DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PANEL 18 MARCH 2013
Case No: 1300056REP (EXTENSION TO TIME LIMIT FOR IMPLEMENTATION)
Proposal: REPLACEMENT OF PLANNING PERMISSION 0900339FUL FOR ERECTION OF THREE DWELLINGS
Location: LAND AT CHESTNUT FARM HAMERTON ROAD
Applicant: MITCHAM PARTNERSHIP LTD (FAO MR J TIBBS)
Grid Ref: 517839 277002
Date of Registration: 31.01.2013
Parish: ALCONBURY WESTON
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION
1.1 The site lies on the north side of Hamerton Road in Alconbury Weston. The site shares the vehicular access with the adjoining Grade II listed Chestnut Farmhouse which fronts onto Hamerton Road. The main body of the site lies north of and behind Chestnut Farmhouse, and a bungalow, 30 Hamerton Road, and their rear gardens and outbuildings.
1.2 The site is approximately 0.22ha in size. It comprises the vehicular access, a number of single-storey outbuildings, areas of grass and hardstanding, including the base of recently demolished buildings, and a number of trees. There are fences along parts of the side boundaries and behind 30 Hamerton Road. The boundary to the rear and with Chestnut Farmhouse is not defined on site.
1.3 The site and the adjoining land to either side and on the south side of Hamerton Road are in Alconbury Weston Conservation Area. The ground levels rise from Hamerton Road to a higher level at the rear of the site.
1.4 West of the site are the rear gardens of large detached 1990’s dwellings in Spires End. To the north are paddocks and to the east are the rear gardens of new dwellings in Butchers Close which were approved in 2004.
1.5 The proposal is to replace the permission for the erection of 3 dwellings which was allowed at appeal under reference 0900339FUL. The application proposed a detached unit with first floor accommodation in the roofspace and a single-storey rear wing, and a pair of semi-detached units (one of one-storey and the other with first floor accommodation in the roofspace). Also proposed are two double garages, one located to the rear boundary of the existing farmhouse and the second in the north east corner of the site.
1.6 The previous application 0900339FUL was supported by a Design and Access Statement, Tree Survey and Arboricultural Implications Assessment Report and Flood Risk Assessment. The applicant is not required to update the first two documents for a replacement application. However, the applicant has submitted an updated Flood Risk Assessment at Environment Agency and HDC request.
1.7 Alconbury Brook is liable to flood over Hamerton Road. The access and southern part of the site lies in the high and medium risk flood zones according to the Environment Agency Flood Maps 2012. In contrast, the District Council's SFRA (Strategic Flood Risk Assessment) 2010 suggests that only the southern part of the access is at high risk of flooding.
2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE
2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development - an economic role, a social role and an environmental role - and outlines the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Under the heading of Delivering Sustainable Development, the Framework sets out the Government's planning policies for : building a strong, competitive economy; ensuring the vitality of town centres; supporting a prosperous rural economy; promoting sustainable transport; supporting high quality communications infrastructure; delivering a wide choice of high quality homes; requiring good design; promoting healthy communities; protecting Green Belt land; meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change; conserving and enhancing the natural environment; conserving and enhancing the historic environment; and facilitating the sustainable use of minerals.
2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (2012) Technical Guidance in relation to floods.
2.3 CLG guidance, ‘Preparing for Floods’.
2.4 ‘Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions’.
2.5 BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction. Recommendations.
For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.
3. PLANNING POLICIES
Further information on the role of planning policies in deciding planning applications can also be found at the following website: http://www.communities.gov.uk then follow links Planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Information and Guidance, Planning Guidance and Advice and then Creating and Better Place to Live
3.1 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995) Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95
H31: “Residential privacy and amenity standards” – Indicates that new dwellings will only be permitted where appropriate standards of privacy can be maintained and adequate parking provided.
H32: "Sub-division of large curtilages" states support will be offered only where the resultant dwelling and its curtilage are of a size and form sympathetic to the locality.
H33: “Sub-division of large curtilages affecting protected buildings or features” states the subdivision of curtilages will not be supported where development will adversely affect the qualities of a Conservation Area or affect trees worthy of protection.
T18: “Access requirements for new development” states development should be accessed by a highway of acceptable design and appropriate construction.
