Brecon Beacons National Park Authority PLANNING, ACCESS

ENCLOSURE 5

Brecon Beacons National Park Authority

PLANNING, ACCESS AND RIGHTS OF WAY

COMMITTEE

10 September 2013

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

AND HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

ON APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY

THE PLANNING, ACCESS AND RIGHTS OF WAY

COMMITTEE

Page 1 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

INDEX

ITEM REFERENCE ADDRESS RECOMMENDATION

1 11/06717/FUL Land At Castle Farm Permit subject to Section Sennybridge 106 Agreement Withdrawn Brecon Powys LD3 8PS 2 11/06718/REM Land At Castle Farm Permit subject to Section Sennybridge 106 Agreement Withdrawn Brecon Powys LD3 8PS 3 13/08809/OUT Springfields, Minded to Permit Llangenny, Crickhowell

4 13/09460/FUL Rhiwddu Permit Gwynfe Llangadog SA19 9PA

5 13/09596/OUT Land adjoining St John's Close, Permit Tretower, Crickhowell, Powys

6 13/09675/FUL Talybont Farm Permit Talybont-On-Usk Brecon LD3 7YJ

7 13/09787/OUT land adjoining Glan yr Afon Permit subject to Section Castle Road 106 Agreement Llangynidr Crickhowell NP8 1NG 8 13/09819/FUL 21 Caepound Permit Hay-On-Wye Hereford Powys HR3 5DU

Page 2 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

ITEM NUMBER: 1

APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/06717/FUL APPLICANTS NAME(S): SITE ADDRESS: Land At Castle Farm Sennybridge Brecon Powys LD3 8PS

GRID REF: E: 291930 N:228375 COMMUNITY: Maescar DATE VALIDATED: 25 April 2012 DECISION DUE DATE: 15 August 2012 CASE OFFICER: Mr Ryan Greaney

PROPOSAL Construction of garage block and laying out of residential gardens in association with reserved matters application under outline P20942.

ADDRESS Land At Castle Farm, Sennybridge, Brecon

Page 3 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS Consultee Received Comments

Countryside Council 21st Jun 2011 The CCW has recently responded to a consultation For Wales from the Welsh Government's (WG) with respect to their Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening direction request on this application. The CCW indicated, in a letter of 13 June 2011, our view that an EIA is required for the proposed scheme. We wish to make observations on this proposal, but until such time as WG provide its direction it would be premature to comment on the proposal. We will therefore consider this matter further when we are in receipt of WG's direction. Environment Agency 2nd Aug 2011 In line with our advice regarding the associated Wales reserved matters application (ref: 11/06718/REM), we will not be commenting fully on this proposal until an Environmental Statement (ES) is received. This follows the Welsh Government's Screening Direction on 20 July 2011, in which they indicated that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be required for the proposed development at this site. Maescar Community 8th Jul 2011 Supported, Alteration to boundary will hopefully Council leave the footpath Maescar Community 24th Jan 2013 Object Council NP Tree Consultant 1 25th Jul 2012 With regards to the amended Environmental Statement submitted in April, I have read through chapter 9: Ecology, and agree with the proposals in section 9.101 with regards to fencing off the woodland.

The proposed works will have little impact on the adjacent woodland, and should be fenced off along the extent of the canopy spread.

I therefore have no objections to the proposed works and recommend approval.

Powys County 31st May 2011 No Comment Council Building Regulations Powys County 9th Jun 2011 No Comments Council Highways Powys County 20th Jul 2011 No Comment

Page 4 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

Council Highways Powys County 30th Jan 2013 No Additional Comments to make Council Highways

CONTRIBUTORS Gwen Newton, Brynawel, Sennybridge Mrs B P V Pengelly, 1-2 Castell Du Cottage, Sennybridge Jennifer Davies, Milestone Cottage, Sennybridge I Cooper, Tawelfa, Sennybridge Mrs F Thomas, Ty Onnen, Sennybridge Mr J Powell, Min-Y-Ffordd, Sennybridge Mr D A Matthews, Caerlan, Sennybridge Mr And Mrs Goodman, Castell Lodge, Sennybridge Nigel Kenchington, Almora Villas, Sennybridge Gwen Newton Mr And Mrs Davies, Bronafon, Castle Farm Mrs Elizabeth Maclean, Sennybridge Village Residents Group, C/o Glan Wysc Mrs Elizabeth Maclean, Glan Wysc, Sennybridge Mr And Mrs Goodman, 1/2 Castle Lodge, Sennybridge Malcolm Hill, Dan Y Coed, Sennybridge D A Matthews, Caer-Lan, Sennybridge Jennifer Davies, Milestone Cottage, Sennybridge Isobel Cooper, Tawelfa, Castell Du Maria Williams, 2 Riverside View, High Street Margaret Clifford, Carn Y Castell, Sennybridge Mr Richard Camp, Nyth Y Wennol, Sennybridge Mr R P Thomas Mr And Mrs Pryce, 1 New Houses, High Street

RELEVANT POLICIES

PLANNING HISTORY App Ref Description Decision Date

11/06718/REM Reserved Matters Application to Pending Decision consider Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale (Outline application) under outline P20942.

Page 5 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

OFFICER’S REPORT

Introduction

This application relates to land at Castle Farm, Sennybridge. The application is being heard by the Planning Access and Rights of Way Committee further to the request of the Chair of PAROW Councillor Evan Morgan.

Site Description

The application site forms a strip of land immediately to the west of the 11/06718/REM application site and was inexplicably omitted from the P20942 Outline application boundary.

Not unlike the Reserved Matters site to the east, the application site is relatively undulating and generally rises up from north to south. It is bounded to the north and west by an existing mature hedgerow and mature trees also abut the application site to the west.

Proposal

This application is to be read in conjunction with Reserved Matters Application 11/06718/REM. As referred to above, it comprises land that was omitted from the relevant Outline Application and it is proposed to utilise this land to provide garden areas for 11no. plots and a 4no. bay garage serving plots 35 and 36.

The garden areas will be enclosed by 1.8m high close boarded timber fencing and the proposed garage would be constructed using materials that are to be confirmed.

Site History

Outline Planning Permission (Ref: P20942) for residential development was granted on 19th May 2008.

Policy Context

Following statutory adoption of the Brecon Beacons National Park Local Plan 1999 (Local Plan), work on the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan (UDP) commenced in 2000. The UDP was subject to all the statutory consultations and procedures associated with the preparation of development plans, including a local inquiry and an Inspector's report.

Page 6 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

National Park. The Authority resolved not to comply with the WAG direction to modify the UDP as it was not considered that the quality of the resource had been adequately established or that the environmental constraints relating to the sites had been sufficiently considered. The UDP was subsequently approved by the Authority for development control purposes in March 2007 and sets out the policies and proposals to guide development in this area from 2001 to 2016 and beyond. As a point of clarification, the direction from the WAG relates solely to sand and gravel issues and does not relate to any matters raised in this application.

Whilst the adopted Local Plan and its associated Structure Plans remain the formal statutory policy framework for the area, the UDP provides a more up-to-date and relevant planning framework in line with current National Planning Policy. Planning Policy Wales advises that the weight to be attached to emerging plans will increase as successive stages are reached.

The Brecon Beacons National Park Authority Local Development Plan (LDP) is currently undergoing Examination but has not been adopted to date. Legal Advice is that whilst the emerging LDP is now material, little weight can be given to it in planning decision making at this stage.

Material Considerations

The main material considerations for an application of this type are the principle of the development, the impact upon the visual amenities of the area and the potential impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residents.

Appraisal

Principle of Development

The application site is located within the Sennybridge Settlement as defined by the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan (Approved March 2007). It is also located with the Castle Farm UDP Housing Allocation (site code S2) and, accordingly, it is considered that the principle of developing this site for residential purposes has been established.

Visual Amenity

The application site comprises a relatively narrow strip of land adjoining (and associated with) a relatively large residential Reserved Matters application site. As a result, it is

Page 7 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 reasonable to suggest that the application site would have a negligible impact in comparative terms as only garden areas, associated fencing and a garage building are proposed.

To this end, it is considered that the development of this site would not, on its own, have such an impact upon the visual amenities of the area that would warrant the refusal of the application. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to ensure that, however unlikely, the Full and Reserved Matters applications cannot be implemented independently of one another. This can be done via a suitably worded Section 106 legal agreement or Unilateral Undertaking.

Neighbour Amenity

Due to the location of this site in relation to neighbouring properties, it is considered that the development of this site would not have a material adverse impact in terms of a loss of light, loss of privacy or overbearing impact.

Whilst it is acknowledged that numerous letters have been received from neighbouring residents objecting to this scheme and siting planning application reference 11/06717/FUL, it is reasonable to suggest that these objections relate to the overall scheme and, accordingly, have been addressed in the report relating to Reserved Matters application 11/06718/REM.

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following conditions and a legal agreement tying its implementation to the associated Reserved Matters application.

RECOMMENDATION: Permit subject to Section 106 Agreement

Conditions and/or Reasons:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission. 2 The development shall be carried out in all respects strictly in accordance with the approved plans (drawing nos. NP1v2, NP2v2 and NP3v1), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 3 The garages and access thereto must be reserved for the garaging or parking of private motor vehicles and the garage shall at no time be converted to habitable accommodation. 4 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking, amending and re-enacting that Order) no development of the types described in Part 1 Classes A to E of Schedule 2, other than that hereby permitted shall be

Page 8 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

carried out without the written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons:

1 Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2 To ensure adherence to the approved plans in the interest of a satisfactory form of development. 3 To ensure adequate off street parking arrangements remain available at all times. 4 In order to safeguard the character and visual amenities of the locality.

Informative Notes:

Page 9 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

ITEM NUMBER: 2

APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/06718/REM APPLICANTS NAME(S): SITE ADDRESS: Land At Castle Farm Sennybridge Brecon Powys LD3 8PS

GRID REF: E: 291930 N:228375 COMMUNITY: Maescar DATE VALIDATED: 25 April 2012 DECISION DUE DATE: 15 August 2012 CASE OFFICER: Mr Ryan Greaney

PROPOSAL Reserved Matters Application to consider Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale (Outline Application P20942)

ADDRESS Land At Castle Farm, Sennybridge, Brecon

Page 10 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS Consultee Received Comments

Brecknock Access 8th Jun 2011 We wish to object to this application for three Group reasons. 1. Totally inadequate Design and Access Statement. It gives no details of access to or into the properties (Gradients, surface materials etc.) 2. Toilets are not to Part M Building Regulations 3. The staircase has not been planned for the use of stair lifts, for possible adaptations at a later date Brecknock Access 20th Jul 2011 With reference to the amended plans, we wish to Group place another objection that no gradients of the entrance to the site, namely the pathway from the main road (A40) are being given. It is essential to provide this information to ensure access for the disabled into such a large development is provided and to consider the Equality Acts 2010 and 2011. This information was requested in our previous objection.

