A meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL will be held in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, PATHFINDER HOUSE, ST MARY'S STREET, HUNTINGDON, PE29 3TN on MONDAY, 18 APRIL 2005 at 7:00 PM and you are requested to attend for the transaction of the following business:-
APOLOGIES
1. MINUTES
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 21st March 2005.
2. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
2.1 Other application - Erection of a climate monitoring mast for a temporary period, land northeast of Manor Farm, Church End, Catworth.
To consider a report by the Development Control Manager.
2.2 Deferred Applications
(a) Barham and Woolley Continuation of use of agricultural land as part of domestic curtilage and retention of two sheds,Humberstone House, Spaldwick Road, Barham.
(b) Ramsey Erection of agricultural dwelling, land northeast of Romany Cottage, Bucks Drove, Ramsey St Mary’s.
To consider reports by the Development Control Manager.
2.3 Applications requiring reference to Development Control Panel
(a) Offord Darcy Erection of dwelling and garage, land adjacent 24 Graveley Road.
(b) Ramsey Erection of dwelling, land adjacent 2 The Malting.
(c) Brampton Removal of Condition No.4 of permission 0402128, which requires submission and approval of revised siting details of external staircase, Brenton Veterinary Clinic, 56 High Street.
(d) Fenstanton Change of use of building to children’s activity centre and alterations to building, Crystal Lake Touring Park, Low Road.
(e) Great Gransden Variation of time condition on permission 0212903 to allow further time for submission of reserved matters, Potton Limited, Eltisely Road.
(f) Hemingford Grey Retention of use of two dwellings, 2 Margetts.
(g) Houghton and Wyton Change of use of part of building for temporary use as dwelling for Fishery Manager, Fish Farm, Hartford Lake, Banks End, Wyton.
To consider reports by the Development Control Manager.
3. APPEAL DECISIONS
To consider a report by the Development Control Manager.
Dated this 8 day of April 2005
Chief Executive
Please contact Ms C Deller, Democratic Services Manager, Tel No. 01480 388007 if you have a general query on any Agenda Item, wish to tender your apologies for absence from the meeting, or would like information on any decision taken by the Panel Specific enquiries with regard to items on the Agenda should be directed towards the Contact Officer.
Agenda and enclosures can be viewed on the District Council’s website – www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk (under Councils and Democracy).
If you would like a translation of Agenda/Minutes/Reports or would like a large text version or an audio version please contact the Democratic Services Manager and we will try to accommodate your needs.
Emergency Procedure
In the event of the fire alarm being sounded and on the instruction of the Meeting Administrator, all attendees are requested to vacate the building via the closest emergency exit and to make their way to the base of the flagpole in the car park at the front of Pathfinder House.
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 1
HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL
MINUTES of the meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL held in the Council Chamber, Pathfinder House, St Mary's Street, Huntingdon, PE29 3TN on Monday, 21 March 2005.
PRESENT: Councillor P G Mitchell - Chairman
Councillors Mrs M Banjeree, Mrs B E Boddington, P L E Bucknell, J J Dutton, J A P Eddy, J D Fell, D A Giles, N J Guyatt, C R Hyams, R Powell, C J Stephens, P A Swales, G S E Thorpe and R G Tuplin.
APOLOGY: An apology for absence from the meeting was submitted on behalf of Councillor D B Dew.
IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor D Maltman – Stilton Parish Council Councillor Mrs J Meiklejohn – Catworth Parish Council Councillor Mrs L Sawyer – Oldhurst Parish Council.
63. MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 21st February 2005
were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
64. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
The Development Control Manager submitted reports (copies of which are appended in the Minute Book) on applications for development to be determined by the Panel and advised Members of further representations (details of which also are appended in the Minute Book) which had been received in connection therewith since the reports had been prepared. Following consideration of the applications in question, it was
RESOLVED
(a) Residential Development and Extension to Golf Course, Part of St. Ives Golf Course and The How, Houghton Road, St. Ives; Houghton Grange, Houghton Hill, St. Ives and Land West of Orchard House, Houghton Road, St. Ives – 98/01132/OUT, 02/12719/OUT, 04/02199/OUT
(Councillor J A P Eddy declared a personal interest in the following item by virtue of his membership of
1 Cambridgeshire County Council).
(i) that the Director of Central Services be authorised to enter into an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the social and physical infrastructure contributions described in paragraphs 9.1 – 9.20 of the report now submitted inclusive of a subsequent offer by the applicant of a contribution of £59,000 towards health facilities; and
(ii) that, subject to the completion of the Agreement for each residential development referred to in resolution (i) above, the applications be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning Services to include in each case those listed in paragraph 11.2 of the report now submitted and any site specific issues which require to be addressed such as listed building restoration and nature conservation.
(b) Erection of 21 townhouses and flats, 42 Huntingdon Street, St. Neots – 04/03753/FUL
(Councillor D A Giles declared a personal interest in the following Item by virtue of his membership of St. Neots Town Council).
(i) that the Director of Central Services be authorised to enter into an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure a contribution towards the St. Neots Market Town Transportation Strategy, additional secondary school facilities and the provision and maintenance of open space/play equipment; and
(ii) that, subject to the completion of the Agreement referred to in resolution (i) above, the application be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning Services to include those listed in paragraph 8.1 of the report now submitted.
(c) Change of use from haulage to haulage and/or B1 (light industrial) and/or B2 (general industrial) and/or B8 (warehousing), Highbury Fields, Eltisley Road, Great Gransden – 05/00026/FUL
that the application be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning Services to include those listed in paragraph 8 of the report now submitted.
(d) Erection of replacement dwelling, 22 The Thorpe, Hemingford Grey – 05/00143/FUL
2
that the application be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning Services to include those listed in paragraph 8 of the report now submitted.
(e) Erection of agricultural building, Land adjacent Upland Industrial Estate, Mere Way, Wyton – 04/01249/FUL
that the application be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning Services to include those listed in paragraph 8 of the report now submitted.
(f) Erection of 10 dwellings with garaging for Marsh Farm and Marsh Farm Cottage, Land at Marsh Farm and Marsh Farm Cottage, St. Ives Road, Old Hurst – 04/03752/OUT
(Councillor Mrs L Sawyer, Old Hurst Parish Council, addressed the Panel on the application).
(i) that the application be refused for the following reasons –
♦ the proposed development is at a level that is contrary to the settlement strategy of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002 wherein it is indicated in Policy STR5 that Old Hurst is selected as an infill village that permits infill development where suitable sites exist within the village environmental limits. Infilling is defined in Policy STR2 as the filling of an undeveloped plot in an otherwise built- up frontage by no more than two dwellings. The proposed erection of 10 dwellings is neither compliant with settlement strategy nor is the scale of development sustainable given the lack of facilities and services; and ♦ the proposed means of access are unsatisfactory in that these, with limited visibility, are likely to lead to conditions prejudicial to highway safety
(ii) that the Head of Planning Services be requested to negotiate with the applicant the possibility of the submission of an alternative scheme for development on the site.
(g) Erection of dwelling following demolition of existing, 205 Crosshall Road, Eaton Ford – 04/03655/FUL
3
that the application be refused for the following reason –
the proposed dwelling by reason of its size, design and proximity to the neighbouring properties will be detrimental to the street scene and the amenity of neighbouring properties contrary to Policy P1/3 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003, Policies H34 and En25 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 and Policy HL5 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002.
(h) Alterations and extensions including installation of enclosed dust extraction system, 20 Little End Road, Eaton Socon – 04/03670/FUL
(i) that the application be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning Services to include those detailed in paragraphs 7.8, 7.9 and 7.12 which are designed to allow the employment use on the site to continue in a manner which will safeguard the amenity of adjacent residents and additionally to include those also listed in paragraph 8.1 of the report now submitted; and
(ii) that in the event of non-compliance by the applicants with the conditions attached to the planning consent within three months of the issue of the decision notice, the Director of Central Services be authorised to pursue appropriate enforcement action.
(i) Change of use of former telephone exchange to B1 (A) office use, telephone exchange, Old Great North Road, Sawtry – 05/00226/FUL
that the application be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning Services to include those listed in paragraph 8 of the report now submitted.
(The Chairman, Councillor P G Mitchell declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application as a neighbour of the applicant, vacated the Chair and left the meeting during the discussion on the item).