En2:“Character and setting of Listed Buildings” - indicates that any development involving or affecting a building of architectural or historic merit will need to have proper regard to the scale, form, design and setting of that building.
En5: “Conservation Area Character” - development within or directly affecting conservation areas will be required to preserve or enhance their character and appearance.
En6: “Design standards in Conservation Areas” – in conservation areas, the District Council will require high standards of design with careful consideration being given to the scale and form of development in the area and to the use of sympathetic materials of appropriate colour and texture.
En9: “Conservation Areas” - development should not impair open spaces, trees, street scenes and views into and out of Conservation Areas.
En12: “Archaeological Implications” – permission on sites of archaeological interest may be conditional on the implementation of a scheme of archaeological recording prior to development commencing.
En18: “Protection of countryside features” – Offers protection for important site features including trees, woodlands, hedges and meadowland.
En19: “Trees and Landscape” – will make Tree Preservation Orders where it considers that trees which contribute to the local amenity and/or the landscape are at risk.
En22: “Conservation” – wherever relevant, the determination of applications will take appropriate consideration of nature and wildlife conservation.
En25: "General Design Criteria" - indicates that the District Council will expect new development to respect the scale, form, materials and design of established buildings in the locality and make adequate provision for landscaping and amenity areas.
CS8: “Water” – satisfactory arrangements for the availability of water supply, sewerage and sewage disposal facilities, surface water run-off facilities and provision for land drainage will be required.
CS9: “Flood water management” – the District Council will normally refuse development proposals that prejudice schemes for flood water management.
3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002) Saved policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002)
HL5 – Quality and Density of Development - sets out the criteria to take into account in assessing whether a proposal represents a good design and layout.
3.3 Policies from the Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2009 are relevant and viewable at http://www.huntsdc.gov.uk click on Environment and Planning then click on Planning then click on Planning Policy and then click on Core Strategy where there is a link to the Adopted Core Strategy.
CS1: “Sustainable development in Huntingdonshire” – all developments will contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development, having regard to social, environmental and economic issues. All aspects will be considered including design, implementation and function of development.
CS3: “The Settlement Hierarchy” – identifies Alconbury Weston as a smaller settlement in which residential infilling will be appropriate within the built up area.
CS4: “Affordable Housing in Development” – 40% of all housing on proposals of 3 or more homes or 0.1ha, in all smaller settlements as defined in the settlement hierarchy.
CS10: "Contributions to Infrastructure Requirements" - proposals will be expected to provide or contribute towards the cost of providing infrastructure and of meeting social and environmental requirements, where these are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.
3.4 Policies from the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010 are relevant.
C1: “Sustainable Design” – development proposals should take account of the predicted impact of climate change over the expected lifetime of the development.
C5: “Flood Risk and Water Management” – development proposals should include suitable flood protection / mitigation to not increase risk of flooding elsewhere. Sustainable drainage systems should be used where technically feasible. There should be no adverse impact on or risk to quantity or quality of water resources.
E1: “Development Context” – development proposals shall demonstrate consideration of the character and appearance of the surrounding environment and the potential impact of the proposal.
E2: “Built-up Areas” – development will be limited to within the built-up areas of the settlements identified in Core Strategy policy CS3, in order to protect the surrounding countryside and to promote wider sustainability objectives.
E3: “Heritage Assets” – proposals which affect the District’s heritage assets or their setting should demonstrate how these assets will be protected, conserved and where appropriate enhanced.
E4: “Biodiversity and Protected Habitats and Species” – proposals will not be permitted where there is an adverse impact on protected species, priority species, priority habitats or sites of local or regional importance for biodiversity or geology, unless the need for and the benefits of, the proposal outweigh the potential adverse impacts.
E5: “Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows” – proposals shall avoid the loss of, and minimise the risk of, harm to trees, woodland or hedgerows of visual, historic or nature conservation value, including ancient woodland and veteran trees. They should wherever possible be incorporated effectively within the landscape elements of the scheme.
E8: "Sustainable Travel" - proposals must demonstrate how the scheme maximises opportunities for the use of sustainable travel modes, particularly walking, cycling and public transport.