CADW Ancient 27th Jun 2011 The site is located a minimum of 40m to the west of Monuments the monument, at the base of the hillock on which it stands. There is to be no direct impact upon the scheduled area. The setting of the monument has previously been compromised by the piecemeal construction of modern houses adjacent to and within metres of the surviving fragments. The present access road to Castle Farm and the houses that occupy much of the castle site physically divides the development from the ruins. More significantly, the position of the recent houses dictates that any views of the area to be developed from that of the scheduled area are likely to be very limited. The significant views from and of the upstanding medieval tower are across the valley to the south, which both it and the 20th Century fortifications were undoubtedly positioned to overlook. These key aspects will not be affected by the proposed development.

Countryside Council 22nd Jun 2011 We wish to make representations on this proposal, For Wales but until such time that WG provide its direction it

Page 11 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

would be premature to comment on the proposal. We will therefore consider this matter further when we are in receipt of WGs direction. Countryside Council 21st Jun 2011 The CCW has recently responded to a consultation For Wales from the Welsh Government's (WG) with respect to their Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening direction request on this application. The CCW indicated, in a letter of 13 June 2011, our view that an EIA is required for the proposed scheme. We wish to make observations on this proposal, but until such time as WG provide its direction it would be premature to comment on the proposal. We will therefore consider this matter further when we are in receipt of WG's direction. Countryside Council 29th Jul 2011 The application will need to be accompanied by an For Wales Environmental Statement and it would be premature to comment until this is available.

In the meantime, the Countryside Council for Wales would object to the issue of consent for this proposal. Countryside Council 9th Sep 2011 The EIA should consider the impacts on the For Wales following:

- Statutory nature conservation sites - Non-statutory nature conservation sites - legally protected species - UK and Local Biodiversity Action Plan habitats and species; and - Landscape Countryside Council 18th Jun 2012 Object to the proposed development at the present For Wales time pending the provision of further information relating to:

- surface water disposal - sewage disposal - water supply - landscape and layout - hedgerows/bat flightlines. Countryside Council 28th Mar 2013 Subject to conditions, CCW are satisfied that a For Wales significant effect on River Usk SAC via change in water quality is unlikely.

The design proposed is inappropriate for this site and will appear as a visually prominent, modern edge of town new housing estate of distinctly different

Page 12 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

character to the rest of the main street detracting from the National Park qualities and character.

Dwr Cymru Welsh 13th Jul 2011 No objection subject to conditions and advisory Water note. Dwr Cymru Welsh 12th Sep 2011 The EIA should include a section on Drainage. Water Dwr Cymru Welsh 19th Jul 2012 No objection subject to conditions and advisory Water note. Dwr Cymru Welsh 8th Jul 2011 Measures are now in place to maintain future water Water - Developer supplies to existing customers and the proposed Services development.

Concerns were raised over the proposed development back in 2005, with regards to our Waste Water Treatment Works in Sennybridge. However, since then the performance of the WwTW has improved and at present we are not aware of any known compliance issues within the Usk SAC.

A combined sewer overflow serving the Sennybridge catchment downstream of the development has in the past experienced some flooding. This was due to an operational issue which has now been overcome and to the best of our knowledge we are not aware of any other operational issues.

Dwr Cymru Welsh 20th Jul 2012 No objection subject to conditions and advisory Water - Developer notes. Services Dwr Cymru Welsh 21st May 2013 Having sought further advice in relation to your Water - Developer enquiry, we reply as follows: Services We assess the impacts of development on our assets and in particular to the Waste Water Treatment Works (WwTW), the discharge licence imposed on us by the Natural Resources Wales (NRW). We ensure that all discharges to the environment meet these obligations. We can confirm that we are operating Sennybridge WwTW within our licence conditions. However, should you wish to understand what these consents are then we would refer you to NRW as our environmental regulators for further details.

Environment Agency 4th Aug 2011 We will not be commenting until the ES is received.

Page 13 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

Wales Environment Agency 2nd Aug 2011 The EAW will not be commenting on this proposal Wales until the Environmental Statement is submitted. Environment Agency 25th Jun 2012 No objection subject to condition. Wales Environment Agency 6th Feb 2013 We have no further comments Wales Health And Safety 26th May 2011 There are sufficient reasons, on safety grounds, for Executive advising against the granting of planning permission in this case. Health And Safety 10th May 2012 HSE does not advise on safety grounds against the Executive granting of planning permission in this case. Linesearch 20th May 2011 In the zone of interest:

Mainline Pipelines Ltd National Grid Gas Maescar Community 18th May 2012 Highlighting issues with are made with specific Council reference to Policy G3: Development in the National Park Maescar Community 24th Jan 2013 Object to the development on the following Council grounds:

- density (i.e. due to the excessive number of dwellings proposed) - lack of open space for children - vehicular access to the site - small scale development is more appropriate for a rural village the size of Sennybridge. Mainland Pipelines 27th May 2011 No Comments Limited Mainland Pipelines 14th Jul 2011 Proposed work outlined will not affect to Mainline Limited Pipeline at this location Natural Resources 5th Aug 2013 I have received your email from my colleagues Wales/Cyfoeth Catherine Howe and Annina Kortesniemi for a Naturiol Cymru response as I am the Environment Management Team Leader covering Sennybridge. My team deals with pollution control and Water Quality issues in this area.

I am not aware of any recent issues with the sewage network in Sennybridge and we have not received any recent complaints about pollution in this area. We will however review our files further and contact Welsh Water to get additional information about the incident that your husband reported in April. Pete Jones will contact you next week with

Page 14 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

the outcome of this and address any other points raised in your email.

In the meantime, if you notice any further pollution in this area please call our pollution hotline on 0800 80 70 60. This free phone number is manned 24 hours a day and allows us to respond to incidents as and when they are reported. NP Ecologist 3rd Jun 2011 The nature and scale of all clean and foul water drainage systems associated with the proposed development site are provided to the NPA and written confirmation sought from Powys CC, Welsh Water and EAW confirming that such systems are acceptable and that the infrastructure outside the application site is sufficient in capacity to effectively remove all likely significant effects on the River Usk SAC. NP Ecologist 8th Aug 2011 Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this further application relating to the above site. On the basis of our recent discussion I note that this specific application relates to the inclusion of appropriate footpath access. I have therefore no comments to make in relation to this specific matter beyond the remarks I have previously made regarding this proposal. NP Ecologist 14th Sep 2011 Thank you for your email of 24th August 2011 requesting my opinion on the scope of the information that should be included in an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) following the screening views provided by the Welsh Government in their letter of 20th July 2011.

The Welsh Government's screening direction identified three key areas where they considered there was a likelihood for significant effects on the environment, which included:

o The likely impact of the development on the National Park landscape; o The likely impact of the development on the River Usk SAC, the River Usk (Upper Usk) SSSI and the River Usk (Tributaries) SSSI; and o The likely impact of the development on European Protected Species.

I have therefore restricted my main comments to

Page 15 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 these areas of likely impact. These comments are provided without prejudice to any future sought from myself regarding this proposed development.

Landscape Impact

I would echo the views expressed by the Countryside Council for Wales, in their letter of 8th September 2011 which stress the need to assess the impact on the special qualities of the National Park and equally the localised area of the Senni Valley. The required Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) should follow the accepted published standard guidance and methodology with specific reference made to the LANDMAP system as highlighted in CCW's written response.

Statutory Designated Sites

In line with my previous consultation comments on this application I recognise the close proximity of this proposed development to the River Usk SAC/SSSI. The EIA should assess the direct and indirect impacts on the designated features of this protected site, with particular focus on the potential deterioration of the water quality as a consequence of possible increased surface water and foul water discharges from the proposed development and localised water abstraction.

In conjunction with the completion of the EIA it will necessary for the applicant to generate sufficient information to inform a separate Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) as required under the Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. To enable the National Park Authority to conclude beyond all reasonable scientific doubt at the relevant stages of the HRA it will be necessary for the applicant to provide the appropriate level of proof in their appraisal of the likely impacts. I would agree with CCW that for the sake of clarity in concluding this process the applicant's evidence base and assessment should be provided as a separate document distinct from the Environmental Statement.

Page 16 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

Non-statutory Sites

Wildlife Sites/SINCS

On the basis of the BBNPA's records the nearest 'wildlife sites' or Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) are Tir Capel woods and pasture just under 3 kilometres to the south west of the application site. It is my opinion that the proposed development is unlikely to have direct or indirect effects on the biodiversity interests associated with these localities, and therefore I would not consider it necessary to include a further appraisal within the EIA for these non-statutory sites.

Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Habitats

The EIA should assess the impact on BAP habitats within and on the fringes of the application site. I note from CCW's response that there may be some level of doubt over the continued accuracy of their original Phase 1 Vegetation & Habitats Map. I would therefore support their recommendation for a Phase 1 survey to be completed as part of the EIA for the application site and its boundaries, in particular the woodland fringe and hedgerow on the western edge. This survey should be completed in accordance with the published guidance during appropriate survey season. Any significant impacts on BAP habitats should be described within the EIA and suitable mitigation measures proposed where necessary.

Protected Species

European Protected Species

The BBNPA do not hold any records for European Protected Species within the actual site. We do hold records for bat roosts associated with buildings within the settlement of Sennybridge, 200 metres to the east and west of the application site. The recorded evidence of otters associated with the nearby River Usk is noted from CCW's response.

Page 17 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

As part of the desk-based appraisal for the EIA the Biodiversity Information Service (BIS) for Powys and Brecon Beacons National Park should be consulted to provide a full list of those species that may need to considered within the EIA. Where necessary further survey work should be completed to determine the likely presence or absence of species that are highlighted by the BIS consultation. The EIA should include an appraisal of any likely impacts on these species and recommend appropriate mitigation measures to conserve and enhance the identified populations.

As previously expressed it is my view that the most likely European Protected Species to be potentially significantly affected would be bats through the disruption of their foraging and commuting routes, in particular along the woodland fringe and hedgerow on the western boundary of the application site. The EIA should therefore give full consideration to the likely scale of impact on bat activity within and around the application site and how this can be minimised.

UK Protected Species

Red kites, protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), are regularly observed above the application site and the surrounding area. The EIA should include a survey to determine the potential for nest sites in close proximity to the application site. The likely impacts from the development on any recorded nest sites should be fully assessed.

Other Species

Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) and NERC Act Section 42 Species

The likely presence of BAP and S.42 species should be considered in consultation with BIS. Appropriate surveys completed in accordance accepted standard techniques to confirm the likely presence or absence of relevant species. The impacts on any recorded species should be assessed and appropriate

Page 18 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

mitigation measures detailed as part of the EIA.

NP Ecologist 25th Jun 2012 A number of concerns regarding significant deficiencies in the ES with particular reference to chapter 8 Land Drainage and Chapter 9 Ecology.