In the absence of the Vice-Chairman, it was
RESOLVED
that Councillor P A Swales be elected Chairman of the Panel for the duration of discussion on Minute No. 64 (j).
4 Councillor P A Swales in the Chair.
(j) Erection of dwelling and garage, Land east of 59 Church Street, Stilton – 04/03775/FUL
(Councillor D Maltman, Stilton Parish Council, addressed the Panel on the application). that the application be refused for the following reasons –
♦ the proposed development does not constitute an acceptable form of infilling but is for an incongruous backland development on a relatively small curtilage/plot which would be out of character with the frontage form of development and spacious plots in Church Street. The development which incorporates a dwelling of incongruous design and scale would detract from the street scene and character of the area contrary to Policies STR2, HL5 and HL8 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002, Policies H32 and En25 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 and Policy P1/3 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003; and ♦ the siting of the dwelling is likely to lead to loss of privacy to adjoining neighbours and the use of the access is likely to result in activity and disturbance which would detract from the amenities presently enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy H31 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995.
Councillor P G Mitchell in the Chair.
(k) Retention of use of former agricultural land as part of garden, land north-east of 4 Friends Close, Yelling – 05/00251/FUL that the application be refused for the following reasons –
♦ the proposal is contrary to Policies En17 and En21 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 and Policies P1/2, P1/3 and P7/4 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 in that it would not be essential to the effective operation of local agriculture and would not integrate harmoniously with the adjoining landscape. The proposed change of use would result in an encroachment beyond a clearly defined boundary and within an Area of Best Landscape resulting in an erosion of the rural character and appearance of the area; and ♦ the granting of permission for the proposal would
5 set a precedent for similar applications to extend the environmental limits of Yelling that the local planning authority would find difficult to resist and which would further allow successive encroachment into the open countryside harming the rural character and appearance of Yelling and the surrounding countryside.
(l) Erection of dwelling, land adjacent to 21 Station Road, Catworth – 04/03786/FUL
(Councillor Mrs J Meiklejohn, Catworth Parish Council, addressed the Panel on the application).
that consideration of the application be deferred to enable the Development Control Manager to secure improvements to the design and scale of the proposed dwelling and its location on the site in terms of its appearance on the street scene to overcome concerns relating to its relationship with No. 29 Station Road.
65. THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (RESIDENTIAL DENSITY) (LONDON, SOUTH EAST ENGLAND, SOUTH WEST ENGLAND, EAST OF ENGLAND AND NORTHAMPTONSHIRE) DIRECTION 2005
The Panel received and noted a report by the Head of Planning Services (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) regarding the extension to the East of England, with effect from 28th February 2005, of the Town and Country Planning (Residential Density) (London, South-East England, South-West England, East of England and Northamptonshire) Direction 2005.
Members noted that the Direction required residential development proposals to meet minimum density standards. In the event that a local planning authority were minded to approve an application where a proposed residential development site comprised one hectare or more and the proposed residential density was either not provided or would be less than 30 dwellings per hectare, the application in question would need to be referred to the appropriate Government Office (Go-East).
In noting the implications of the Direction for development control in Huntingdonshire, the Panel acknowledged that the Secretary of State could “call-in” an application if it could not be demonstrated that a development would make the best use of land as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 3 and the relevant spatial strategy.
66. PLANNING APPLICATIONS - TARGETS FOR DETERMINATION
By way of a report by the Head of Planning Services (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book), the Panel was advised that the Council, as local planning authority, might be designated as a planning application “standards authority” in 2005/06.
Members noted that the Council had found it difficult to meet its performance targets in terms of the determination of minor planning
6 applications in the year ending June 2004 due in part to the volume and complexity of applications being generated by development pressures in Huntingdonshire at a time when the service had lost experienced planning officers. Having been advised of the implications were the Council to be designated a “standards authority” in terms of re-defined targets and the potential loss of planning delivery grant, the Panel was acquainted with a series of procedural and operational measures which would be put in to place to ensure that applications would be dealt with as effectively and efficiently as possible.
In noting that the Head of Planning Services would be undertaking a review of planning services, to include recruitment and retention issues, for submission to Employment Panel and the Cabinet in the Summer, the Panel
RESOLVED
(a) that the content of the report now submitted be noted together with the potential implications for the Council of the possible imposition of performance standards;
(b) that the procedural and operational measures proposed for the development control service as set in paragraph 4.2 of the report now submitted be supported; and
(c) that the Panel continue to monitor the performance of the Development Control service and reconsider the issues involved in the event that the Council is designated as a “standards authority” in 2005/06.
67. APPEAL DECISIONS
The Panel received and noted a report by the Development Control Manager (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) setting out recent decisions by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of eight appeals against the refusal of planning permission by the District Council.
68. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PROGRESS REPORT: 1 OCTOBER - 31 DECEMBER 2004
The Panel received and noted a statistical report on the performance of the development control section of the Planning Division over the period 1st October – 31st December 2004.
Attention was drawn to the percentage of major and minor applications determined against national performance targets and the difficulty experienced in achieving targets within the designated timeframes when Officers in the Development Control service had a case load in excess of the accepted average for authorities as a whole.
Chairman
7 This page is intentionally left blank
8 Agenda Item 2a
AGENDA ITEM NO.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18 April 2005
OTHER APPLICATION (Report by Development Control Manager)
Case No: 0403684FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)
Proposal: ERECTION OF A CLIMATE MONITORING MAST FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD
Location: LAND NORTH EAST OF MANOR FARM, CHURCH END, CATWORTH
Applicant: E ON UK PLC (FAO MS F AUTY)
Grid Ref: 510086 273987
Date of Registration: 06.12.2004
Parish: CATWORTH
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION
1.1 This application site is located to the north east of Church End Catworth. The site lies within an area of open countryside immediately adjacent to a public footpath. A public footpath also runs through the site.
1.2 The proposal is for the erection of an climate monitoring mast with a maximum height of 52 metres, for a temporary period of 2 years. The purpose of the mast is to measure climate conditions, and in particular wind speed and its direction. The mast is to be constructed from matt tubular steel with steel guy ropes. The radius of the guy ropes from the mast is to be 25 metres. It is proposed that access to the site would be via existing tracks, which are public footpaths.
1.3 Amended plans have been submitted which reposition the mast within the application site to ensure that the mast avoids the route of the public footpaths.
2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE
2.1 Planning Policy Statement 1 (2005) - Delivering Sustainable Development - sets out the government's overarching policies on delivering sustainable development through the planning system.
2.2 Planning Policy Statement 7 (2004) - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Sets out planning policies for rural areas.
2.3 Planning Policy Statement 22 (2004) - Renewable Energy, including companion guide.- Highlights the government's aspiration
9 that 20% of the UK's energy will be from renewable sources by 2020. Advises that regional spatial strategies and local development documents should contain policies designed to promote and encourage rather than restrict development of renewable energy.
3. PLANNING POLICIES
3.1 The following policies in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan are relevant:
• P1/2 - sets out environmental restrictions on development. One of these is that development will be restricted in the countryside unless a proposal can be demonstrated to be essential in a particular rural location.
• P1/3 - requires a high standard of design and sustainability for all new development.
• P7/4 - indicates that development must relate sensitively to the landscape
• P7/6 - indicates that Local Planning Authorities will protect and enhance the quality and distinctiveness of the historic built environment.
• P7/7 - indicates that proposals for generating energy from renewable sources will be favourably considered. Local Planning Authorities will consider areas of search for generating energy from wind locations that:
• Attain adequate wind speed • Do not cause unacceptable impact on residential amenity or to the local environment. • Can be efficiently connected to new or existing energy demands
3.2 The following policies in the Huntingdonshire Local Plan are relevant:
• En17 - development in the countryside to that which is essential to the effective operation of local agriculture, horticulture, forestry, permitted mineral extraction, outdoor recreation or public utility services.
• En21 - indicates that permission will not be granted for development which would adversely effect the character of the area of best landscape
• En25 - indicates that new development will be expected to respect the scale, form, materials, and design of established buildings in the locality and where appropriate make adequate provision for landscaping and amenity areas
• En2 - requires any development effecting listed buildings to have regard to the scale form design and setting of that building
2 10 • En5 - development within or directly effecting the conservation area will be required to preserve or enhance their character or appearance
3.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance - Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment.
4. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 An application for a wind farm in close proximity to this application site has been withdrawn (ref 04/03642). The applicants have indicated that they intend to resubmit an application once further survey work and information has been obtained.
4.2 There have recently been a number of applications for anemometry masts in other locations within the District. A mast, close to RAF Molesworth has been granted planning permission and a mast at Coppingford has been refused. An appeal has been lodged against this refusal. Location maps and copies of the officer reports in respect of these sites are attached to this report for Members information. The Molesworth proposal was granted planning permission because it was considered that as the site was close to RAF Molesworth that the mast would not be harmful to visual amenity. In comparison the site at Copppingford is particularly isolated and it was concluded that this proposal would be harmful to visual amenity.
5. CONSULTATIONS
5.1 Catworth Parish Council – OBJECTION (copy attached)
5.2 Leighton Bromswold Parish Council - OBJECTION (copy attached)
5.3 Tilbrook Parish Council – OBJECTION ( copy attached)
5.4 Old Weston Parish Council – OBJECTION ( copy attached)
5.5 Covington Parish Council - NO OBSERVATIONS
5.6 Stow Longa Parish Council - NO OBJECTIONS
5.7 Spaldwick Parish Council - NO OBJECTIONS
5.8 Kimbolton and Stonley Parish Council - NO OBJECTIONS
5.9 Ellington Parish Council - NO OBSERVATIONS
5.10 Buckworth Parish Council- NO OBSERVATIONS
5.11 Easton Parish Council - NO OBSERVATIONS
5.12 RSPB - no comments received.
5.13 English Nature - NO OBJECTIONS
5.14 Wildlife Trust - NO OBJECTION to mast
3 11
5.15 Cambridgeshire Bat Group - NO OBJECTION to mast
5.16 Defence Estates - NO OBJECTION to mast but have concerns should this site be further developed into a wind farm
5.17 Civil Aviation Authority - NO OBJECTION provided Kimbolton Airfield has no objection (letter from airfield advising no objection)
5.18 Highways Agency - NO COMMENT
5.19 Countryside Services Team Cambridgeshire County Council - NO OBJECTION to proposed amended plans, which reposition the mast away from the footpaths
5.20 Highway Authority - NO OBJECTION
5.21 English Heritage - do not propose to comment in detail
5.22 East Northamptonshire District Council - NO OBJECTION
6. REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 THIRTY SEVEN letters of OBJECTION the concerns being:
• Effect on Visual Amenity - it is an Area of Best Landscape • Noise • Anxiety from infra sonic vibration • Effects on health • Effect on wildlife particularly bats • Surcharge on electricity bills • Devaluation of property • Harmful to Conservation Area • Effect on low flying aircraft • Light pollution • Distraction to drivers on A14 • Interference with TV reception • Quantity of electricity produced will be negligible and its supply unreliable and erratic • Damage from blades breaking • No local benefit • Will spoil sunsets • Will require a significant amount of construction work • Too close to built up areas • Too close to footpaths and bridleways • Flashes of reflected sunlight from turbines would be a nuisance
6.2 ONE letter of SUPPORT received
7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
7.1 This application is purely for the erection of a climate monitoring mast and has to be determined on its own merits. The windfarm application has been withdrawn by the applicants so that they can revise the Environmental Statement. It is then intended that a new application be submitted. The applicants have however asked that this
4 12 application for the climate monitoring mast be determined. In making comments on this mast some residents have confused the basis of the proposals and objected to the mast on the basis of matters which are clearly only relevant to the consideration of an application for a windfarm.
7.2 The issues which need to be taken into account in respect of this proposal are the principle of such development in the countryside, visual amenity, including the effect that the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the conservation area; the effect on the setting of nearby listed buildings; the effect on public rights of way; the effect on wildlife; the effect on residential amenity; and the effect on aviation.
7.3 The site is located within the countryside where there is a general presumption against inappropriate forms of development. Policy P1/2 in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan indicates that development in the countryside is to be restricted unless essential in that particular location. Policy En17 in the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 indicates that within the countryside development is to be restricted unless essential for the efficient operation of local agriculture, horticulture, forestry, permitted mineral extraction, outdoor recreation or public utility services.
7.4 Planning Policy Statement 22 however provides up to date national planning advice in respect of renewable energy. In paragraph 1 Key Principles it indicates that renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic and social impacts can be satisfactorily addressed. On the basis of this it is not therefore possible to refuse a proposal simply because it is located within the countryside.
7.5 The purpose of an climate monitoring mast is to establish the viability of a wind farm. In paragraph 1 (v) of PPS22 Key Principles Local Planning Authorities are advised not to make assumptions about the technical and commercial feasibility of renewable energy projects and therefore temporary monitoring masts should be supported.
7.6 Policy P7/4 in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 indicates that development must relate sensitively to the local environment and contribute to the sense of place, identity and diversity of the distinct landscape character areas.
7.7 The site is located within the Area of Best Landscape within which Policy En21 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan indicates that development which would be harmful to the character of the Area of Best Landscape should not be permitted.
7.8 The Landscape and Townscape Assessment divides the district up into a number of character areas. The application site falls within the northern wolds. The key characteristics of this area are identified as:
• A strong topography of ridges bisected by pronounced valleys • Valleys are well vegetated and intimate in scale, while ridges/plateaux fell more open • An historic landscape containing many medieval features
5 13 • Dispersed pattern of historic villages, with little modern development • Distinctive square church towers topped with spites form characteristic landmarks
7.9 The Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment indicates that the northern wolds area is regarded by many as the most attractive countryside in the District.
7.10 Planning Policy Statement 22 also provides specific advice in respect of the effect of renewable energy proposals on the landscape. It indicates in paragraph 15 that local landscape designations should not be used in themselves to refuse planning permission for renewable energy developments.
7.11 In considering whether the proposal would be harmful to the landscape it is important to remember that the application is only for a temporary permission for the mast, which is to be 52 metres high. (This is significantly lower than the height of the turbines proposed under the application for the wind farm) Having regard to this and to the existing electricity cables in the vicinity of the application site, the proposal would not be harmful to visual amenity. The mast is more than 300 metres away from the Conservation Area boundary and a similar distance away from the nearest listed building and would therefore not be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area or the setting of the nearby listed buildings. The mast is not to be lit and therefore it would not result in light pollution.
7.12 The Countryside Services Team of Cambridgeshire County Council originally objected to the proposal because the mast would obstruct footpath No20. An amended plan has been submitted which re- positions the mast within the application site to avoid the public footpaths. Formal comments have been sought from the County Council Countryside Services Team.
7.13 English Nature, the Cambridgeshire Wildlife Trust, the Cambridgeshire Bat Group and the RSPB are not objecting to the proposal and it would therefore not be harmful to nature conservation interests.
7.14 The mast is of a light weight construction and is to be sited more than 300 metres from the nearest residential property. The mast will not generate noise, result in interference or be harmful to health. A mast can be erected fairly quickly and does not require a significant amount of construction work. It is unlikely therefore that it would be harmful to residential amenity.
7.15 The Defence Estates and Civil Aviation Authority are not objecting to the mast and therefore the proposal would not be harmful to aviation interests.
7.16 The effect on property prices is not a material planning consideration. The viability or otherwise of wind energy also cannot be taken into account in the consideration of this application which is just for a climate monitoring mast.
6 14
7.17 In conclusion, Members are again reminded that the application is only for a temporary climate monitoring mast, the erection of which is supported by guidance in PPS22 in terms of establishing whether this may or may not be a viable wind energy site and not for a wind farm and that the application must be determined on its own merits. Having regarded to the development plan and other material planning considerations it is recommended that planning permission be granted for a temporary period of 2 years.
8. RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE, subject to conditions to include the following:
Nonstand - temporary 2 years
Nonstand - mast colour to be agreed
Nonstand - deflectors on guy ropes
Note - Use of footpaths for access
BACKGROUND PAPERS: Background Papers: Planning Application File Reference: 04/03684FUL Huntingdonshire Local Plan Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Structure Plan
CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Sue Wheatley Development Control Team Leader 01480 388490
7 15 This page is intentionally left blank
16 Agenda Item 2b
AGENDA ITEM NO.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18 APRIL 2005
DEFERRED APPLICATIONS (Reports by Development Control Manager)
Case No: 0402022FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)
Proposal: CONTINUATION OF USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AS PART OF DOMESTIC CURTILAGE. RETENTION OF TWO SHEDS
Location: HUMBERSTONE HOUSE, SPALDWICK ROAD, BARHAM PE28 5AB
Applicant: MR C ROUGHLEY
Grid Ref: 513574 275148
Date of Registration: 29.07.2004
Parish: BARHAM & WOOLLEY
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Members will recall that this application was first considered at the Development Control Panel meeting on 18 October 2004. A copy of the officers report is attached for information. The application was deferred to allow officers to negotiate the relocation of the sheds to a siting nearer to the main dwelling.
1.2 Following these negotiations the applicant has indicated that he would like the application to be determined as submitted with the sheds in their current positions. Members attention is therefore directed towards the previous report and recommendation.
2. RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE, subject to conditions to include the following
Nonstand - PD right removal for outbuildings
BACKGROUND PAPERS: Background Papers: Planning Application File Reference: 0402022FUL Huntingdonshire Local Plan Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Structure Plan
CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Miss Frances Fry Development Control Officer 01480 388460
17 This page is intentionally left blank
18 AGENDA ITEM NO.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18 APRIL 2005
Case No: 0402179OUT (OUTLINE APPLICATION)
Proposal: ERECTION OF AGRICULTURAL DWELLING
Location: LAND NORTHEAST OF ROMANY COTTAGE, BUCKS DROVE, RAMSEY ST MARYS
Applicant: MR J CLARKE
Grid Ref: 525493 289257
Date of Registration: 07.07.2004
Parish: RAMSEY
RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Members will recall that this application was considered at the Panel meeting on the 20 December 2004, when it was resolved that outline planning permission for the erection of an agricultural dwelling be not approved, but that, in accordance with the policies of the Council, approval be considered for the placing of a dwelling on the site for a temporary period of three years only. This course of action would allow the applicant to establish to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that a new viable agricultural business could be operated from this location. A copy of the original Panel report is attached.
2. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
2.1 Following the Panel meeting, the proposal has been discussed further with the applicant, and an additional agricultural assessment has been received in support of the applicant's proposals. This assessment looks at the potential financial viability of the holding following its reduction to 68 acres in 2008, when the applicant's present tenancy with the County Council, which gives him the use of an additional 212 acres, will be terminated.
2.2 The additional assessment concludes that the reduced holding would remain viable, largely due to the introduction of the Single Farm Payment in 2005, and would remain so. This information was not available when the original assessment was done in 2004, and has come about as a result of the review of the present CAP subsidies. In the light of the information now received, the applicant is of the opinion that the concerns of the Panel regarding the potential viability of the reduced holding have been satisfactorily addressed, and that there is now no obstacle to granting planning permission for a new dwelling. The applicant has suggested that a condition (or obligation) be used to control any prematurity of the development, and limit its
19 commencement to a date to be fixed once the time of the termination of the tenancy is known.
2.3 In the light of the additional information received and having regard to the complexity of this case, the Head of Planning services sought further independent specialist advice on the need for a dwelling to serve this reconfigured unit. A copy of the consultant's reply is attached to this report for Members information.
2.4 When the proposal is assessed against present Government guidance in PPS7, independent appraisal has concluded that the need for a dwelling to serve this changing unit has not been proven. The Guidance makes it clear that isolated dwellings in the countryside will require special justification if planning permission is to be granted and, where that justification relates to the essential need for a worker to live permanently at or near their place of work, Authorities should follow the advice in Annex A to the PPS. This Annex lays down a series of criteria by which applications should be judged. These are as follows:
• There is an established existing functional need;
• The need relates to a full time worker;
• The unit has been established for at least three years and should have been profitable for at least one of them. The unit should be financially sound, and should have a clear prospect of remaining so;
• The need could not be satisfied by another dwelling on the holding, or by other accommodation in the area; and,
• All other planning requirements could be met.
2.5 When the proposal is assessed against all of these criteria, and in the light of all the information received, it must be accepted that whilst there maybe a need for a worker to be employed full time on the holding, there is no evidence to support the functional need for a dwelling on this unit. Most importantly, none of the activities undertaken on the holding, being arable in nature, are of the type which would require immediate attention in the event of an emergency. Therefore, it must be concluded, that the proposed dwelling is not essential for the efficient operation of this reconfigured agricultural unit. As a consequence, the proposal does not satisfy all the tests laid down in PPS7 and is contrary to the policies of the Development Plan, and National Guidance. There are no material conditions in this case which would suggest that the application should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Plan.
3. RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE, for the following reason:
3.1 The proposal would be contrary to the provisions of policies P1/2 and P5/5 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003, and policies H23 and En17 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, in that development in the open countryside will be restricted to that which is essential to the efficient operation of local agriculture,
2 20 horticulture, forestry, permitted mineral extraction, outdoor recreation or public utility services. The proposal would consolidate and extend the scale of residential development in the area, which would be detrimental to the appearance and rural character of the site and the locality in general. Notwithstanding the above, the Local Planning Authority is of the opinion that the case for the dwelling being essential for the efficient functioning of the enterprise has not been adequately demonstrated and that it is thereby, premature given the length of tenure remaining at Whitehouse Farm.
Background Papers: Planning Application File Reference: 0402179OUT Huntingdonshire Local Plan Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Structure Plan
CONTACT OFFICER - enquiries about this Report to Mr D Hincks, Development Control Officer 01480 388406.
3 21 This page is intentionally left blank
22 Agenda Item 2c
AGENDA ITEM NO.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18 APRIL 2005
APPLICATIONS REQUIRING REFERENCE TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL (Reports by Development Control Manager)
Case No: 0403653FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)
Proposal: ERECTION OF DWELLING AND GARAGE
Location: LAND ADJACENT 24 GRAVELEY ROAD, OFFORD DARCY
Applicant: MR AND MRS J HUDSON
Grid Ref: 522087 266199
Date of Registration: 17.12.2004
Parish: OFFORD DARCY
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION
1.1 The site is located within the environmental limits of Offord Darcy, and previously formed part of the front garden of No. 24 Graveley Road. Outline permission exists for a single storey dwelling on the site. No. 24 Graveley Road is a large detached bungalow with a large single storey out building attached to the eastern elevation of the bungalow. The site is well screened by conifer trees along the southern boundary. The rear gardens of Nos. 28 and 30 Graveley Road are beyond this conifer screen. The eastern boundary consists of mature shrubs and trees with open fields beyond. The boundary to the west consists of a 1.8 metre high wall and fencing. The large conifer tree at the rear of the site is to be removed.
1.2 In August 2004, permission was refused for a detached two storey dwelling, and this is a full application also for a detached two storey dwelling with integral garage. However, the siting and design of the proposal are different to the previous refusal.
1.3 Access to the site is via a shared access with No. 24 Graveley Road. Amended plans have been received, showing requested changes to the access. The amended proposal shows a shared driveway for a distance of 20 metres from the edge of the highway, this would then be divided into two separate driveways, to serve the bungalow and proposed property.
23 2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE
2.1 PPG1 - 'General Policy and Principles' (1997) contains advice on the operation of the plan-led system.
2.2 PPG3 - 'Housing' (2000) provides guidance on the provision of new housing, making more efficient use of land, and other related issues.
3. PLANNING POLICIES
3.1 The following policy in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 is applicable to this proposal:
• P1/3 - A high standard of design and sustainability will be required for all new development.
3.2 The following policies in the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995) are applicable to this proposal:
• H31 - new dwellings will only be permitted where appropriate standards of privacy and amenity can be maintained and adequate parking provision provided.
• H32 - The subdivision of large curtilages will only be allowed where the resultant dwelling and its curtilage will be of a size and form sympathetic to the locality.
• En25 - requires new development to respect the scale, form, materials and design of established buildings in the locality.
• En18 - seeks to protect important site features including trees.
3.3 The following policies in the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration (2002) are applicable:
• STR1 - sets out the settlement hierarchy.
• STR2 - defines the scale of housing development.
• STR5 - selects Offord Darcy as a group village.