E10: “Parking Provision” – car and cycle parking should accord with the levels and layout requirements set out in Appendix 1 ‘Parking Provision’. Adequate vehicle and cycle parking facilities shall be provided to serve the needs of the development.
H1: “Efficient Use of Housing Land” – housing developments will optimise density taking account of the nature of the development site; character of its surroundings and need to accommodate other uses and residential amenities such as open space and parking areas.
H2: "Housing Mix" - a mix of housing is required that can reasonably meet the future needs of a wide range of household types in Huntingdonshire and reflect the advice and guidance provided within the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough SHMAs and relevant local housing studies. Regard must also be given to other materials factors specific to the site.
H3: “Adaptability and Accessibility” – the location and design of development should consider the requirements of users and residents that are likely to occur during the lifetime of the development.
H7: “Amenity” – development proposals should safeguard the living conditions for residents and people occupying adjoining or nearby properties.
3.5 Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 - Huntingdonshire District Council has commenced preparation of a Local Plan to 2036 to replace its existing development plan documents. The plan will set out the strategy for development in the whole of Huntingdonshire, incorporating policies for managing development and site-specific proposals for different forms of development in the context of the new National Planning Policy Framework. The plan will include consideration of the Alconbury Enterprise Zone and other proposed development on the Airfield, as well as other opportunities that have arisen since the Core Strategy was adopted in 2009.
3.6 Policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 - Draft Strategic Options and Policies (2012)
Draft Policy 6: ‘Scale of Development in Small Settlements’- sustainable development proposals located within the built-up area of a Small Settlement will be assessed on individual merit taking into account whether they are in accordance with policies of this Plan.
Draft Policy 9: “The Built-up area” – defines what is and what is not considered to be part of the built-up area.
3.7 Policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 - Draft Development Management Policies (2012)
DM6: - “Parking provision” – development proposals should ensure that sufficient parking is provided to meet its needs and minimise impacts on existing neighbouring uses.
DM7: - "Broadband" - new sustainable developments should provide for the installation of fibre optic cabling to allow the implementation of next generation broadband.
DM8: – “Housing choice” – development proposals should ensure that sustainable housing is built to at least minimum internal floor areas to ensure that residents have sufficient living space during their period of occupancy.
DM13: – “Good design and sustainability” – requires high standards of design for all new sustainable development and the built environment.
DM14: “Amenity” – requires development proposals to provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users of the proposed development and its surroundings.
DM20: “Integrated renewable energy” – development proposals shall provide integrated renewable energy equipment in the design of new buildings in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
DM23: “Flood risk and water management" - outlines the considerations for the acceptability of development in relation to the risk of flooding, including the implementation of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS).
DM24: “Biodiversity and protected habitats and species“- A sustainable development proposal will be acceptable where it does not give rise to significant adverse impact on a site of international, national, local or regional importance for biodiversity or geology or protected species, priority habitats or species. A sustainable development proposal will aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity.
DM25: “Trees, woodland and related features” – A sustainable development proposal will be acceptable where it avoids the loss of, and minimises the risk of harm to trees, woodland, hedges or hedgerows of visual, historic or nature conservation value, including orchards, ancient woodland and aged or veteran trees.
DM27: “Heritage assets and their settings” – to protect and conserve the district’s heritage assets, including listed buildings, conservation areas and related assets. A sustainable development proposal will be acceptable where it avoids or minimises conflict with the conservation of any affected heritage asset and the setting of any heritage asset.
DM28: “Developer contributions” – development proposals shall contribute towards local infrastructure, facilities and services from sustainable development proposals, predominantly through the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 agreements.
3.8 Supplementary Planning Guidance / Documents:-
Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment (2007) Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2007). Developer Contributions SPD 2011.
4. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 Until recently the site was in the same ownership as Chestnut Farmhouse and there were a variety of permissions for stables and extensions to the existing dwelling.
4.2 More recently, in 2010, planning permission was allowed at appeal under reference 0900339FUL for the erection of three dwellings (Copy of decision attached).
4.3 The site has since been sold and subdivided and some trees have been removed and buildings cleared.
5. CONSULTATIONS
5.1 Alconbury Weston Parish Council: Recommend refuse (COPY ATTACHED)
5.2 Environment Agency: Original submission without updated FRA: Object. Require updated FRA. Revised submission including updated FRA: Any response will be reported to Panel.