It is my opinion that there are basic flaws in the EIA and insufficient information to provide the required level of certainty necessary for the National Park Authority to accept the conclusions of the ES and therefore secure compliance with the Habitat Regulations 2010. Until the recognised discrepancies and uncertainties are addressed, I object to the proposed development. NP Ecologist 22nd Apr 2013 I have read through the Castle Farm reserved matters application (11/06718/REM) and will be submitting comments soon. Before I do so, would it be possible to ask for a more detailed response from Welsh Water regarding sewerage capacity in Sennibridge? This matter was raised in previous comments from the National Park Ecologist and the, then, CCW response. Welsh Water have stated that "No problems are envisaged with the Waste Water Treatment Works for the treatment of domestic discharges from this site." They have also indicated that surface water run-off and domestic discharges will be separated or should be as a condition.

As the competent authority, however, the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority has to conclude that the proposed scheme will NOT have a significant likely effect on the River Usk SAC. While I must rely on Welsh Water to provide us with the information to draw a conclusion of this sort, the statement noted above does not give me the confidence to draw this conclusion with any degree of certainty.

What would be useful are some data to back the statement up. For example, a statement like "the current WWTW have capacity for X litres/ day and current discharges are Y, with the new development projected to discharge an additional Z volume. Therefore there is sufficient capacity." Welsh Water may alternatively say that they will be

Page 19 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

upgrading the system and its capacity in year A. Anything to this effect that I can use and then note in the future if our conclusions are ever challenged would be of assistance. NP Ecologist 22nd May Welsh Water's comments indirectly answer the 2013 query regarding capacity at the WWTW.

I have no further comments or queries. NP Senior Heritage No comments received Officer (Building Conservation) NP Tree Consultant 14th Jun 2011 This application does not have any impact upon the trees outside of the site boundary to the northwest. NP Tree Consultant 25th Jul 2012 With regard to the amended ES, I have read through Chapter 9 Ecology and agree with the proposals in section 9.101 with regard to fencing off the woodland.

The proposed works would have little impact upon the adjacent woodland.

I therefore have no objection to the proposed works and recommend approval.

Powys Affordable No comments received Housing Officer Powys County 31st May 2011 No comments Council Building Regulations Powys County 29th Jul 2011 No Additional Comments Council Highways Powys County 6th Feb 2013 Recommend most strongly that permission is Council Highways refused. Powys County 16th Jul 2013 Further to our correspondence on the above site I Council Highways now detail the continued concerns this Authority have on the submission. I have attempted to use headings similar to my email to Ryan Greaney of 7th June 2012 and your Consultation Response Action Sheet.

o The parking schedule appears to need revision/ Garages seem to have been counted as parking spaces/Parking is still below CSS standards.

It is accepted that the instructions within the CSS booklet are somewhat unclear but the Sustainability

Page 20 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

Assessment has been incorrectly carried out. Only a single level score should be achieved from each of the four categories. A maximum of 10 points offers a reduction of 2 spaces per dwelling and this can be achieved by having the closest or most frequent of facilities for each of the categories.

Based on the facilities listed on the assessment for Castle Farm only 3 points would be scored for the Local Facilities, 2 points for Public Transport, 0 points for the cycle route and -1 for the frequency of public transport as none of the services through Sennybridge extend from 7am to 7pm nor offer even an half hourly operation. This totals 4 points and therefore does not warrant any reduction in the specified level of parking provision.

No revised parking schedule referencing the plot numbers, house size and parking provision has been provided to accompany the latest Highway Strategy Plan which indicates the parking offered. No visitor parking appears to be included within the scheme and the dimension of parking spaces do need to meet the minimum standard detailed in the CSS booklet. A significant number are scaling as unacceptably short and would result in vehicles overhanging the pedestrian footways. This shortage in provision is fundamental to many of the concerns that follow. o The Swept Path Diagrams are very difficult to read and appear to show areas where manoeuvres are extremely tight.

I remain unconvinced by the swept path diagrams of the refuse vehicle that such manoeuvres of Powys vehicles could be achieved. With no detail as to the size of the vehicle depicted, my assessment against the 21m line on the sheet is that it is not the size of a Powys refuse lorry. No evidence is provided that any consultation with the refuse collection teams have been undertaken in respect of lorry size or number of boxes/bins that make up the recycling system as required by MfS.

You refer to MfS allowing 12m reversing if the roads are straight and free from obstacles but your

Page 21 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 drawings clearly show distances in excess of 21m including, in the case of Courtyard E, accessing a narrow road in the same manoeuvre. A lack of obstacle also cannot be assured when considered against the low level of off-street parking being provided.

The swept path drawings of the 7.5T box van are wholly irrelevant as they indicate manoeuvres which are outside the adoptable limit or straddle adoptable and private areas. All vehicles utilising the public highway should be able to turn within the adoptable turning heads at B, C and E. o The roads serving courtyards A & E are too narrow for simultaneous access and egress.

It is shown that refuse vehicles will require access to courtyard E but the limited width and possible on- street parking issues due to the limited off-street parking are likely to lead to the prevention of simultaneous access and egress. Furthermore, these limited road widths will have a serious impact on the ability to carry out gully emptying and road maintenance. Access to properties is likely to be severely restricted for such operations. The proposed road widths are not appropriate in this case. o Centreline and Junction radii need to be detailed on a drawing.

Whilst much of this information has been provided on the Shear Design Proposed Road Layout drawing the radius dimension around courtyards B and C have been omitted. o Forward Visibility around plot 10

The forward visibility splay has been correctly shown on the drawings but the layout of the driveway for the plot will allow for obstruction of this splay by parked cars. How this will be prevented is not clear. o Courtyard E has no service margin/vehicle

Page 22 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 overhang provision.

The service margin/vehicular overhang is required around the entire courtyard and not just on the access road. The short length of parking spaces will also result in a further reduction of what should be a public turning area. Parking spaces abutting garages should be at least 6m in length to allow for a parked car and retain the ability to open a garage door. o Long Sections showing gradients are required.

Although the long sections have been provided the gradients are not detailed. Cross sections will also be required. o Disabled Access Points

There is a DAP shown on the corner by Plot 48 but no corresponding point outside plot 6. o Site Access Visibility/Individual Access Visibility

Although you state that the appropriate amendment has been made to show 45m visibility can be achieved it is not clear on which plan this has been depicted. Furthermore, it would be extremely easy to overlook the vitally important junction visibility splay along the trunk road and inadvertently obstruct it with planting, fencing etc. This should be shown as being considered and maintained.

Again, the statement that amendments have been made is not supported by details as to which plan this is now shown. o There is no surface water drainage detail shown on the drawings provided:

A plan is now provided but I would make the following observations regarding the lack of detail and clarity available. 1. No Gully positions are shown 2. The soakaways on the village green and on

Page 23 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

plots 4, 9-10, 46 and 50-51 are too close to the adoptable areas. 3. The highway drain through private courtyard A will require an easement. 4. No detail is offered as to the connection, easements and approval for connection to the trunk road drainage system. 5. Porous paving adjacent to highways and buildings are the equivalent of soakaways and therefore not permitted without the appropriate separation.

Powys County No comments received Council Land Drainage Department Powys County No comments received Council Public Protection & Environmental Health

CONTRIBUTORS Thea Ebbeling, Bwthyn Ger Yr Afon, 1 Tredegar Row Gwen Newton, Brynawel, Castell Du R J Davies, Castle Du Farm, Sennybridge Gwen Newton, Brynawel, Sennybridge Mrs B P V Pengelly, 1-2 Castell Du Cottage, Sennybridge Mrs M Clifford, Carn Y Castell, Sennybridge Mrs IsobelI Cooper, Tawelfa, Sennybridge Mrs F Thomas, Ty Onnen, Sennybridge Mr And Mrs J N Powell, Min-Y-Ffordd, Sennybridge Mr D A Matthews, Caerlan, Sennybridge Mr And Mrs Goodman, Castell Lodge, Sennybridge Mr Nigel Kenchington, Almora Villas, Sennybridge Mr John Clifford, Carn Y Castell, Sennybridge Mrs Elizabeth Maclean, Glan Wysc, Sennybridge Mrs Elizabeth Maclean, Sennybridge Village Residents Group, C/o Glan Wysc Thomas Mccourt, [email protected], Malcolm Hill, Dan Y Coed, Sennybridge D A Matthews, Caer-Lan, Sennybridge Jennifer Davies, Milestone Cottage, Sennybridge Isobel Cooper, Tawelfa, Castell Du Mari Williams, 2 Riverside View, High Street Mr Richard Camp, Nyth Y Wennol, Sennybridge Mr R P Thomas Mr And Mrs Pryce, 1 New Houses, High Street

Page 24 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

RELEVANT POLICIES

P1P1: “Part 1 Policy 1 Qualities of the Park” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) P1P2: “Part 1 Policy 2 Biodiversity and Earth” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) P1P12: “Part 1 Policy 12 Supply of Housing Land” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) G3: “Development in the National Park” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) G6: “Design” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q1: “Sites of European Importance” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q2: “Sites of National Importance” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q4: “Protected and Important Wild Species” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q5: “Biodiversity and Development” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q10: “Nationally Import. Archaeological Remain” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q12: “Archaeological Evaluation” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES29: “Enabling Affordable Housing” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES34: “The Welsh Language” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES38: “Road Layouts and Open Spaces” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES39: “Boundary Features” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES47: “Water Sewage Supply New Developments” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) SS1: “Housing Land First Tier Settlements” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) LPG3: “Development in the National Park.” (Local Plan 1999) LPG4: “Development in the National Park.” (Local Plan 1999) LPG7: “Design and energy conservation.” (Local Plan 1999) LPG8: “Accessibility and safety.” (Local Plan 1999) LPG9: “The welsh language.” (Local Plan 1999) LPG10: “Development and flood risks.” (Local Plan 1999) LPG11: “Development and flood risks.” (Local Plan 1999) LPCL3: “Wildlife and landforms.” (Local Plan 1999) LPCL6: “Wildlife and landforms.” (Local Plan 1999) LPCL7: “Wildlife and landforms.” (Local Plan 1999) LPCL8: “Archaeology and cultural features.” (Local Plan 1999) LPH2: “New housing in larger settlements.” (Local Plan 1999) LPH5: “Affordable housing.” (Local Plan 1999) LPR6: “Estate roads and access to properties.” (Local Plan 1999) LPPU8: “Fuel and Power Supply” (Local Plan 1999)

PLANNING HISTORY App Ref Description Decision Date

P20942 Outline Planning Permission for Permit 19th May 2008. residential development was granted on 19th May 2008. 11/06717/FUL Construction of garage block and Pending Decision laying out of residential gardens in association with reserved matters application under outline P20942.

Page 25 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

OFFICER’S REPORT

Introduction

This application relates to land at Castle Farm, Sennybridge, and comprises the erection of 53 residential dwellings. It is a Reserved Matters application which relates to Outline Planning Permission reference P20942 which was approved on 18th May 2008.

It should be noted that the Outline Planning Permission does not cover the entire field as the application site excluded a strip of land along the western boundary. Accordingly, a Full application (ref: 11/06717/FUL) has been submitted to accompany this Reserved Matters. Both the Reserved Matters and the Full will be linked via a Unilateral Undertaking.