• HL5 - states that good design and layout will be required for new housing development which makes efficient use of land, respects the townscape, provides an appropriate mix, incorporates landscaping, creates safe places and promotes energy efficiency.
4. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 In March 2001, permission was granted for a new access road from Graveley Road to No. 24. (0100176FUL)
4.2 In July 2004, outline permission granted for a single storey dwelling (0401760OUT)
2 24 4.3 In August 2004, permission was refused for a detached two storey dwelling house. (0401581FUL)
5. CONSULTATIONS
5.1 Offord Darcy Parish Council - OBJECTION (copy attached).
5.2 HDC Transportation - NO OBJECTION, subject to appropriate conditions regarding the surface treatment of the access, visibility splays and the shared access to remain ungated.
6. REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 THREE letters of OBJECTION have been received and raise the following concerns:
• the dwelling would be out of proportion to the size of the plot and properties in the vicinity;
• detrimental impact character and amenity of the area;
• loss of hedging/trees;
• contrary to the Development Plan;
• proximity of new dwelling to the boundary with No. 30 Graveley Road;
• decrease property values in the area;
• closeness of hedge to southern elevation windows in new dwelling would create pressure for removal of hedge;
• loss of light and amenity to neighbouring properties;
• site only suitable for a single storey dwelling; and,
• impact on adjacent bungalow.
7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
7.1 The main issues to consider with this application are the planning history of the site, the siting and design of the new dwelling, the impact on the trees and hedge along the southern boundary and impact on the neighbouring properties.
Planning History
7.2 Although outline planning permission has been granted for the erection of a dwelling on this site, any proposal to sub-divide an existing property still needs to retain appropriate standards of privacy and amenity in respect of the existing dwelling. The previous Panel Report and Decision Notice have been included in your papers for Members information.
3 25 Siting and Design
7.3 The proposed new dwelling would be located adjacent to the southern boundary hedge and the re-siting and new design, which includes a lowered ridge height, would lessen the impact on the adjacent bungalow. The single storey element to the northern elevation would be screened from the bungalow by the proposed boundary fence. The windows proposed in the northern elevation would be far enough away from the front elevation of the existing bungalow to have little detrimental impact on amenity and privacy.
7.4 However, the proposed dwelling would, as a result of its re-siting, be positioned adjacent to the southern boundary and therefore closer to the properties beyond it. The three or four metre high boundary consists of conifer hedging which provides extensive screening of the proposal site and the southern elevation of the proposal would be 15 metres in length and varying ridge height. Only one velux window is proposed above ground floor height in this elevation.
Trees and Hedging
7.5 The large conifer tree, close to the new property, is to be removed but the Landscape Officer has no objection to this and new tree planting can be achieved with appropriate planting conditions.
7.6 Concerns have also been raised over the impact of the proposal on the amenity of the dwellings backing onto the site. The tall Leylandii hedge marks the boundary between the rear gardens of the properties on Graveley Road and Littleworth End. There would be little impact on the privacy of these properties if the hedge was reduced in size or removed and replaced, for example, with a 1.8/2 metre high close boarded fence, due to the absence of first floor windows at this level.
7.7 The proposal would introduce a building 6 metres in height, extending across most of the rear boundary of No. 30 Graveley Road, and at a distance of 10 metres from the conservatory at the rear of this property. However, it is considered that this would not unduly affect the amenity of the occupiers of this property. The two storey element of the proposal would be adjacent to the rear boundary of Ronaldsway, Littleworth Road, and extend for approximately half its length. The distance between the rear of this property and the proposal would be 16 metres.
7.8 It is, therefore, considered that there would be some impact on neighbouring properties but not sufficient to warrant a refusal on amenity grounds. The retention of the hedge would screen the proposal along this boundary and the applicant is happy for a condition to be imposed regarding the retention of the hedge but limited in height and width. This would appear reasonable. The Landscape Officer has confirmed that this would be achievable if appropriate dig/construction methods are used along this boundary. This can be applied by condition.
4 26 7.9 In the light of national guidance, Development Plan policies and other material considerations planning permission may be granted for the development as proposed.
8. RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE, subject to conditions to include the following:
02001 Time limit
04001 Details surface and foul water
Nonstand Highways - surface
Nonstand Highways – visibility splays
Nonstand Ungated
06002 Trees details of planting
05001 Buildings
Nonstand Hard and soft landscaping
Nonstand Protection of hedge during construction and retention thereafter
13007 Permitted Development (Windows)
17001 Levels Building/Site
Background Papers: Planning Application File Reference: 0403653FUL; 0401760OUT; 0401581FUL Huntingdonshire Local Plan Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Structure Plan
CONTACT OFFICER - enquiries about this Report to Mrs Jenny Thomas Development Control Officer 01480 388392.
5 27 This page is intentionally left blank
28 AGENDA ITEM NO.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18 APRIL 2005
Case No: 0500225FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)
Proposal: ERECTION OF DWELLING
Location: LAND ADJACENT 2 THE MALTING, RAMSEY
Applicant: MR AND MRS J GOODBURN
Grid Ref: 527804 284624
Date of Registration: 24.01.2005
Parish: RAMSEY
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION
1.1 This site is located on the edge of the town, and consists of part of the side garden of the applicant's property. The site has no particular features, but there are mature conifer hedges on two of the boundaries, and the garden is generally well cared for. The land slopes down towards the drainage ditch at the rear of the site. Part of the site is occupied by a garage and carport. The area is characterised by moderately sized properties in larger than average gardens, giving the area a sense of spaciousness. There are open fields to the west of the site.
1.2 The proposal is to demolish one of the garages and the carport, and to erect a dwelling.
2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE
2.1 PPS1 – ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’.
2.2 PPG3 - 'Housing' (2000) provides guidance on the provision of new housing, making more efficient use of land, and other related issues.
3. PLANNING POLICIES
3.1 The site is within the built up area of the town.
3.2 The following policies within the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 are relevant:
• P1/3 - sustainable development in built environment.
• P5/2 - re-using previously developed land and buildings
29 3.3 The following policies within the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration 2002 are relevant:
• HL5 - good design and layout will be required in all new housing development.
• HL7 - the Council will seek to maximise the re-use of previously developed land, and support the re-use of empty properties.
3.4 The following policies within the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant:
• H31 - new dwellings will only be permitted where appropriate standards of privacy and amenity can be maintained.
• H32 - the sub-division of large curtilages will only be permitted where the resultant dwelling and its curtilage are sympathetic to the locality.
• En25 - new development will generally respect the scale etc of established buildings in the locality.
3.5 The Supplementary Planning Guidance Huntingdonshire Design Guide is a material consideration.
4. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 A similar application (02/02176) was withdrawn in November 2002.
5. CONSULTATIONS
5.1 Ramsey Town Council – OBJECTION (copy attached).
5.2 HDC Environment and Transport - the proposal should not encroach onto highway land. The applicant has confirmed that the entire application site is within his control.
6. REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 Neighbours - None received.
7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
7.1 This is previous developed land within the meaning of PPG3, and thus there is a presumption in favour of its development if that development was to be in-keeping with the character of the area. However, the impact of the proposal on the character of the existing development is a material consideration, and must be taken into account, together with issues relating to the effect of the proposal on the amenities of the adjacent properties, and on the highway network.
7.2 There are no objections to the demolition of the garage and the carport, as these are of no great merit and do not add to the character of the area.
2 30 7.3 The plot has a width of approximately 12 metres, a figure which compares favourably with other plots in the vicinity, and the depth is also consistent with other sites on this side of the road. There is reasonable space around the dwelling, with the distance between the buildings being no less than in the majority of cases along this part of the Malting, and thus the proposed dwelling will not appear cramped in its setting. The site is a prominent one, but the overall proportions of the building are in keeping with the established pattern of development and it will not result in an over-dominant feature in the street scene. The design and scale of the building incorporate the advice in the Design Guide, and, whilst the ridge line does not follow the existing run of ridges, this is not an overriding objection and it will add variety to the street scene. No. 4 The Malting has a large gable facing the road, similar to the one now being proposed. The submission of sample materials will be a condition should consent be granted.
7.4 The access and parking arrangements are acceptable, and parking provision is in accordance with the adopted standards. The access will use an existing entrance to the site.