5.3 Alconbury and Ellington Internal Drainage Board - No objection
5.4 Natural England - no objection to the proposed development. Condition recommended for bird nesting and proposals should enhance biodiversity.
5.5 Cambridgeshire County Council Highways - No objections but condition access and visibility details.
5.6 Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeology - Any response will be reported to Panel.
6. REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 One letter from Chestnut Farm of comment: pointing out change in ownership of part of the site, which has been reflected in the revised certificate B.
6.2 Three letters of objection/concern from 3, 4 and 5 Spires End:
4 Spires End advises that the western site plan boundary is incorrect as the existing high fence is not on the boundary: the boundary is further east. Not appropriate to grant permission when plans are inaccurate. 5 Spires End is unclear about boundary position. Recommend retain leylandii rear of 5 Spires End and replace them if they die for privacy reasons. Allege applicant has felled trees belonging to neighbour and cut down part of the fence. Note trees removed; will they be replaced? Seek exact replacements of unauthorised removed trees. Concern about flooding of site and worsening flooding off-site. Concern about future amendments. If details changed request neighbour notification and opportunity to comment. The plans suggest another access is available at Butchers Close; need to check. Contrary to policy. Out of character. Harm to wildlife and trees and shrubs note trees removed contrary to requirements. FRA of March 2009 needs update: concern about flooding. Concern about overlooking and loss of privacy. Overbearing.
7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
7.1 The main issue to consider is if there have been any material changes in circumstances in policy or on the ground since the permission was last granted at appeal by the Planning Inspectorate in 2010, which would indicate that an extension of time for implementation should not be given.
7.2 Since 2010 out-buildings have been demolished and trees have been removed but these are not considered to be material to the principle of the development.
7.3 The ownership of the site has changed and is split between the applicant and the owners of Chestnut Farmhouse. However, the correct certificate of ownership has been served and therefore these changes are not considered to be material to the principle of the development.
7.4 Since the appeal was allowed in 2010, the following policies and guidance have changed: PPSs and PPGs have been superseded by the NPPF and NPPF Technical guidance. The East of England Plan - Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008) and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)have been revoked. The Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 has been superseded.
7.5 The Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010, Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 - Draft Strategic Options and Policies (2012) and the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 - Draft Development Management Policies (2012) have been prepared.
The issues requiring this assessment are addressed in detail below:
7.6 The principle of development, design/impact on the setting of the listed building and the character and appearance of the conservation area, trees and landscape, residential amenity, flood risk, access and highways, affordable housing, biodiversity and sustainability.
Principle of development:
7.7 Planning permission for this residential development was granted at appeal in 2010.
7.8 The Inspector acknowledged that the site was partly open but did not accept the Local Planning Authority’s contention that the site should be considered to be outside the built-up area and in the countrywide where development should be restricted. The Inspector concluded that the modern housing developments to the east and west of the site and the curtilage of Chestnut Farmhouse ‘have the effect of enclosing the site to the point of bringing it into the built up structure of the village. As a result, the appeal site has less of an affinity with the countryside to the north than the residential properties at Butchers Close and Spires End to which it is more closely and visually connected.’ The Inspector therefore concluded that the proposal should be regarded as infill development, which is acceptable in principle under policy CS3 of the Adopted Huntingdonshire Core Strategy 2009.
7.9 The site retains a more rural undeveloped appearance than the adjoining residential development. Development Plan Policy CS3 remains, and whilst policy E2 of the DMDPD has been published to set out the definition of built-up area in more detail, there has been no material change in circumstance to merit disagreeing with the Inspector’s decision about accepting the principle of the development. The proposal accords with The National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy (2009), Policy E2 of the DPD: Proposed Submission (2010) and Draft Policy 6 of the Policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 - Draft Strategic Options and Policies (2012). The principle of development therefore remains acceptable.
Design/ Impact on the setting of the Listed Building and Conservation Area:
7.10 As the site is in the Conservation Area and adjoins a listed building and development is expected to preserve or enhance its appearance and reflect a high quality of design and contribution to the character of the area.
