 The proposal considered here has been amended to increase the separation distance between the new flank wall and the shared boundary to some 3.2m. This has reduced the overall width of the extension to 7.5m and the number of bedrooms to 5. As previously proposed, the extension was considered to be an obtrusive feature in the street scene by reason of its scale (in this case, width) and fenestration detail, neither of which complimented the opposing extension on the north-eastern side.
7.2.3 The extension on the opposite side of the building is some 7m wide. It is considered that the reduction in the width of the proposed extension as described above would have the effect of balancing the appearance of the resultant building when viewed from the street. The fenestration at ground and first floor has also been revised to mirror that of the existing extension. Taking into account these alterations, on balance, it is considered that the proposed extension would have an acceptable impact on the character of the original building and the street scene.
Development Control Committee 44 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 7.2.4 Whilst the loss of existing ground and first floor bay window feature is not desirable, the building is not protected either by listing or by being of local importance. As such, it is considered that a refusal on these grounds could not be sustained.
7.3 Neighbouring amenity 7.3.1 The application site sits approximately 1m above the ground level of 1c Pightles Terrace to the southwest. The occupiers of this property previously expressed concerns regarding the overbearing impact of the extension as originally proposed. Officers agreed that, given the proximity to this property, the extension would have had an overbearing impact to the detriment of residential amenity. However; it is considered that the increased separation distance from 2m to 3.2m and the removal of the external fire escape stairs renders the relationship with 1c Pightles Terrace acceptable.
7.4 Highways 7.4.1 The proposed extension will not result in the loss of any existing parking provision from the front of the building, the access for which is directly in front of the proposed extension via a cross over. Taking into account the net increase of one resident, it is not considered that the proposed extension will have a detrimental impact on the current parking provision, which is partly accommodated on street as well as to the front of the building as described above.
8 Other issues 8.1 Crime and Disorder - this application does not raise any significant issues. 8.2 Access for Disabled – Level access and internal lifts are proposed
9 Recommendation 9.1 It is recommended that the application be GRANTED subject to conditions.
Conditions/Reasons
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Statutory requirement under provision of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2008 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no additional windows shall be installed in any elevation of the proposed extension without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the privacy of adjoining properties.
3. Before any work is commenced on the development hereby permitted, a sample of the proposed facing and roofing materials for the building shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory elevational appearance for the development.
Informatives
1. Reason for Decision The reason for the above decision is because the development proposed accords with the Development Plan and other material considerations as required by Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. In particular with: National Planning Policy Guidance PPS1– Sustainable Development North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 – General Sustainable Development Principles
Development Control Committee 45 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010 2. The drawings to which this decision relates are as follows : RCH3/R2, RCH2/R2 and RCH1 received by the Local Planning Authority on 23/11/09
Development Control Committee 46 of 46 Date printed 6 January 2010