7.5 The proposal will have only a limited impact on the amenities of the adjacent properties and it is unlikely that there will be a significant loss of amenity due to overlooking or overshadowing.
7.6 There are no overriding objections to this proposal. Therefore, having regard to applicable national and local planning policies, and having taken all relevant material considerations into account, it is considered that planning permission should be granted in this instance.
8. RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE, subject to conditions to include the following:
02001 Time limit
05001 Buildings
17001 Levels Building/Site
06015 Boundary treatment
03022 Parking
Background Papers: Planning Application File Reference: 0500225FUL Huntingdonshire Local Plan Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Structure Plan
CONTACT OFFICER - enquiries about this Report to Mr D Hincks, Development Control Officer 01480 388406.
3 31 This page is intentionally left blank
32 AGENDA ITEM NO.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18 March 2005
Case No: 0500578S73 (RENEWAL OF CONSENT/VARY CONDITIONS)
Proposal: REMOVAL OF CONDITION 4 FROM PERMISSION 0402128 WHICH REQUIRES SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF REVISED SITING DETAILS OF EXTERNAL STAIRCASE
Location: BRENTON VETERINARY CLINIC, 56 HIGH STREET, BRAMPTON PE28 4TH
Applicant: MESSRS DONE AND STEVENS
Grid Ref: 520973 270978
Date of Registration: 21.02.2005
Parish: BRAMPTON
RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION
1.1 This application relates to the veterinary clinic which is located in the High Street in the centre of the village of Brampton.
1.2 Planning permission has already been granted, under delegated powers, for an extension to form a flat (ref 04/02128FUL). A condition was imposed on this permission requiring the submission of amended details of the access staircase to the flat. In the submitted scheme the staircase was proposed at right angles to the building. (A copy of the drawings in respect of this application is attached for Members information).
1.3 This proposal is to vary this condition to allow the construction of the staircase in the position originally proposed. The applicant puts forward the following justification for this:
The occupants of the existing flat welcome a gated access leading directly to a fenced enclosure at the bottom of the staircase which can be used for refuse bins and safe storage of cycles. The proposal provides this same facility.
Direct access is required from the external door leading into the preparation room to the grassed area at the rear in order that animals accommodated overnight in the kennel room can be easily and safely exercised.
Practical implications necessitate the siting of the external storage unit as close as possible to the door leading into the preparation room.
33 2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE
2.1 Planning Policy Statement 1 – ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (2005)
2.2 Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 – ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’ (1994)
3. PLANNING POLICIES
3.1 The following policies in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 are relevant:
• P1/3 - indicates that a high standard of design and sustainability will be required for all new development.
• P7/6 - indicates that Local Planning Authorities will protect and enhance the quality and distinctiveness of the historic built environment.
3.2 The following policies in the Huntingdonshire Local Plan are relevant:
• En5 - indicates that development within or directly effecting conservation areas will be required to preserve or enhance their character or appearance.
• En6 - indicates that in conservation areas a high standard of design will be required and that careful consideration will need to be given to the scale and form of the development and to materials.
• H30 - indicates that planning permission will not normally be granted for the introduction or extension to commercial uses or activities within existing residential areas where it would be likely to have a detrimental effect on amenities.
4. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 Previous permission for extension to form flat (ref 04/02128).
5. CONSULTATIONS
5.1 Brampton Parish Council - NO OBJECTION (copy attached)
6. REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 None
7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
7.1 The condition was imposed because it was considered that the staircase, in the position shown in the drawings submitted under the previous application (ref 04/02128), would be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The issue, which needs to be considered is whether there are any material planning considerations which outweigh this harm and justify the removal of the condition requiring the submission of revised details.
2 34
7.2 There is a substantial gap between the vets and the adjacent property, which allows for direct views of the rear of the vets from the High Street. In view of this any staircase will directly effect the setting of the High Street. If the staircase is at right angles to the building as shown in the drawings submitted under the previous application (ref 04/02128) then it would be particularly visible. Its impact however could be reduced if it were to be positioned alongside the building (as suggested by Officers to the applicant).
7.3 The justification put forward by the applicant is noted, however convenience for the vets practise would appear to be the main justification and this does not make acceptable development which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
7.4 Having regard to the development plan and other material considerations it is therefore recommended that permission be refused for the removal of the condition.
8. RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE, for the following reason:
8.1 The staircase in the position shown in the drawings submitted under application ref 04/0212FUL would be particularly prominent and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area contrary to Policy P7/6 in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 and Policies En5 and En6 in the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995.
Background Papers: Planning Application File Reference: 0500578S73; 0402128FUL Huntingdonshire Local Plan Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Structure Plan
CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Sue Wheatley Development Control Team Leader 01480 388490
3 35 This page is intentionally left blank
36 AGENDA ITEM NO.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18 APRIL 2005
Case No: 0500333FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)
Proposal: CHANGE OF USE OF BUILDING TO CHILDREN'S ACTIVITY CENTRE AND ALTERATIONS TO BUILDING
Location: CRYSTAL LAKE TOURING PARK, LOW ROAD, FENSTANTON PE28 9HU
Applicant: SCENIC ESTATES LTD
Grid Ref: 531434 269319
Date of Registration: 18.02.2005
Parish: FENSTANTON
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION
1.1 The proposal is to change the use of a building to use as a children's activity centre and to slightly alter and modify the building on part of the Crystal Lakes complex off Low Road Fenstanton.
1.2 Activities already occurring at the site include caravanning, fishing horsey-culture, Sunday car boot sales. The building is a former agricultural building and has been used or associated with activities in connection with the caravan operation. Planning permission already exists for use of this building as a children's activity centre as part of a wider permission for recreation use granted after consideration by Panel in August 2002. A condition of permission withdrew any other use(s) within Class D2 of Use Classes Order.
2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE
2.1 PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.
2.2 PPG13 - Transport
2.3 PPG17- Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation
2.4 PPG25 - Development and Flood Risk.
3. PLANNING POLICIES
3.1 The following policies within the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 are relevant:
• P1/2 - Environmental Restrictions on Development
37 • P4/1 - Tourism, Recreation and Leisure Strategy
3.2 The following policies within the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant:
• En17 - Development in the Countryside
4. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 Considerable, but of particular relevance is 02/00972FUL (summarised above) and a recent refusal for a fitness/activity centre.
5. CONSULTATIONS
5.1 Fenstanton Parish Council - REFUSE (copy attached).
6. REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 None
7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
7.1 Planning permission already exists for the use, given as part of a much wider recreation approval in 2002 and, as such, a refusal on the basis of the Parish Council's recommendation is entirely unreasonable. This application is a more detailed proposal showing alterations to the building and the layout of the various elements of the activity.
7.2 The alterations and extension to the building are modest in their context and result in an overall visual improvement.
7.3 As part of a wider recreational activity this use is consistent with National Guidance in PPG17. Traffic will inevitably increase but this has already been addressed during consideration of the earlier recreation approval.
8. RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE, subject to conditions to include the following:
02001 Time limit
05001 Buildings
07002 Restriction of use
Background Papers: Planning Application File Reference: 0500333FUL Huntingdonshire Local Plan Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Structure Plan
CONTACT OFFICER - enquiries about this Report to Mr G Crocker, Development Control Team Leader 01480 388403
2 38
3 39 This page is intentionally left blank
40 AGENDA ITEM NO.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18 APRIL 2005
Case No: 0500407S73 (RENEWAL OF CONSENT/VARY CONDITIONS)
Proposal: VARIATION OF TIME CONDITION ON PERMISSION 0212903 TO ALLOW FURTHER TIME FOR SUBMISSION OF RESERVED MATTERS
Location: POTTON LTD., ELTISLEY ROAD, GREAT GRANSDEN SG19 3AR
Applicant: POTTON LTD
Grid Ref: 527012 256244
Date of Registration: 10.02.2005
Parish: GREAT GRANSDEN
RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION
1.1 The site is situated on the western side of Eltisley Road and forms part of a larger area of land that is currently occupied by a timber fabrication company. The frontage to Eltisley Road is defined by a substantial hawthorn hedge and shallow ditch. To the rear of the hedge there is an open area of land that is laid mostly to grass. The southern boundary of the site is defined by one of the access points into the timber yard while conifer trees define the northern boundary. The western boundary is marked by the edge of a timber storage area. To the south of the site and within the operational area of the timber yard there is an office and workshop building. The land opposite and to the east is in agricultural use. There are residential properties further to the south and there is a haulage yard, with an application for change of use to B1(c) and/or B2 and/or B8 currently being considered immediately to the north.