7.11 The application is identical to the previous application which was allowed at appeal. The Inspector did not accept the Local Planning Authority’s objection to the design of the dwellings and specifically the concern that the elevational and fenestration detailing did not demonstrate a high quality design that was out of keeping with the surrounding development and consequently created harm to the overall character and setting of the listed building of Chestnut Farmhouse and the Conservation Area.
7.12 The Inspector noted that the layout was consciously designed to maintain views from Hamerton Road to the countryside beyond. The Inspector considered the farmyard formation was an appropriate response to the site and that the traditional barn style modelling and details with contemporary overtones were well suited to the edge of village location and that the development would be no more intrusive than the residential developments to either side. The Inspector considered that conditions could address some details such as materials and boundary treatments.
7.13 The development does not encroach on the existing domestic garden associated with the farmhouse, with the exception of the proposed garage for Chestnut Farmhouse, although the development would encroach on a modern outbuilding at the rear of Chestnut Farm. The Inspector agreed with the Local Planning Authority that the barn style development subtly reinforces the context of Chestnut Farmhouse as a farmhouse and not just a ‘large dwelling’ and concluded that ‘the new houses would be subservient to the style, size and scale of the listed building and respectful of its special qualities’ and the listed building would ‘retain its prominence in the streetscene while its setting would be enhanced’.
7.14 There has been no material change in circumstance or policy to reasonably disagree with the Inspectors decision. It is therefore concluded that the proposed design and form would fit in well with the Conservation Area, be of a satisfactory standard of design and would preserve and enhance the setting of the listed building.
7.15 The scheme secures the provision of 3 dwellings, which is welcome.
7.16 The proposal is therefore considered to comply with policies H32, H33, En2, En5, En6, En9 and En25 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, HL5 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations 2002, CS1 of the Adopted Huntingdonshire Core Strategy 2009, E1, E3 of the DPD, DM13, DM27 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 - Draft Development Management Policies (2012)and Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2007.
Trees and Landscape:
7.17 The Inspector did not accept the Local Planning Authority’s objection to the siting of the north-western dwelling, Unit 2, relative to the trees within the application site and on adjoining land. The Local Planning Authority was concerned about the threat to the long term retention of two sycamore trees (a medium quality semi-mature tree on the site and an adjacent high quality mature tree, in the rear garden of No.4 Spires End) causing harm to the landscape amenity of the site and Conservation Area. Both trees are protected by virtue of their location within the Conservation Area. The Inspector accepted that there may be doubts about the long term growth or survival of the trees but concluded that the public views of the trees were limited and that their contribution and value to the Conservation Area were limited and would not have such a significant impact on the Conservation Area to merit the refusal of the application.
7.18 The applicant has retained some trees identified for retention in the previous applicant’s tree survey. However other trees have been removed. It is considered, however, that a condition can secure adequate replacement tree planting to help integrate the development in its surroundings.
7.19 The planning policy position remains similar to that of the time of the appeal decision in relation to trees and landscape and there is therefore no reason to adopt a different view to that of the Inspector. The proposal therefore accords with policies En9 and En18 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, HL5 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations 2002, CS1 of the Adopted Huntingdonshire Core Strategy 2009, E5 of the DPD, DM25 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 - Draft Development Management Policies(2012),Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment Supplementary Planning Document 2007 and Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2007.
Residential amenity:
7.20 The proposal would offer good amenities to the proposed occupiers of the units 1 and 3. The Inspector did not accept the Local Planning Authority’s objection to the limited level of amenity space provided for unit 2 and concluded that the space was not disproportionately undersized. It is therefore concluded that the proposed amenities for the occupiers of the new units are acceptable.
7.21 The proposal will entail additional activity and disturbance on the access flanked by Chestnut Farmhouse and 26 Hamerton Road and on the main body of the site behind other properties in Hamerton Road, Spires End and Butchers Close. It is considered, however, that the additional activity and disturbance should not cause undue harm to the amenities of the neighbouring properties.
7.22 The rear garden of Chestnut Farmhouse is open to view from the access over a picket fence and the development entails the removal of a rear outbuilding. The Inspector’s condition on securing suitable details of boundary treatment, which may include a higher rear garden enclosure for Chestnut Farmhouse in the interests of the privacy and amenity of the occupiers, would be repeated in the decision notice.