This application is to be heard by the PAROW Committee due to its scale and at the request of Councillor Evan Morgan. Moreover, the Outline application to which it relates was also heard by the PAROW Committee.

Site Description

Sennybridge is located in the Maescar Community Council area which extends from the northern scarp of Mynydd Eppynt southwards across the National Park boundary, the River Usk and the A40T, and up the Senni valley to Fan Nedd and the headwaters of the Afon Mellte. Approximately half its area and most of its population are within the National Park.

The Senni valley is an area of scattered farms with a strong agricultural tradition. By contrast, the Usk valley corridor is an important east-west through route.

The largest settlement in the community is Sennybridge, whilst Defynnog lies on the A4067 south of Sennybridge. Other settlements in Maescar are Pentre'r-Felin, a hamlet split by the National Park boundary 2km north of Sennybridge; and Heol Senni, located in the Senni valley, consisting of a scatter of old houses along a minor road.

Sennybridge is an important source of employment, with the army camp, sawmills, haulage contracting, agricultural related stores and local shops. It plays a significant role for the farming industry with its market and related feed and equipment facilities, making the town a hub for the surrounding farming community. The village includes a variety of facilities including shops, pubs, cafes, a community hall, a primary school with sports facilities, and a health clinic. The army camp is known as the Sennybridge Training Area (SENTA) and is thought to be the 3rd largest military training area in the UK.

The application site is located within the settlement limits of Sennybridge as defined by the Unitary Development Plan (Approved March 2007) Proposals Maps. It is located on

Page 26 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 the western edge of the settlement and immediately adjacent to the A40 Trunk Road. It comprises an undulating field at present, bounded by hedges and post and wire fencing for the most part, although part of the western edge of the site is bounded by mature trees.

The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of property type. The Sennybridge Service Station (petrol filling station and shop) is located to the north on the opposite side of the A40 Trunk Road; single storey dwellings are located to the east; a large detached dwelling (Glan Wysg) to the north west; and, two large detached dwellings to the west. The linear development along the A40 is characterised by a mix of dwelling types from terraced dwellings and semi detached units to larger detached dwellings. Those nearest the application site, on the north side of the A40 are of the larger detached nature.

Further afield, the area is characterised by undulating agricultural fields and mature woodland and the River Usk SAC is located some 40m to the north.

Proposal

As referred to above, this application comprises the Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale Reserved Matters relating to Outline Planning Permission P20942. It is proposed to erect 53no. residential properties, including 12no. affordable housing units, and associated works including the demolition of the existing barn.

Access

It is proposed to access to the proposed development via the public highway that leads from the A40 to Castle Road. It should be noted that it was a condition of the Outline permission that access to the site could not be taken directly from the A40 Trunk Road. Accordingly, the proposed access arrangements would result in the discontinuation of the existing informal agricultural access on the northern boundary of the site.

Appearance

A combination of different render and stone finishes are proposed together with grey/blue manmade slates. Upvc windows, rainwater goods and fascias are also proposed as are reconstituted stone cills.

Landscaping

A landscaping strategy has been prepared for the scheme. The existing hedgerow will be retained and interplanted with native woodland species. The northeast corner of the site and the eastern boundary will be planted with native hedgerows. Shrub planting will be put in place throughout the scheme, along the front of dwellings and bordering some of the on-plot parking spaces. A wildflower area and reinstated verge is also proposed along the north and east boundaries.

Page 27 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

Also included within the landscaping proposals are the planting of shrubs and ornamental trees. These would include such specimens as Geranium Sanguineum, Hebe red edge, Lavandula Angustifolia and Prima Vulgaris.

There will also be a village green in the centre of the site measuring some 400m2.

Layout

The proposed development comprises a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced two-storey dwellings, as well as a small number of flats. The Affordable Housing units would consist of 4no. one bedroom units, 7no. two bedroom and 1no. three bedroom unit. These units are primarily proposed to be focused within the northwest corner of the site.

The remaining market units comprise 1no. one bedroom unit, 19no. two bedroom units, 15no. three bedroom units and 7no. four bedroom units.

As referred to above, there will also be a village green in the centre of the site measuring some 400m2.

In terms of the road layout, the site will be accessed from the east via the public highway that leads from the A40 to Castle Road. The road will be designed to adoptable standards in part, with the addition of 5no. courtyard areas.

Site History

Outline Planning Permission (Ref: P20942) for residential development was granted on 19th May 2008.

Policy Context

The Brecon Beacons National Park as the Local Planning Authority received a direction from the Welsh Assembly Government under Section 17(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in relation to the safeguarding of sand and gravel in the National Park. The Authority resolved not to comply with the WAG direction to modify the UDP as it was not considered that the quality of the resource had been adequately established or that the environmental constraints relating to the sites had been sufficiently considered. The UDP was subsequently approved by the Authority for development control purposes in March 2007 and sets out the policies and proposals to

Page 28 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 guide development in this area from 2001 to 2016 and beyond. As a point of clarification, the direction from the WAG relates solely to sand and gravel issues and does not relate to any matters raised in this application.

For these reasons, the Authority has determined to afford greater weight to the UDP in the determination of this planning application than the statutory documents listed above. This application is considered against policy P1P1, P1P2, P1P12, G3, G6, Q1, Q2, Q4, Q5, Q10, Q12 ES29, ES34, ES38, ES39, ES47, SS1 of the UDP and policy G3, G4, G7, G8, G9, G10, G11, CL3, CL6, CL7, CL8, H2, H5, H8, R5, R6 and PU8 of the Local Plan.

Material Planning Considerations

The main material considerations in this case are the potential impacts upon the character and visual amenities of the area, the amenities of nearby residents, highway safety, , provision of Affordable Housing, sustainability, drainage, ecology, high pressure gas pipeline, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage.

Neighbour Responses

Numerous letters have been received from neighbouring residents objecting to the proposed development for the following reasons: o It constitutes the development of a greenfield site o There is little room for extension outside the built up area o The Deposit LDP has identified Sennybridge as a Level 4 settlement therefore development cannot proceed o Mrs Maclean (on behalf of the Sennybridge Residents Group) alleges that the Outline application (P20942) was granted by the PAROW Committee on 10th January 2006 in "unusual circumstances": - No discussion minuted explaining why the Case Officer considered that an exception from the adopted Local Plan should be made because of the advanced stage of the UDP. - Objections to the outline application were not recorded and no response was received from the Case Officer. - Members who declared an interest left during discussion and not after - There was no consultation that the site was allocated for 42 dwellings in

Page 29 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

the UDP. - The Outline decision notice does not make any reference to the number of dwellings nor the relevant policies of the UDP. o There should be no development on this site as the Deposit LDP does not identify the site as housing land despite the previous UDP allocation and the granting of outline planning permission o The site has changed as an additional full application has been submitted relating to land to the west of the site. o The development would effect to the trees to the west of the site o There is a lack of car parking o Concerns regarding access onto the A40 o There would be impacts in terms of sewage and drainage o The drainage should be completed for the entire site prior to the erection of the first dwelling o The number of dwellings is excessive o There is a lack of infrastructure to cope with the impact of an increase in population to the village o Proper procedures were not followed by the BBNPA in terms of notification/consultation to neighbours and interested parties o The type of housing proposed is not appropriate (no bungalows) o The "young" would not be interested in the affordable housing as there are no local employment possibilities, all would need cars and the bus service is not adequate o Mixing privately owned and council housing on one estate does not work o Has a risk assessment on traffic been undertaken? o Has the soil been analysed o The proposed dwellings are "coloured" and are an eyesore o Where will refuse be located o The hill on Castle Road is very dangerous during snow and ice o The housing density is too high o Insufficient levels of outside space are proposed o Development is not in keeping with the rural character of the area o There will be a lack of interest in buying the proposed houses given the current economic climate o The proposal will result in an increased risk of flooding to existing river side dwellings o Is there cycle provision made within the development o The proposal would have a detrimental impact upon protected species, the SAC and SSSI o The proposal does not take into account the needs of the disabled o The development does not take account of the distinctive character of Sennybridge o The development does not comply with the Code for Sustainable Homes o The proposal would result in noise pollution o The proposal would have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of neighbouring dwellings

Page 30 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 o The proposal would result in light pollution o No detail of waste facilities and composting has been submitted o The development does not comply with TAN 12 Design as it is an off the peg design not suitable for a national park in Wales. o PPW stated "good design is inclusive design" - so why were the neighbours not included in the process o The degree of earthworks has not been well indicated on the drawings. o There would be increased parking on Castle Road o The site may be contaminated given its proximity to a petrol station

Comments from neighbouring residents supporting the development include: o Do not object in principle to the development o The inclusion of Affordable Housing is applauded in rural areas

Appraisal

Principle of Development

Whilst the concerns of nearby residents in relation to matters such as the greenfield nature of the site and Sennybridge's place in the LDP Settlement Hierarchy are noted, the principle of a residential development at this was effectively established by the approval of the P20942 Outline application on 19th May 2008. Indeed, the purpose of this application is to seek the approval of the Reserved Matters of the P20942 Outline permission.

Visual Amenity

Overall, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in planning and visual amenity terms.

As above, the concerns raised by neighbouring residents in relation to the proposed density of the development, layout, dwelling design (non-compliant with TAN 12) etc. are noted. However, it is considered that, further to negotiation, the applicant has achieved a design that is reflective of the character of Sennybridge as a whole.

It is acknowledged that a wide variety of properties can be found within the Settlement with varying finishes and design features. For example, single storey stone and render mix bungalows are located to the east of the application site, while two storey detached stone and render mix dwellings are located to the north east on the opposite side of the A40, adjacent to a detached rendered dwelling. Moving back eastward along the A40, again a mix of stone and render, two storey, single storey, semi-detached, detached and terraced properties are found.

It is reasonable to suggest that features such as stone frontages, a mix of stone and

Page 31 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 render finishes, chimneys, window detailing, reconstituted stone cills and porches of different sizes will give the development a traditional appearance in keeping with the surrounding area generally. Indeed, it is considered that the proposed development would achieve the objectives set out under 'Character' in TAN 12: Design. These are:

- Sustaining or enhancing local character - Promoting legible development - Promoting a successful relationship between public and private space - Promoting quality, choice and variety - Promoting innovative design

It is detailed within the submitted Design and Access Statement that a manmade slate substitute will be used on the roofs and that the windows will be made using upvc. Notwithstanding this, it has been agreed with the applicant that these elements can be conditioned out of any consent via a suitably worded planning condition. Such a condition will require details and/or samples of a natural slate roof tile and timber windows to be submitted for approval. Thereafter, the development will be completed in accordance with the approved details.