1.2 This application has been submitted for the variation of time limit for submission of reserved matters in relation to previous outline approval (0212903OUT) which provided for the erection of an office building extending to 400 square metres and the formation of a product display area. All matters with the exception of the proposed means of access were reserved for subsequent approval.
1.3 The site is located within the environmental limits defined for Great Gransden by the Huntingdonshire local Plan, 1995 and defined Area of Best Landscape.
41 2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE
2.1 PPS1 - 'Delivering Sustainable Development' (2005) - sets out policies on different aspects of land use planning in England.
2.2 PGG4 - 'Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms' (1992) - advises that planning decisions must reconcile necessary development with environmental protection and other development plan policies.
2.3 PPS7 - 'Sustainable Development in Rural Areas' (2004) - concerns development proposals in the countryside.
2.4 PPG13 - 'Transport' (2001) - aims to promote more sustainable forms of development.
3. PLANNING POLICIES
3.1 The following policies in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) are applicable to this proposal:
• P1/3 - Requires a high standard of design and sustainability for new development.
• P2/2 - Advises on the general criteria for employment development proposals
• P2/6 - Rural Economy - considers small-scale development in rural areas
3.2 The following policies in the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995) are applicable to this proposal:
• E1 - explains HDC to promote economic growth in the Huntingdonshire.
• E8 - permits small-scale employment development in villages subject to there being no adverse impact upon the character of the settlement.
• E11 - indicates that the expansion of existing firms will be allowed providing there is no conflict with other local plan policies.
• E13 - indicates that industrial development will not be permitted where there would be serious damage to the environment.
• En21 - aims to safeguard the character of Areas of Best Landscape.
• En25 - requires new development to respect the character of the locality.
2 42 4. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 The site has an extensive planning history, with various applications have been approved for operational buildings. Of most relevance to this application is the original permission granted in outline under ref 0212903OUT and dated 21 January 2003.
5. CONSULTATIONS
5.1 Great Gransden Parish Council - OBJECTION (copy attached).
5.2 Local Highway Authority (CCC) - NO OBJECTION subject to the provision of a Transport Plan, the restriction of southern access to inward movements only and the imposition of access, parking, turning and cycle storage conditions.
5.3 Environment Agency - no comments received.
5.4 Health and Safety Executive - Does not advise, on safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission.
5.5 Head of Environmental Health Services (HDC) - NO OBJECTION providing that the proposed ‘show homes’ are not used as permanent residential accommodation.
5.6 Countryside Services (CCC) - NO OBJECTION providing the public footpath to the south of the land occupied by the applicant is not obstructed.
5.7 Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service - No additional water supplies required for fire fighting purposes.
6. REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 No other responses were received.
7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
7.1 The main issue in this case is whether circumstances have materially altered since the original grant of planning permission in 2003. Despite the adoption of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) since the date of the original permission, there have not been any material changes in circumstances since this time, and therefore no reason to resist the renewal application. For the purposes of clarification, the following should be noted:
7.2 The site is located within the built up area defined for Great Gransden by the Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 and forms part of the applicants existing operational area. Structure Plan Policy P2/2 and Local Plan Policy E11 indicate that planning permission may be granted for the expansion of existing firms providing the scale and location of the development does not conflict with other Local Plan policies.
7.3 The proposed office and product display area would be located to the north of the existing office and production building and to the east of an area that is used for timber storage purposes. It would be well
3 43 related to these buildings and would be screened by the hedgerow that exists to the Eltisley Road frontage and the planting that exists to the northern boundary of the site. The impact of development upon the surrounding countryside would, therefore, be limited and no obvious conflict would exist with Development Plan policies that seek to protect the defined Area of Best Landscape.
7.4 The proposal has been submitted following a rationalisation of the applicants existing business activities, with a decision having been made to relocate its operations to Great Gransden and to replace the existing product display area in St Neots within one in the village. Whilst an application for the reserved matters in relation to the office building (0500338REM) has been received and is currently under consideration, the applicant is not yet in a position to submit such details for the show area.
7.5 In order to ensure that the product display area is not used for permanent residential purposes suitable planning conditions were attached to the original planning permission, including one that would require the clearance of the buildings should the applicants cease to operate from the site. These would remain effective and address the comments made by the Head of Environmental Health Services and the issues raised in the letter of representation that has been received.
7.6 The rationalisation of the applicant’s business following the closure of one of the product divisions has led to a combined reduction of about 50 HGV and private vehicle movements per day. While the proposed office building may be expected to generate up to 25 private vehicle movements per day no further HGV movements are anticipated. The original comments made by the Great Gransden Parish Council regarding increases in HGV movements could not, therefore, be proven.
7.7 The Local Highway Authority was satisfied with the access arrangements but recommended that the southern access point be used for inward vehicle movements only because of the limited visibility that is available along Eltisley Road. It was also recommended that the applicant provide a Transport Plan to encourage vehicle sharing and the use of alternative modes of transport. These matters are capable of resolution though the imposition of planning conditions as are the requirements for parking, turning and cycle storage.
7.8 The Parish Council have been advised that as a matter of fact, the site is within the village environmental limits as defined in the Local Plan. However, as they have previously objected to the proposal, they have confirmed they wish to maintain these objections.
7.9 As such, and in the light of national guidance, Development Plan policies and other material considerations the planning permission may be varied to allow further time for the submission of reserved matters as proposed.
4 44 8. RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE, subject to conditions to include the following:
Nonstand Time limit (3 more years)
Nonstand To be read in conjunction with 0212903OUT
Background Papers: Planning Application File Reference: 0500407S73; 0212903OUT Huntingdonshire Local Plan Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Structure Plan
CONTACT OFFICER - enquiries about this Report to Simon Richardson Development Control Officer 01480 388411.
5 45 This page is intentionally left blank
46 AGENDA ITEM NO.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18 APRIL 2005
Case No: 0500029FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)
Proposal: RETENTION OF USE AS TWO DWELLINGS
Location: 2 MARGETTS, HEMINGFORD GREY PE28 9EP
Applicant: MR R SMITH
Grid Ref: 529912 270133
Date of Registration: 04.01.2005
Parish: HEMINGFORD GREY
RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION
1.1 The proposal is for the retention of the use of the property as two dwellings, after it was extended initially to provide ancillary residential accommodation.
1.2 This is an extended semi-detached bungalow, constructed of buff brick with concrete plain tile roof. The frontage unit (2A) as shown on the submitted plan has a small gravelled amenity area that is visible from the public domain. The rear unit (2) as shown on the plan, benefits from a private amenity area bounded by a 6’ fence. It is unclear if the area at the front, partitioned by a 6’ lattice screen, is parking for the rear or frontage unit.
2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE
2.1 PPS1 – ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ 2005
2.2 PPG3 – ‘Housing’ 2000
3. PLANNING POLICIES
3.1 The following policies within the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 are relevant:
• P1/3 - a high standard of design and sustainability for all new development.
• P5/2 - Re-using previously developed land and buildings.
47 3.2 The following policies within the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant:
• H31 - new dwellings will only be permitted where appropriate standards of privacy and amenity can be maintained and adequate parking provision provided.
• H32 - the sub-division of large cartilages will only be allowed where the resultant dwelling and its curtilage will be of a size and form sympathetic to the locality.
• H35 - resists proposals which create tandem development.
3.3 The following policies within the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration 2002 are relevant:
• HL5 - good design and layout of all new housing development including conversions and changes of use.
• HL7 - previously-developed land and buildings.
4. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 Permission granted with non-severance condition in 1996, to extend the property by providing ancillary residential accommodation, under reference 96/1581 with a planning condition restricting the use of the extended property to a single dwelling-house.
5. CONSULTATIONS
5.1 Hemingford Grey Parish Council - NO OBJECTION (copy attached).
6. REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 There have been no letters received from neighbouring properties with regard to this proposal.
7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
7.1 Although Government advice encourages the efficient use of land this should not be at the expense of other material planning considerations, which in this case is the principle of the acceptability of the sub-division of this property to form two separate units.