7.23 Unit 1 is closest to Chestnut Farmhouse, 30 Hamerton Road and 5 Spires End. The unit would be approximately 5m from the boundary with 30 Hamerton Road. The dwelling would be one and a half storeys in height with only rooflights serving the first floor and no rooflights on the south elevation. The design is considered to avoid being unduly overbearing and would not result in overlooking nor loss of light to 30 Hamerton Road.
7.24 Unit 1 is adequately separated from Chestnut Farmhouse to avoid undue harm to the amenity of the occupiers of this property from overbearing or overshadowing effects. Boundary treatment can screen the side ground floor windows.
7.25 The single-storey rear wing of Unit 1 would be set approximately 8.4m from the boundary to the west with 5 Spires End and the wing with first floor accommodation would be approximately 13.9m away. The Unit would be approximately 6m high with the first floor western rooms served by rooflights. The Leylandii hedge along the boundary is proposed to be reduced in height to 3.5m. It is considered that the reduction in the hedge height and the erection of unit 1 will not cause undue harm impact to 5 or 4 Spires End due to separation distance, design, orientation and privacy provided by the hedge.
7.26 The unit closest to 3 and 4 Spires End is single-storey (unit 2), and unit 3 is to be approximately 16m away from Spires End and orientated so the main outlook is north and south, rather than east and west. It is considered that design, scale and layout of units 2 and 3 and the garages is acceptable in terms of the impact on neighbouring properties.
7.27 The previous Inspector concluded that the development would maintain proper living environments for future and existing residents. It is concluded that the development will have no undue adverse effect on the amenities of the neighbouring properties. The proposed development would comply with policies H31 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995), H7 of the DPD: Proposed Submission (2010),DM14 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 - Draft Development Management Policies (2012) and the Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2007.
Flood Risk:
7.28 The Flood Risk Assessment concludes that: -
The main risk of flooding is from Alconbury Brook. The Environment Agency modelled 1 in 100 year flood level for Alconbury Brook applicable to the site is 18.63 metres which indicates that the southern edge of the site could be liable to shallow flooding. A flood level of 18.69 metres in 1998 at the front of Chestnut Farm House is the highest recorded Environment Agency flood level in the vicinity of the site. All the buildings in the development are outside the 1 in 100 year flood level, except for the new southerly garage for Chestnut Farm House and the southern part of unit 1. The garage is considered to be a ‘less vulnerable’ use and is suitable for construction in Flood Zone 3 inside the 1 in 100 year flood plain. Unit 1 is a ‘more vulnerable’ use mostly at low flood risk and the front and rear entrances to the dwelling are outside the 1 in 100 year flood zone which should help avoid the building flooding. The proposed floor levels for the dwellings are to be at least 19.25 metres which is 600mm above the highest recorded flood level: this can again be secured by condition. The development will result in a net gain in flood storage capacity as the volume of the buildings being demolished in the flood plain is greater than the proposed volume. The development will ensure that there is no increased flood risk downstream by providing on site surface water storage to control surface water runoff to existing rates. This can again be secured by condition. The FRA advises that the development has scope for two escape routes when the access is flooded, one east via a private access to Butchers Close and one north over the paddocks via the public footpath lying east west to the west of Vinegar Hill. These routes entail land outside the applicants control and therefore the safe route over other parties land cannot be secured by condition. It is considered, however, that it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on the lack of a safe exit (on land in the applicant’s control) as required by the appeal condition 14.
7.29 The response of the Environment Agency is awaited to the updated Flood Risk Assessment. The lack of a safe route to and from the site at times of flood on land in the applicants control has been brought to the attention of the Environment Agency. It would not be possible to repeat the appeal condition (number 14) owing to land ownership although the approach to the alternative routes out of the site adopted within the FRA appears reasonable. It will be necessary to repeat the other planning conditions imposed on the appeal decision such as the minimum floor levels of the dwellings and avoiding obstructing flood flows by structures or ground raising below the floodplain contour of 18.63 metres and by securing suitable drainage details.
7.30 Although the national guidance that applied at the time of the appeal has been superseded by the NPPF and Technical Guidance, it is considered that there is no reason to disagree with the previous approach on flood risk grounds. Subject to the advice of the Environment Agency, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (2012), the Technical Guidance in relation to floods, policies CS8 CS9 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995), C5 of the DPD: Proposed Submission (2010), DM23of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 - Draft Development Management Policies (2012).