In terms of landscaping, the strategy for this scheme has been to retain existing vegetation as well as to introduce new features. Along the south, west and much of the north boundaries of the site, existing hedgerow will be retained and interplanted with native woodland species. The northeast corner and eastern boundary will be planted with native hedgerows. Shrub planting will be put in place throughout the scheme, along the front of dwellings and bordering some of the on-plot parking spaces. A wildflower area and reinstated grass verge also aid in creating a natural environment along the north and east boundaries of the site. Also included within the landscaping is the planting of shrubs and ornamental trees. These would include Geranium Sanguineum, Hebe red edge, Lavandula Angustifolia and Prima Vulgaris. There will also be a village green in the centre of the site measuring some 400m2, which will be put to community use and designed in consultation with the local neighbourhood and Community Council.

Whilst concerns have been raised by nearby residents that the proposal will affect neighbouring trees to the west, it is clear that a buffer zone will be maintained between these trees and any built development ensuring that there would be no impact in this regard. The National Park Authority's Arboricultural Consultant has confirmed this and, accordingly, staged no objection to the proposals.

It is reasonable to suggest that the landscaping plans would serve to soften the impact of the proposed development on the wider area as well as achieve a high quality development that promotes a successful relationship between public and private space.

It is acknowledged that the Countryside Council for Wales (now Natural Resources Wales) has raised concerns with regard to the impact of the proposed development on the landscape. CCW consider that the design proposed is inappropriate for the site and will appear as a visually prominent, modern edge of town new housing estate of

Page 32 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 distinctly different character to the rest of the main street, detracting from the National Park qualities and character.

Furthermore, in their submissions concerning this site's inclusion as an allocation in the LDP, CCW made the following comment:

"CCW consider that the proposed housing density, of 54 units (now 53), is likely to constrain the ability to design a scheme for the site that maintains and enhances the quality of the national park landscape, and that it is therefore inappropriate.

The site occupies a "gateway" position in the west of Sennybridge. One of the key issues of developing the site will therefore be to design and deliver a form of development that sympathetically integrates with the character of the settlement and surrounding landscape, particularly the main street through the settlement (A40T), which is predominantly characterised by Victorian terraces and villas.

The Landmap Visual and Sensory aspect assessment for Sennybridge (BRCKNVS936) highlights the Main Street (along with the river corridor) as one of the two key positive elements within the town to enhance. We strongly endorse that finding, and consider it important that development at this site should not result in an obvious modern edge of town new housing estate of distinctly different character to the rest of the main street, and detract from the National Park qualities and character.

The bungalow development immediately to the east of the site is of lower density than the rest of the main street through the settlement, and provides a phased reduction in density from the high density Victorian development to the open countryside beyond the settlement boundary. Care will therefore be required with the development of the Castle Farm site to ensure that a visually distinctive separate block of development is not created at the western gateway to Sennybridge.

The sloping nature of the site (9 metres from road front to its highest points) also increases the visibility of the site from the main street. This poses a further difficulty in designing a suitable scheme for the site that avoids the geometry of a modern estate layout, and which does not stand out incongruously in views along the street and to the hillside behind the site.

There may be a need for development to be set-back from the A40 to make the development less a part of the street scene, with a swathe of landscaping at its northern edge. Further, the built mass of the development might need to be broken up with planting and landscaping to soften the impact of the development in views across the sloping site and in the street scene. There is also likely to be a need to reinforce the landscaping/planting on southern boundary to break up views of the housing from the south to south-east as well as providing a partial backdrop in views from the A40 as houses at the south of the site will be viewed against the skyline.

Therefore whilst we cannot say that a suitable design cannot be found for the site, we

Page 33 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 consider that the density proposed in the LDP is inappropriate and that a lower density is required to deliver an acceptable design solution that has full regard to National Park purposes".

Whilst CCW's comments are noted, Officers consider the proposed development to be acceptable in visual amenity terms.

Turning firstly to the issue of the site occupying a "gateway" position; it should be noted that the site is very well screened by mature vegetation when approaching from the west along the A40 Trunk Road. As a result, it cannot be said that long views are afforded into the site from the western approach which limits the potential visual impact on the wider area.

It should also be noted that the principle of development has already been established on this site by the approval of the Outline application. This approval was made on the basis of the (at that time) emerging UDP which indicated that 42 units would be appropriate on this site. Whilst it is acknowledged that this proposal seeks approval an additional 11 units over and above the indicative number for the allocation (at 37.9 units per hectare), it should be noted that 12no. of these are flats comprising 2no. two storey buildings containing 4no. flats each and 4no. flats over garages. It is considered, therefore, that taking the total number of units and measuring this against the size of the site does not convey the whole picture in this case. Effectively, the 12 units referred to would be provided in 5 separate buildings which has ensured that the remainder of the development has been designed at a much lower density. Indeed, it is considered that any visual difference between this development and a standard 30 dwelling per hectare scheme it would not be wholly apparent from long views into the site.

In terms of CCW's 'character' objection, as addressed above, it is considered that the proposed development has been designed to reflect the varying character of Sennybridge. Accordingly, Officers do not agree with CCW's view in this instance and, generally, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in visual amenity terms. In this regard, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of the detail submitted relating to the 'layout', 'appearance' and 'landscaping' reserved matters.

Neighbour Amenity

It is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in neighbour amenity terms. Due to the proximity of the site to other residential properties, as well as the orientation of the individual dwellings within the development, it is considered that the proposal would not result in a loss of light, an overbearing impact or a loss of privacy that would warrant the refusal of the application on this basis.

It is noted that some neighbouring residents have raised concerns regarding the consultation exercise carried out by the Authority. It should be noted that the Authority has consulted on this application on numerous occasions further to additional and amended information being submitted (a matter also commented upon by local

Page 34 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 residents) and on each occasion this has been done in excess of the minimum requirements set out in the Procedure Order.

Highway Safety

Throughout this application, there has been extensive dialogue between the applicant's agent and the Powys County Council Highways Authority. This has led to the road and courtyard layout of the site being amended on several occasions. Notwithstanding this, there remains a disconnect between the applicant and the Highways Authority in terms of their interpretation of the Manual For Streets document and the required highway and parking standards for the site. Each of the points raised is addressed in turn below:

In their most recent consultation response, the Highways Authority state that the parking schedule appears to need revision; garages seem to have been counted as parking spaces; and, Parking is still below CSS standards.

The Highways Authority goes on to explain that "It is accepted that the instructions within the CSS booklet are somewhat unclear but the Sustainability Assessment has been incorrectly carried out. Only a single level score should be achieved from each of the four categories. A maximum of 10 points offers a reduction of 2 spaces per dwelling and this can be achieved by having the closest or most frequent of facilities for each of the categories. Based on the facilities listed on the assessment for Castle Farm only 3 points would be scored for the Local Facilities, 2 points for Public Transport, 0 points for the cycle route and -1 for the frequency of public transport as none of the services through Sennybridge extend from 7am to 7pm nor offer even an half hourly operation. This totals 4 points and therefore does not warrant any reduction in the specified level of parking provision.

In response to this, the applicant's agent stated that "… the conclusion of the site being deficient in off street car parking is as a result of your authority's refusal to recognise garage parking spaces as part of the overall total. Powys is the only authority to have this stance relating to garages not being parking spaces. This stance is not supported by any National Policy and is essentially groundless. BBNPA, as the local planning authority have been consistent in applying a pragmatic approach - that garages equate to parking spaces - and I would have no qualm about strongly encouraging them to overrule on this matter.

As greater evidence to support this stance, each of the garages have been designed with

Page 35 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 dimensions of at least 6m length x 3m width. They are therefore capable of accommodating cars and as such there is no possible counter-argument of the garages being too small. Moreover, all parking spaces are shown to be of the required size (2.4m x 4.8m), with all surface car parks capable of being widened to accommodate widths of 2.6m.

With regards to the sustainability assessment, whilst we are admittedly deficient on the public transport altogether, this should provide a score of zero. I must query in strong terms the use the "minus 1" calculation to give a negative score against something that can't be considered in the first place. The "minus 1" adjustment in our opinion is only there to be used to adjust the achieved positive credits where they exist. As such, we believe 5 credits would be scored thus giving us a 10% reduction in parking.

I attach an updated car parking schedule (as part of the overall finishes schedule) for your perusal."

Evidently, there is a difference of opinion on this matter and the Highways Authority has been invited to respond once again to the applicant's comments as well as the submitted car parking schedule (as requested by the Highways Authority). No additional comment has been received to date and the Highways Authority has been invited to make representations at the Planning Access and Rights of Way Committee in order to .

Notwithstanding this, Officers consider the applicant's interpretation of the use of the garages as parking spaces to be a reasonable one. There is no National Policy which states that garages cannot be considered as parking spaces and, accordingly, Officers consider the views of the Highways Authority to be overly restrictive in this case, particularly as each garage space would measure 6m by 3m in accordance with the parking standards guidance referred to above. To this end, the use of the garages shall be secured via a suitably worded planning condition to ensure that adequate parking arrangements remain available at all times.

The Highways Authority has also raised concerns regarding the Swept Path Diagrams, stating that they are very difficult to read and appear to show areas where manoeuvres are extremely tight. They states that they "…remain unconvinced by the swept path diagrams of the refuse vehicle that such manoeuvres of Powys vehicles could be achieved. With no detail as to the size of the vehicle depicted, my assessment against the 21m line on the sheet is that it is not the size of a Powys refuse lorry. No evidence is provided that any consultation with the refuse collection teams have been undertaken in respect of lorry size or number of boxes/bins that make up the recycling system as required by Manual for Streets.

You refer to Manual for Streets allowing 12m reversing if the roads are straight and free from obstacles but your drawings clearly show distances in excess of 21m including, in the case of Courtyard E, accessing a narrow road in the same manoeuvre. A lack of obstacle also cannot be assured when considered against the low level of off-street parking being provided.

Page 36 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

In response, the applicant's agent stated that "the reality is that you can always drive a vehicle smoother than any plotting diagrams will show. However, I appreciate your request for further clarification and respond accordingly.

It is normally the highways authority that stipulates the size of the vehicle that is used by the council for refuse purposes and we would be grateful if this is confirmed by yourselves accordingly. The tracking diagrams have been drawn to account for a vehicle of 9.7m in length, although we would be happy to re-track for a vehicle of 10.2m in length if needs be. The need for a vehicle of 11m in length will be unlikely as, from experience, no authority possesses such a refuse vehicle.

It is correct that Manual for Streets allows for distances in excess of 12m if the roads are clear and straight. There is no upper parameter to this, and so the reference to 21m is irrelevant. The suggestion about the possibility of on-street obstacles cannot be justified - this is wholly circumstantial, subjective and by itself hard to be assured of.

The exercise of providing swept path drawings for a 7.5 tonne box van was for information purposes, relating to private vehicle movements associated with such activities as deliveries and removals. Put another way, they have been produced to show that the development works. For the avoidance of doubt, these do not refer to public vehicles, where I would appreciate that there is a direct correlation with adoptable roads."

Again, Officers consider the views of the applicant to be reasonable in this instance. However, as above, the Highways Authority has not responded to these comments to date.