7.2 In considering the character of the area, although extensions may have been erected, there are no other sites with such tandem development and on this basis the proposal if allowed would be very much out of character with that of the surrounding area.
7.3 Although the rear unit does have private amenity space, the frontage unit does not have any as very public views are obtained from the road. This would be of detriment to the living conditions in terms of providing adequate space for recreational or privacy needs of the occupants whether they be, present or future occupiers. Also of concern would be the potential harm caused by noise and disturbance to the occupants of both units, if severance allowed.
2 48 There is also inadequate off-street parking for two separate units. Obviously parking was acceptable for one planning unit, however for both units to achieve off-street parking the amenity space for the frontage unit would be further diminished.
7.4 Overall this is a proposal, that whilst trying to provide for smaller units, which would result in unacceptable standards of amenity for the proposed occupants of those units. Whilst the Council is committed to the provision of a range of accommodation types this proposal cannot be supported in its current form. Therefore having regard to applicable national and local planning policies, and having taken all relevant material considerations into account, it is recommended that planning permission should be refused in this instance.
8. RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE, for the following reason:
8.1 The sub-division of the unit, to provide two separate units, would result in tandem development of harm to the character of the area; and inadequate private amenity space that would be contrary to Policy H31 and H35 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 and HL5 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration 2002.
Background Papers: Planning Application File Reference: 0500029FUL Huntingdonshire Local Plan Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Structure Plan
CONTACT OFFICER - enquiries about this Report to Miss D Owen, Development Control Officer on 01480 388408.
3 49 This page is intentionally left blank
50 AGENDA ITEM NO.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18 APRIL 2005
Case No: 0500188FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)
Proposal: CHANGE OF USE OF PART OF BUILDING FOR TEMPORARY USE AS DWELLING FOR FISHERY MANAGER
Location: FISH FARM, HARTFORD LAKES, BANKS END, WYTON PE28 2AA
Applicant: MR AND MRS S BIRAK
Grid Ref: 526650 272941
Date of Registration: 07.02.2005
Parish: HOUGHTON & WYTON
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION
1.1 The site forms part of a fishery and the accommodation is required for the manager to care for stock in breed. The accommodation is proposed for a temporary period and is mostly on the first floor within an existing building (having planning permission for breeding/rearing purposes).
1.2 The application is supported by an independent specialist appraisal.
1.3 The site is in the countryside outside any defined settlement and accessed by Ruddles Lane - a gated bridleway.
2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE
• PPS7 – Development in the Countryside
3. PLANNING POLICIES
3.1 The following policy within the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 is applicable:
• P1/2 - environmental restrictions on Development.
3.2 The following policies within the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are applicable:
• En17 - development in the Countryside.
• H23 - housing development outside environmental limits.
51 4. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 Planning permission was given in 1998 for a fish rearing building (1058/96).
4.2 Upon inspection of the works it was found that the building had not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and had been fitted out, to all intents and purposes, as a dwelling house - albeit that there were breeding tanks and associated equipment within the building. Enforcement action followed to secure the proper built form and use.
4.3 An application supported by an appraisal in April 2004 for a mobile home was refused. It was suggested to the applicant that, if there was strong support for an accommodation need on the site then why not utilize the first floor accommodation of the fish rearing building on a temporary basis. This would have a twofold benefit. It would enable functional accommodation whilst establishing viability of the enterprise, and would eliminate the need to site a visually intrusive mobile home.
5. CONSULTATIONS
5.1 Houghton and Wyton Parish Council – OBJECTION (copy attached). The procedure and policy base to follow in such a case has been explained to the Parish Council and it has been requested to reconsider. Upon reconsideration, the Parish Council maintain their recommendation.
5.2 Environment Agency - NO OBJECTION providing the occupier of the accommodation is made aware of the potential risk of flooding.
6. REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 TWO representations received. One on the applicant circumventing the rules in trying to obtain residential accommodation; one on abuse of access by fishermen.
7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
7.1 The issue to consider is the need and appropriate justification for accommodation in the countryside on the basis of PPS7 advice and current Development Plan policy. That is, whether or not it is essential for someone on site for management purposes/looking after stock and if so, that the enterprise has a prospect of viability.
7.2 The independent report supporting the application has been submitted by ACORUS. This concludes a functional need for accommodation and that the financial prospects are good and is likely to continue. The advice in such circumstances is to allow accommodation for a temporary period of three years to enable establishment and to prove financially sound. Normally in such circumstance the advice is to allow a temporary home, usually a mobile.
7.3 Despite the misgivings over the applicants intentions by his action in constructing the barn, it makes absolute common sense that with the
2 52 need established, providing the temporary accommodation in the barn is far better visually than a mobile home.
7.4 There is compliance with PPS7 guidance and Policy H23 and the use of the barn means no visual intrusion, as would be the case with a mobile home. A temporary permission of three years is appropriate.
7.5 Having regard to applicable national and local policies and having taken into account all relevant material considerations it is considered that planning permission should be granted on a temporary basis and subject to agricultural restriction.
8. RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE, subject to conditions to include the following:
Nonstand Temporary period of three years
07007 Agricultural occupancy
Background Papers: Planning Application File Reference: 0500188FUL Huntingdonshire Local Plan Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Structure Plan
CONTACT OFFICER - enquiries about this Report to Mr G Crocker, Development Control Team Leader 01480 388403
3 53 This page is intentionally left blank
54 Agenda Item 3
AGENDA ITEM NO.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18 APRIL 2005
APPEAL DECISION (Report by Development Control Manager)
INFORMAL HEARING
1. Appellant: Mr A Hussein Agent: Andrew S Campbell Associates
Alterations to building without Dismissed Listed Building Consent 01.03.05 29 The Broadway, St Ives
55
INFORMAL HEARING
1. 0100354ENECOM Alterations to building without Listed Building Consent 29 The Broadway, St Ives Mr A Hussein
The appeals were against a Listed Building Enforcement Notice served against:
1. Replacement of windows with UPVC windows. 2. Installation of a plastic canopy. 3. Installation of two halide lamps. 4. Installation of vent/grill. 5. Installation of 2cctv cameras.
A Hearing was held on 15 February 2005
The Inspector’s Reasons
• Appeal on ground (c). That the works do not constitute a contravention. The Inspector considered that all of the fittings that have been installed have a notable impact on the historic and architectural features of the property and accordingly they affect the building’s special character. The appeal on ground (c) fails.
• Appeal on ground (g). That the requirements exceed what is necessary. The items all have a harmful effect on the listed building and none of those items could have been excluded from the Enforcement Notice. Although the Inspector appreciated that the appellant intends to make improvements and has submitted applications for listed building consent and planning permission, there can be no certainty that the works would be implemented even if consent and permission were to be granted. The appeal on ground (g) therefore, fails.
• Appeal on ground (h). That the period specified for the steps required is too short. The Inspector was not persuaded that the lights and canopy are essential for the appellant’s business, but accepted that he needs time to make alternative arrangements and that any work should be implemented with care not to damage the listed building or its fabric. Accordingly the period of compliance with the Notice is extended to 6 months.
Although much of the façade was radically altered in the early 20th Century to accommodate a cinema, the frontage retains a unit that should be maintained and it is important that its fine features should be preserved and respected. The items referred to above are inconsistent with the elegance and subtlety of the original design and incompatible with the Listed Building and Conservation Area and must be removed to retain the integrity of the building.
The Appeal is dismissed and the Listed Building Enforcement Notice upheld.
2 56
Application for Award of Costs against the Council
The Inspector considered this application in the light of Circular 8/93 and all relevant circumstances and found that the Council had legitimate concerns about the works that had been carried out without authorisation. He was satisfied from the evidence that the Council had been active in seeking alterations that would include removal of various items that were in breach of listed building control. He noted that the Council had taken up the matter in 2001 and had pursued it over the intervening period but the appellant has taken no action until shortly before the hearing of this appeal.
The Inspector concluded that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense has not been demonstrated and refused the application for the award of costs.
Background Papers: Relevant Appeal Files
CONTACT OFFICER - enquiries about this Report to Mrs J Holland, Administrative Officer, 01480 388418.
3 57
FORTHCOMING APPEALS
NONE
4 58