Access and highways:
7.31 The policies in relation to highway safety remain similar to those previously considered and as such the conclusion remains the same.
7.32 There were no objections to the original application on access or highway safety grounds. The Inspector did not accept the suggested conditions from the Local Highway Authority relating to the provision of a specific width of access or visibility splays. It is therefore recommended that the conditions of the appeal decision are repeated in this case.
7.33 The proposed 3 visitor parking space provision exceeds the maximum standard of up to 1 car space per 4 units. However, it is considered that the introduction of the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010 and Draft Local Plan do not merit seeking a reduction in the number of car spaces.
7.34 No cycle parking provision has been shown. However, there is scope for providing this within the plots or garages. It is considered that it would be unreasonable to add a condition to secure this since it was not required by the inspector in 2010.
7.35 The proposal Accords with policies T18 of the HLP and DM6 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 - Draft Development Management Policies (2012)and is acceptable in terms of access and highway safety.
Affordable Housing:
7.36 The site is in a smaller settlement where policy CS4 of the Adopted Huntingdonshire Core Strategy 2009 seeks an affordable unit in schemes of 3 or more homes. No such unit was secured in 2010 and therefore as there has been no change in circumstance, it would be unreasonable to now seek an affordable unit in this particular case.
Biodiversity:
7.37 Natural England has raised no objection to the proposed development in respect of legally protected sites or species. Trees have been removed but replacements can be secured by condition and measures can seek to secure the retention of the more significant trees.
7.38 The Inspector rejected a condition seeking for biodiversity enhancement measures. It is considered that a condition on the appeal decision securing the avoidance of further tree removal during bird breeding season, whilst covered by wildlife and habitat legislation, can be repeated on this decision.
7.39 The proposal accords with policies En22 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995), E4 of the DPD: Proposed Submission (2010), DM24 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 - Draft Development Management Policies (2012) and is considered to be acceptable in biodiversity terms.
Sustainability:
7.40 The proposed development does not specifically embrace sustainability or include sustainable construction measures or features such as rainwater harvesting and provision of water butts. However, it is considered that as the appeal decision did not include this, it would be unreasonable to require the inclusion of such features now.
Comments on representations received:
7.41 The majority of the issues raised through the representations received have been addressed above.
7.42 Boundaries: the appeal decision was based on plans that were not queried in land ownership terms by the then occupiers of Spires End in 2010. The current application is based on the appeal plans. It is noted that there is a slight discrepancy between the depiction of the western boundary on the site plan, which is shown as a straight line behind 3-5 Spires End, and on the site layout and arboricultural report where a staggered line is used. This discrepancy can be partly explained by the small scale of the Site Location Plan. It therefore appears likely that the boundaries in that area have not changed since 2010. The applicant confirms that he owns the land within the western part of the site and he has, therefore, been asked to amend the plan accompanying the unilateral obligation relating to bins to ensure that the western boundary matches the approved site layout.
7.43 The retention or removal of the leylandii rear of 5 Spires End can be addressed as part of the landscaping condition. The approved landscaping scheme sought the reduction and retention of the hedge for privacy reasons. The appeal did not include a 5 year maintenance condition but it would be reasonable to apply this to the landscaping now in view of the recent removal of some trees on the site.
7.44 The alleged felling of neighbours’ trees and damage to a fence are private legal matters, not matters for the Local Planning Authority.
7.45 Tree replacements can be secured by condition but it would be unreasonable to seek replacements of the exact size and species of the removed trees.
7.46 Material amendments to the scheme would need a fresh application and neighbour notification and opportunity to comment. However, any non material amendments would not usually entail neighbour consultation, in accordance with the national guidance.
7.47 The only access to the site is shown on the approved plans. Butchers Close is not in the applicant’s control.
Conditions:
7.48 It is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions almost identical to the 16 conditions imposed by the Inspector. Differences, however, include condition 10 which relates to retained trees and condition 9 which seeks additional replacement trees, as the applicant has removed trees which were previously to be retained. Replacement trees are required to reintroduce soft landscaping that contributes to the character and appearance of the site and replaces some biodiversity value.