Turning to the roads serving courtyards A & E, the Highways Authority state that these are too narrow for simultaneous access and egress. They states that it is shown that refuse vehicles will require access to courtyard E but the limited width and possible on- street parking issues due to the limited off-street parking are likely to lead to the prevention of simultaneous access and egress. Furthermore, these limited road widths will have a serious impact on the ability to carry out gully emptying and road maintenance. Access to properties is likely to be severely restricted for such operations. The proposed road widths are not appropriate in this case.

In response, the applicant's agent stated that "the reality is that 4.2m width is acceptable for simultaneous use under Manual for Streets. In any case, refuse vehicles will not need to access these courtyards. The Manual for Streets requirement is for residents to not carry waste more than a distance of 30m; waste collection shall take place within 25m of

Page 37 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 storage point. As such, National Policy, in the form of Manual for Streets states clearly that collections can take place within 55m of dwellings. The layout fully complies in this regard.

The comment about the impact on the ability of emptying gulleys and road maintenance, I do not see this as being a restriction. Whilst such details of gulley locations will form part of detailed design, there is nothing stopping them from being closer to the entrance to the courtyard, thereby meaning that such vehicles will not need to enter. Gully clearance and road maintenance will occur once in a blue moon and it should not therefore dictate road design. Overall, we are adopting a practical stance on this matter and do not see this as causing an issue to private vehicle movements in and out of the courtyard."

The Highways Authority go on to state that the Centreline and Junction radii for courtyards B and C need to be detailed on a drawing. In response, the applicant's agent states that "we do not need to show a junction radius around courtyard B. The main reason for this is that it is a junction, as clearly shown on the drawing - access for courtyards A and B is via a secondary road. Access road to courtyard C takes priority, as indicated by the locations of the tactile paving on either pavement. If the road was to continue to A and B with there being a junction off to courtyard C then the tactile paving would have been relocated accordingly. Therefore, we do not envisage any further discussion being necessary on this matter".

The Highways Authority go on to state that the forward visibility splay has been correctly shown on the drawings but the layout of the driveway for plot 10 will allow for obstruction of this splay by parked cars. How this will be prevented is not clear. In response, the applicant's agent states that "Manual for Streets states that where speeds are low, it may be possible to have parking in forward visibility splays. In this case, speeds will definitely be low and as such I would ask for clarification as to why any pragmatic highways authority would not allow for parking in part of the visibility splay. At speeds of 15mph, then such concerns of visibility will not exist. Measuring forward visibility at a distance of 20mph is not realistic - such speeds will not occur within the development as it isn't a through road."

Concern has been raised by Highways in relation to Courtyard E not having a service margin/vehicle overhang provision. This is required around the entire courtyard and not just on the access road. The short length of parking spaces will also result in a further reduction of what should be a public turning area. Parking spaces abutting garages should be at least 6m in length to allow for a parked car and retain the ability to open a garage door. In response, the applicant's agent states that "the reality is that there won't be any public vehicles entering this courtyard. In any case, should the highways authority be willing to accept this courtyard as a shared surface then all concerns could be overcome.

Again, the Highways Authority raise concern stating that although the long sections have been provided the gradients are not detailed. Cross sections will also be required. The

Page 38 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 applicant's agent has confirmed that "we can provide sections if required. However, such details can be the subject of a planning condition and will in any case be subject to full technical approval under the Section 38 process. For the avoidance of doubt, gradients will not be greater than 1:12

A further concern from the Highways Authority is that, although you (the agent) state that the appropriate amendment has been made to show 45m visibility can be achieved it is not clear on which plan this has been depicted. Furthermore, it would be extremely easy to overlook the vitally important junction visibility splay along the trunk road and inadvertently obstruct it with planting, fencing etc. This should be shown as being considered and maintained. Again, the statement that amendments have been made is not supported by details as to which plan this is now shown.

The applicant's agent has responded by stating that "the required individual access visibility splays are now shown on the most recent issue of the site layout plan (ref. 001 rev N, produced by Tony King Architects). The Trunk Road visibility is outside of the application site. However, we will ensure that there is no detriment to existing conditions through inappropriate planting and landscaping. Again, this can be controlled via planning condition.

Finally, the Highways Authority state that "there is no surface water drainage detail shown on the drawings provided. A plan is now provided but I would make the following observations regarding the lack of detail and clarity available. o No Gully positions are shown o The soakaways on the village green and on plots 4, 9-10, 46 and 50-51 are too close to the adoptable areas. o The highway drain through private courtyard A will require an easement. o No detail is offered as to the connection, easements and approval for connection to the trunk road drainage system. o Porous paving adjacent to highways and buildings are the equivalent of soakaways and therefore not permitted without the appropriate separation."

The applicant's agent has responded by stating that "gulleys will not be shown on the plan as these would form part of the S38 approval process. Soakaways are in excess of 6m away from a public highway and at least 5.5m away from a dwelling - these are acceptable standards. It is agreed that a highway drain runs through private courtyard A and will require an easement, but surely this will not require the submission of revised plans? Regarding connection to the trunk road drainage system, again, is it necessary to provide such details at this stage?"

I should be noted that the Powys County Council Highways Authority has not responded to the points raised by the applicant's agent to date. Accordingly, due to the protracted nature of the negotiations between both parties, the relevant Highways Officer has been invited to participate in the Planning Access and Rights of Way Committee within which this application will be presented to and considered by Members. At the time of writing this report, no response to the invitation had been

Page 39 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 received from the Highways Officer.

Provision of Affordable Housing

A requirement of the Outline Planning Permission is to provide 20% Affordable Housing as part of this development. The reserved matters submission illustrates that 12.no Affordable Housing units will be provided comprising 4no. one bedroom flats, 4no. two bedroom flats, 1no. three bedroom dwelling and 3no. two bedroom dwellings which equates to a provision of 23%.

Whilst acknowledging the density concerns of local residents, the Community Council and CCW as referred to above, it should also be noted that this development would have provided just 8 Affordable Housing units had only 42 dwellings been provided on site. Evidently, the provision of an additional 11no. units on site would yield an additional 4no. Affordable Housing units in an area of identified need.

Given that Officers consider that these additional units have been incorporated into the overall layout with little or no discernible impact upon the visual amenities of the wider area, it is considered that the additional Affordable units yielded represents an acceptable 'trade-off'. It is considered that the proposal serves to contribute towards achieving the National Park's Duty to foster the social and economic wellbeing of local communities (by providing Affordable Housing) without impacting upon the National Park's first Purpose to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage.

Sustainability

Concerns have been raised by local residents relating to the fact that the proposal has not been accompanied by a pre-assessment against the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Whilst these concerns are well placed, it should be noted that Outline Planning Permission was granted for this development prior to the introduction of the Code for Sustainable Homes and Technical Advice Note 22: Planning for Sustainability. As a result, there is no obligation for the developer to achieve the minimum standard of Code Level 3 in this case.

Nevertheless, the developer has committed to ensuring that the dwellings are constructed in accordance with up-to-date sustainability measures where possible. Furthermore, any development will have to accord with the latest Building Regulations and, for example, the following measures are proposed:

- Enhancing the building fabric to improve insulation and minimise energy loss - Ensure that materials are well sourced to reduce transport emissions - Provide refuse and recycling points within the layout as well as bins for each unit - Provide sustainable drainage systems

It should also be noted that the applicant has agreed to construct roofs using natural

Page 40 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 slate and windows using timber. Details of which are to be agreed subject to the imposition of a suitably worded planning condition.

As a result, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in sustainability terms.

Drainage and Ecology

Numerous concerns have been raised by neighbouring residents in relation to drainage from the site and the potential impacts upon the River Usk Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The National Park's Ecologist and the Countryside Council for Wales also raised concerns in relation to the likely significant effects on the River Usk SAC due to increased drainage outputs from the proposed development.

Indeed, it was suggested by CCW that, due to the potential impact upon the SAC, an Environmental Impact Assessment should be carried out and an Environmental Statement submitted for consideration as part of the Reserved Matters application. Further to the Authority issuing a Screening Opinion stating that an EIA was required, the applicant sought a Screening Direction from the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government confirmed that an EIA was required as the development was considered likely to have a significant effect on the environment because of its nature, size and location having regard to the following points:

- The likely impact on the National Park Landscape - The likely impact upon the River Usk SAC/SSSI - The likely impact of development on European Protected Species.

Accordingly, the Authority issued a Scoping Opinion on 19th September 2011 stating that the EIA should consider the impacts on the following:

- Statutory nature conservation sites - Legally protected species - UK and Local Biodiversity Action Plan and NERC Act Section 42 Habitats and Species - Landscape - Drainage

An ES was subsequently submitted by the applicant in April 2012.

Further to the submission of the ES, It should be noted that the Environment Agency Wales stated no objection at this stage subject to the imposition of a planning condition requiring the submission of a surface water drainage scheme for agreement prior to the commencement of development.

DCWW also stated no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions

Page 41 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 relating to separate foul and surface water drainage; connection of surface water drainage to the public system; connection of land drainage runoff; submission of a comprehensive scheme of drainage for the site; and, access to existing DCWW assets. It was also stated that "No problems are envisaged with the Waste Water Treatment Works for the treatment of domestic discharges from this site.

However, CCW and the National Park's Ecologist retained their objections to the scheme pending the submission of additional information in relation to the following:

- Details of the Environmental Management Plan - Clarification from Dwr Cymru Welsh Water that sufficient capacity exists at the Sennybridge WWTW and that there is no likelihood that treated discharges or untreated storm water discharges compromise the water quality objectives for the River Usk - Clarification that water abstraction issues or any measures to address them will not lead to failure of the conservation objectives of the River Usk SAC. - Landscaping and Aftercare Plan - Lighting Scheme - Evidence explaining why the surrounding habitat is unsuitable for Red Kites - Number of bird boxes to be provided

Further to these concerns the applicant provided the following response:

"… Environmental Management Plan Your ecologist has requested that a draft Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is prepared and submitted prior to determination setting out its scope and content, including reference to detailed design drawings and the responsibilities for the control of measures during the construction phase, together with the transfer of responsibilities for the maintenance of all adopted infrastructure post-construction.

The production of a detailed EMP is not possible until a contractor has been confirmed to the project, and this will not be possible until the assurance of planning consent is obtained. Moreover, the agreement of strategic principles at the least would be problematic (and possibly abortive) because it is not yet established whether the development will be built out in one or multiple phases - two different scenarios which would require distinctive approached to the EMP. May I draw your attention to the contents of Paragraph 8.69 of the Written Statement which presents some overall principles to be incorporated in future into an EMP. The applicant is not averse to the need for an EMP, but does not think that it is possible to commit to any specific details until the detailed design stage is underway post-decision, when a contractor will be appointed.

It is noted that the CCW response emphasises that an EMP would need to be agreed prior to any works starting on site, but that the detail contained within could be a matter to be controlled under a planning condition.

Page 42 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

As an additional point, it is normal for such a document to be requested by the Environment Agency in their consultation response. I note that no such request has been made via their response in this instance.

DCWW Statement on foul drainage and water supply

Your ecologist mentions the need to source a clear written statement from DCWW which states that the existing Sennybridge Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) has the current capacity to manage the increased foul water discharges from the proposed development and that such capacity will not be compromised by storm flows. I feel it necessary to return to the contents of paragraph 6 of the Welsh Government Screening Direction dated 20th July 2011, repeated in full below…:-

'As both CCW and EAW had highlighted the issue of the capacity of the public sewerage system, I sought advice from the National Park on this matter, and they in turn asked for advice from Dwr Cymru Welsh Water (DCWW). In their response DCWW said that, on certain occasions in the past during peak demand, the water supply from their Portis Water Treatment Works may have been compromised, but that measures were now in place to maintain future supplies and therefore should not affect their existing customers or the proposed development. They went back to inform us that concerns were raised over the proposed development back in 2005, with regards to the Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) in Sennybridge. However, since then the performance of the WWTW has improved and at present they were not aware of any known compliance issues within the Usk SAC. DCWW also explained that a combined sewer overflow serving the Sennybridge catchment downstream of the development had in the past experienced some flooding, and that this was due to an operational issue which has now been overcome and to the best of their knowledge they were not aware of any other operations issues.'

I am mindful that the Welsh Government chose to adopt the precautionary principle, notwithstanding the apparent clarity of conclusions provided by DCWW. Nevertheless, we have since asked DCWW to provide further clarity on this matter, and this has been expressed in their consultation response addressed to yourself and dated 18th July 2012. For the benefit of third party readers, I enclose a copy of this letter. You will note that this raises no objection to the proposed development regarding drainage capacity, treatment works capacity or water supply capacity.

I would imagine that designs on the actual wording of responses received from DCWW are ultimately subjective (and this may not be to the satisfaction of your ecologist), but noting that both DCWW and Environment Agency Wales (EAW) have responsibility for ensuring the integrity of the SAC designation, then it is fair to assume that an objection would have been received from either or both if there was a suspicion that of there being a significant impact on the conservation objectives of the SAC.

In relation to water supply, you will note that DCWW have not objected to the

Page 43 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 proposal on this basis through pre-application/consultation response to date. CCW have regard to DCWW's Revised Water Resources Management Plan (dated October 2011) in their response and state that the Portis zone is one of three that are forecast to fall into deficit at some point over the next 25 years (it is noted that CCW state that it is actually the SEWCUS resource zone which supplies the area, and this is one of the other zones forecasted for deficit). The report does not state when within the next 25 years such deficits are likely to hit these zones but, more importantly, it is not stated what are the implications on individual projects. It is the DCWW consultation response which provides an indication on whether there are supply problems with the proposed development and significantly, no mention is made of any future projected deficiencies. As such, I would contend that little material weight can be given to the conclusions of this report, which was published prior to receipt of the consultation response issued more recently in July of this year.

Method of Sustainable Drainage Systems

Your ecologist further suggests that much greater effort is given within the proposed development to conserve water by replacing the proposed soakaway system with local rainwater harvesting and grey water recycling for each new property.

In this respect, we are guided by the following extract of the response from the EAW in respect of surface water drainage, which offers no objection:-

'The proposals to reduce surface water runoff from the site to a maximum of 5 litres per second through the use of soakaways and an attenuation and hydro-brake system represents a significant reduction in runoff compared to the existing Greenfield runoff rate...' Not only does the surface water solution reduce run-off rates, but it also acts to ensure the provision of long-term water charge to the watercourse. The use of soakaways in proximity to a watercourse allows for the recharge of underground aquifers, which is especially of relevance in providing more storage space at times of drought. This provides a welcome alternative to the use of over-ground methods, where surface water is attenuated before entering directly into the watercourse. It is the latter method which would, in this instance, be more likely to have an impact on the River Usk SAC.

Bats and External Lighting Assessment

The Countryside Council for Wales have suggested that in order to ensure the integrity and function of bat flightlines and feeding habitat that the hedges provide, and to exclude light spill by means of fencing/screening, it may be necessary to exclude the existing species-rich hedgerow from the land to be developed. It should be noted that the assessment was based on all existing species-rich hedgerows being retained and also that an appropriate design of lighting being used to limit light-spill onto these retained habitats. Moreover, I would stress that the northern and eastern site boundaries are already lit by street lamps. As such, it is not our intention to amend the design to exclude the species-rich hedgerow from the development, and also we would question

Page 44 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 the need for an external lighting assessment prior to the determination of the application. As with the Landscaping and Aftercare Plan, we would be happy to accept the need for such a lighting plan under planning condition.

Red Kites

It is noted that further explanation as been requested in relation to the comment noted in Paragraph 9.75 of the Written Statement, stated as follows:- '...use of these trees by nesting Red Kite is considered unlikely (based on the limited suitability of the surrounding habitat).' Soltys Brewster Ltd, as our appointed ecological consultants to the project, advise that it is unlikely that additional desk study enquiries would uncover any site specific records over and above what has already been established. Red Kite generally prefer to nest in woodland and the small, exposed group of trees present within the southwest corner of the site would therefore be considered sub-optimal nesting habitat. The use of the trees by nesting Red Kite was also considered unlikely based on the close proximity of existing residential properties (i.e. within 50 metres). If construction activities relating to the south western corner of the site avoid the nesting season then we are advised that increased disturbance is unlikely to be a significant issue. It is also of note that these trees are located within or immediately adjacent to, the garden of an existing residential property and that any kites present are already likely to be habituated to the presence of people/buildings in the immediate vicinity.

Bird Boxes

Your ecologist has raised questions about the overall provision of nest boxes, with the proposed ratio of 1 per 10 dwellings equating to a total provision of 5 boxes within the scheme. In the interests of clarity, it should be noted that this provision was based on the small amount of scrub/hedge habitat to be lost as a result of the proposed development. As existing boundary hedgerows are being retained, and also that some new planning is being provided, then this both provides and retains a nesting resource. As such, it is considered that this particular aspect of the proposed mitigation is proportional to the size of the scheme and the impacts on existing nesting habitat."

Further to the submission of this detail, CCW confirmed that they note DCWW comments and fully support the suggested condition requiring the submission of details of a comprehensive and integrated drainage scheme. Subject to this condition CCW has confirmed that they are satisfied that a significant effect on the River Usk SAC, via change in water quality, is unlikely.

The National Park's Ecologist is also satisfied with the submitted statement and has stated no objection to the proposed development.

High Pressure Gas Pipeline

Concerns have been raised by nearby residents regarding the proximity of the site to

Page 45 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 the 2776-28 Feeder Felindre to Brecon pipeline.

Further to investigation, National Grid has confirmed that the pipe is 22.9mm thick given that the section running to the south of the application site is "laid in thick-wall pipe" (15.9mm is the standard thickness on unstrengthened pipeline). Further to providing this information to the Health and Safety Executive, they were able to advise the Authority that the application site is located in the "outer zone" and they would not advise, on safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission in this case.

As a result, despite the concerns raised by nearby residents, the expert opinion received on this particular issue indicates that the concerns do not warrant the refusal of the application.

Cultural Heritage

The application site is located in the vicinity of the scheduled ancient monument known as Castell-Du, Sennybridge (BR126). This comprises ruins of a medieval masonry castle, probably of 13th century date, the main remnant being part of a D-shaped tower projecting from a former range of buildings. This occupies the southern edge of an isolated hillock with broad views to the south across the flood plain of the Senni-Usk confluence. The rest of the monument, probably consisting of some form of walled and ditched enclosure must have stood to the north but has vanished under substantial recent houses. The site is of further interest having been adapted as a gun emplacement in World War II, the remains of a second concrete pillbox surviving within the scheduled area to the west, overlooking the track to Castle Farm.

Further to consultation, Cadw has stated that the site is located a minimum of 40m to the west of the monument, at the base of the hillock on which it stands. There is to be no direct impact upon the scheduled area. The setting of the monument has previously been compromised by the piecemeal construction of modern houses adjacent to and within metres of the surviving fragments. The present access road to Castle Farm and the houses that occupy much of the castle site physically divides the development from the ruins. More significantly, the position of the recent houses dictates that any views of the area to be developed from that of the scheduled area are likely to be very limited. The significant views from and of the upstanding medieval tower are across the valley to the south, which both it and the 20th Century fortifications were undoubtedly positioned to overlook. These key aspects will not be affected by the proposed development.

In Cadw's opinion, the proposed development will therefore have no significant impact upon the Scheduled Ancient Monument or its setting.

Conclusion

It is considered that the detail submitted in relation to the Reserved Matters of Outline

Page 46 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

Planning Permission P20942 is acceptable in planning terms and should be approved subject to the following conditions.

RECOMMENDATION: Permit subject to Section 106 Agreement

Conditions and/or Reasons:

1 In the case of applications for the approval of reserved matters, the condition that the development to which this permission relates must be begun before whichever is the later of the following dates: (i) the expiration of five years from the date of the grant of outline planning permission; or (ii) the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved 2 The development shall be carried out in all respects strictly in accordance with the approved plans (drawing nos. NP1v1, NP2v1, NP3v3, NP4v3, NP5v2, NP6v3, NP7v3, NP8v2, NP9v2, NP10v2, NP11v2, NP12v2, NP13V2, NP14v2, NP15v2, NP16v2, NP17v2, NP18v2, NP19v2, NP20v2, NP21v1, NP22v3, NP23V2, NP24v2, NP28v2, NP29v2, NP30v1, NP32v1, NP33v1, NP34v1, NP35v1, NP36v1, NP37v1and NP38v1 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 3 No development shall take place until details or samples of materials to be used externally on walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4 Notwithstanding the detail hereby approved, the roof of each dwelling shall be finished with a natural slate, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Thereafter, the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity. 5 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking, amending and re-enacting that Order) no development of the types described in Part 1; Class(es) A to E of Schedule 2, other than that hereby permitted shall be carried out without the written permission of the Local Planning Authority. 6 Notwithstanding the detail hereby approved, the windows and doors of each dwelling shall be constructed with a timber material, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Thereafter, the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity. 7 Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site. 8 No surface water shall be allowed to connect, either directly or indirectly, to the

Page 47 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

public sewerage system unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 9 Land drainage runoff shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system. 10 No development shall commence until the developer has prepared a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site showing how foul water, surface water and land drainage will be dealt with and this has been approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. 11 The garages and access thereto must be reserved for the garaging or parking of private motor vehicles and the garage shall at no time be converted to habitable accommodation.

Reasons:

1 Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2 To ensure adherence to the approved plans in the interests of a satisfactory form of development. 3 To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings. 4 In the interest of the character and visual amenities of the area. 5 In order to safeguard the character and visual amenities of the locality. 6 In the interest of the character and visual amenities of the area. 7 To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system. 8 To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment. 9 To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment. 10 To ensure that effective drainage facilities are provided for the proposed development, and that no adverse impact occurs to the environment or the existing public sewerage system. 11 To ensure adequate off street parking arrangements remain available at all times.