Condition 9 can be amended to include a specification for plant and grass establishment and 5 years maintenance.
Condition 10 can be amended to include reference to the new BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction.
Condition 14 (safe route) would not be repeated for the reasons set out above.
7.49 At the time of the last application, Cambridgeshire County Council advised that the site lies in an area of high archaeological potential and that the site should be subject to a programme of archaeological investigation to be secured through the inclusion of a negative condition on any approval granted. However, no such condition was imposed in 2010 and therefore as there has been no change in circumstance, it would be unreasonable to now impose such a condition in this particular case.
7.50 The application is accompanied by a wheeled bins Unilateral Undertaking. Although the applicant has been asked to amend the plan accompanying the unilateral obligation to address the western boundary, the proposal accords with policy CS10 of the Adopted Huntingdonshire Core Strategy 2009, DM28 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 - Draft Development Management Policies (2012) and the SPD in relation to Planning Obligations.
Conclusion:
7.51 It is considered that the proposed development complies with relevant national and local planning policy and, and having taken all relevant material considerations into account, it is considered that the proposed development should be approved, subject to the Environment Agency advice and the receipt of an amended plan accompanying the unilateral obligation, as there have been no material changes in circumstances since the appeal decision on application 0900339FUL to indicate that permission should not now be granted.
7.52 The proposed development is considered to accord with relevant national and local planning policy as:
There has been no material change in circumstance to merit taking an alternative approach to the appeal decision 0900339FUL about accepting the principle of the development. The principle of development therefore remains acceptable. The scheme secures the provision of 3 dwellings. The proposal would be of a satisfactory standard of design, would fit in well with the Conservation Area, and would preserve and enhance the setting of the Grade II listed building, Chestnut Farmhouse. The proposed amenities for the occupiers of the new units are acceptable. The development will have no undue adverse effect on the amenities of the neighbouring properties. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in flood risk terms, subject to the advice of the Environment Agency. The proposal is acceptable in terms of access and highway safety. The lack of an affordable dwelling is accepted in view of the history of the case. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in biodiversity terms. The proposed development does not embrace sustainability or include sustainable construction measures or features but as there has been no material change in circumstance since the appeal decision in 2010, the replacement application has been accepted as submitted. The application is accompanied by a wheeled bins Unilateral Undertaking.
7.53 The proposal therefore complies with National Planning Policy Framework (2012), policies H31 H32 H33 T18 En2 En5 En6 En9 En18 En22 En25 CS8 CS9 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995), HL5 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002), CS1 CS3 CS10 of the Approved Core Strategy (2009), C1 C5 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 H1 H7 of the Development Management DPD Proposed Submission (2010), Draft Policy 6 of the Policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 - Draft Strategic Options and Policies (2012), DM6 DM13 DM14 DM23 DM24 DM25 DM27 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 – Draft Development Management Policies (2012) and the guidance of Huntingdonshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2007), Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment Supplementary Planning Document (2007), the Planning Obligations SPD (2011), the National Planning Policy Framework (2012)and the Technical Guidance in relation to floods.
8. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE subject to conditions to include the following:
02003 Time Limit (3yrs)
Nonstand plans
Nonstand materials
Nonstand windows etc
Nonstand rainwater goods
Nonstand boundary treatment
Nonstand pd rights
Nonstand access road
Nonstand Hard and soft landscaping
Nonstand Tree retention
Nonstand Birds
Nonstand car parking
Nonstand Nonstand foul and surface
Nonstand Non standard safe route or informative
Nonstand Nonstand floor level
Nonstand Nonstand avoid flood impede
CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Sheila Lindsay Development Management Officer 01480 388247
If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.
Development Management Panel
Scale = 1:2,500 Application ref: 1300056REP © Crown copyright and database rights 2013 o Date Created: 04/03/2013 Location: Alconbury Weston Ordnance Survey HDC 100022322
!
E OS CL
D N E
S E BUT R C I HE RS P CLO S SE
L L I H H AM ER R T A ON R G OA E H D N I I GH V ST RE ET TA N G L E W O O D
Legend W AY The Site Conservation Area Listed Buildings
GREEN PAPERS FOLLOW