Informative Notes:

1 The development to which this permission relates is the subject of an agreement under, inter alia, Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This permission should be read in conjunction with that agreement. 2 The proposed development site is crossed by a public sewer main. Under the Water Industry Act 1991 Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has rights of access to its apparatus at all times. No buildings will be permitted within 3 metres either side of the centre line of the public sewer. 3 The Welsh Government are planning to introduce new legislation that will make it mandatory for all developers who wish to communicate with the public sewerage system to obtain an adoption agreement for their sewerage with Dwr

Page 48 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

Cymru Welsh Water. A Mandatory Build Standard for the construction of sewerage apparatus and an agreement under Section 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991 will need to be completed in advance of any authorisation to communicate with the public sewerage system under Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991 being granted by Dwr Cymru Welsh Water. 4 The proposed development is crossed by a trunk/distribution watermain. Dwr Cymru Welsh Water as Statutory Undertaker has statutory powers to access their apparatus at all times. It may be possible for this watermain to be diverted under Section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991, the cost of which will be recharged to the developer. The developer must consult Dwr Cymru Welsh Water before development commences on site.

Page 49 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

3 APPLICATION NUMBER: 13/08809/OUT APPLICANTS NAME(S): Mr & Mrs Andrew & Emma Jones and Mr & Mrs Iestyn & Rachel Gwillim SITE ADDRESS: Springfields Llangenny Crickhowell NP8 1HA GRID REF: E: 323974 N:218093 COMMUNITY: Vale Of Grwyney DATE VALIDATED: 22 January 2013 DECISION DUE DATE: 19 March 2013 CASE OFFICER: Mr Jonathan James

PROPOSAL Five houses, four as intermediate housing for local needs

ADDRESS Springfields , Llangenny, Crickhowell

Page 50 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS Consultee Received Comments

Clwyd Powys 13th Feb 2013 I write to confirm that this development lies outside Archaeological Trust the medieval historic core of the village and consequently there are no archaeological implications for the proposed development Dwr Cymru Welsh 6th Mar 2013 Comments that as the applicant intends to use a Water septic tank facility they will have to contact the environment agency. There are no problems envisaged on water supply. Environment Agency 11th Feb 2013 Comments that the application does not fall within Wales their consultation checklist and therefore does not require direct consultation. Standard planning advice note is attached NP Ecologist 29th Apr 2013 1.0 I note the information provided in the Design and Access Statement (7th December 2012), particularly Section 3. Biodiversity and the draft Landscape Management Plan (9th January 2013). I also note the comments previously made by the National Park Ecologist on 20th July 2010. Most of these comments are still relevant and I will reference relevant elements in my comments. 2.0 I agree with previous comments that in principle the proposal will not have a significant effect on the field categorised as improved grassland or on the western boundary hedgerow/treeline. Consequently, there is no requirement for an ecological survey. I do disagree with the Design and Access Statement conclusion which states that the "field itself is of little biodiversity value." The field acts as important natural, open space for both wildlife and people, linking surrounding wooded and hedgerow systems with the River Gwyne Fechan for certain mobile species such as bats that will use the area for foraging and commuting, for example. The field also provides ecosystem services for people including open space, rainfall capture and aesthetic qualities. 3.0 With these thoughts in mind, the field and its boundaries offer opportunities to provide biodiversity enhancement. I, therefore, welcome the proposal to restore the hedgerow which forms the western boundary of the site east of the parish road. I note that access to the proposed properties has been paired to reduce the effect on the hedgerow. I

Page 51 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 also recognise plans to manage the ash woodland along the western side of the parish road through coppicing to maintain a foraging route for bats and to provide heating fuel for residence without overshadowing the buildings. In addition, I welcome the proposal to create hedge boundaries around the properties and the circumference of the remaining field boundary. I wish to emphasise that hedgerow creation and improvements should be completed using native species. 4.0 I note that the proposed development is within 100 metres of the River Grwyne Fechan which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Proposed works are of a nature and scale that they are not likely to have a significant effect on the SSSI or SAC. Nevertheless, the precautionary principle should be applied and all construction works should be designed such that any activities do not lead to a negative impact on the SSSI features (e.g., soil erosion and contaminants). 5.0 I recognise as did the previous National Park Ecologist that at this outline stage there is no detail of the design of the individual houses. I would like to reiterate, though, that incorporating design elements into the buildings which provide opportunities for roosting bats would be a welcome biodiversity enhancement, complimenting the hedgerow proposals. Equally, lighting schemes should minimise negative impacts on bats and other nocturnal species that will have benefited from other biodiversity enhancement measures noted herein. 6.0 The following recommendations are given in light of these documents and observations. Recommendations

Should the National Park Authority be minded to permit the above outline application I would recommend that the following matters are appropriately conditioned or informed by advisory notes. 1.0 A detailed landscape management plan shall be developed incorporating the existing proposals for hedgerow restoration on the east side of the parish road, ash woodland management along the western side of the parish road, and hedgerow

Page 52 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

creation along the perimeter of the properties and remaining field boundaries. Appropriate native species shall be used for hedgerow restoration and creation. 2.0 No development shall commence until an external lighting plan is submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall avoid conflict with the other bat mitigation measures on site and shall be implemented in full. 3.0 Plans should be made to incorporate into building design opportunities for roosting bats. 4.0 Protected species are not likely to be encountered during the planned works if the appropriate care and attention is exercised. However, in the event that protected species are encountered: 4.1 Work should halt immediately and Natural Resources Wales contacted for advice in the unexpected event that protected species are discovered during the course of the development. To proceed without seeking the advice of Natural Resources Wales may result in an offence being committed. Natural Resources Wales, Cantref Court, Brecon Road, Abergavenny, NP7 7AX. Tel. 01873 737000.

NP Head Of Strategy 26th Feb 2013 It is not clear as to the nature of the dwellings Policy And Heritage proposed as the application is for "intermediate housing for local needs". The Authority does not recognise local needs housing in policy terms in either the UDP or the Local Plan (the LDP has little weight at this point since we are still in the examination period). It is not possible to tie these dwellings to such a use. Therefore the description of the houses for this use is not relevant to the consideration of the application. I note the statement by the agent in his 'Design and Access Statement" (7th December 2012) that the prospective purchasers of the dwellings are local people employed locally, but the application has not been submitted as Rural Enterprise Dwellings as per the definition of TAN 6 and therefore cannot be considered on that basis.

If the application is for 5 affordable units then the

Page 53 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

Authority requires that the units are transferred to an RSL or equivalent and subject to a S106 to ensure the houses are affordable in perpetuity. They will be allocated to occupiers from the housing waiting list and subject to a local lettings policy. They would likely be tenure neutral in order that, depending on the circumstances of the occupiers, could either be let as social rented or as intermediate housing. I can see no evidence in the information submitted by the applicant that the dwellings meet the definition and mechanisms for delivery of affordable housing as set out in the UDP and "Policy ES29 and ES30 Affordable Housing UDP Guidance Note (July 2008)". Therefore the application cannot be considered on this basis.

I consider that the application is for 5 market houses. Subject to the detail the site is within the development boundary of Llangenny and therefore the principle of residential development may be acceptable. The affordable housing policy is triggered above 3 houses for a minimum of 20 % affordable housing. My understanding is that there is a general need for affordable housing in Powys (although the Powys affordable Housing Officer will confirm the actual level of need in this area and the number of affordable units required here), and the Policy position, on this basis, will require at least one of the proposed units to be affordable and delivered as per the UDP definition. However on the file to date the applicant has not provided any evidence from the affordable housing officer as to the need in the area, the number(s) and type of dwelling(s) needed nor any confirmation as to whether an RSL or equivalent would be interested in acquiring the dwelling(s). The statement by the agent in his supporting statement that an RSL would not be interested has not been confirmed either by the Powys Affordable Housing Officer or an RSL to date. The applicants attentions should be drawn to the "Policy ES29 and ES30 Affordable Housing UDP Guidance Note (July 2008)" which details the necessary steps and requirements. Only where it is demonstrated to the Authority in this way will we be in a position to consider whether on site provision is viable or whether either a land swap or

Page 54 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

a commuted sum is appropriate as per the Policy. NP Rural Practice No Comments received Surveyor Powys Affordable 11th Feb 2013 I write to confirm my support for this development Housing Officer as it is designed to address strategic and affordable need in the area. Powys County 2nd Apr 2013 I have now asked all Housing Associations operating Council Affordable in the area and it seems none of them are willing to Housing Officer take on a single property in the village. Melin Homes was the last I was able to speak to and I presume you will hear from them shortly. I hope this helps you in your report.

Powys County 19th Feb 2013 I have received the consultation on the above Council Highways application and am unable to make a considered comment due to the lack of information provided. The application is for five houses but only the northern access has any detail of layout, width etc. As access is a matter for decision at this time it is essential that the southern access, which would be the only means of access for the southern three plots, is also fully specified in terms of layout, width, gradient, visibility and construction. I am puzzled at the inclusion of incorrectly drawn visibility splays on the plan which are depicted from a point not even within the limit of the red line site boundary! As a through route from north to south would not be supported additional information regarding the proposed means of prevention of vehicular access along the entire parish road is also required. Finally there would appear to be two strips of land, one north and one south of the five plots, being omitted from the scheme and I am seriously concerned to what end this has been proposed. Whilst I appreciate that much has been made of the retention of the remaining land for community use neither north or south access can, at this stage, be considered suitable for any other use than that put forward in this application. I look forward to receiving additional information to clarify these points but must advise that without such details my recommendation would be one of refusal. Powys County 6th Mar 2013 I have looked again at all the submitted Council Highways documentation and cannot see clearly any drawing which indicates that all the land possibly required for

Page 55 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 creation of the southern access is within the same ownership. Even if I have failed to spot the plans access has been indicated as a matter for decision at this time and therefore the detail of layout, width, gradient, visibility and construction should be available for consideration. Should the planners wish to condition this element of the development I remain uncertain as to whether the necessary standards can be met.

Powys will accept up to five dwellings off a private drive if the access is acceptable. The submission however is showing five houses and fails to make abundantly clear how the north and south portions will be separated to prevent through vehicular traffic. The northern access is barely acceptable for two and would certainly not be approved as a through route. It is not clear, if access is provided from the north for two units and the south for three why any form of emergency link would be necessary. A locked gate is all too readily left unlocked for the convenience of those who may wish to use it and such an arrangement is not acceptable given the limited scope of the northern access. A more permanent closure with pedestrian access would be appropriate.

Whilst you may be able to correct the visibility splay I would expect to see them shown on the application drawings as access is a matter for current consideration. I must advise that the splays must be shown to the same edge of carriageway and no part of the carriageway should fall behind the splay line.

Finally, I note your reasoning for the retention of the northern strip of land but am conscious that the purpose of the southern strip makes the lack of detail of this access all the more concerning. The proposed access to serve three dwellings, if detailed, is unlikely to be designed to be suitable for the purpose of equestrian use involving horse-boxes etc, even for the limited occasions generated by village gatherings.

I must therefore advise that your email does not answer my queries and remain concerned at the lack

Page 56 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

of detail being offered. I have no objection, in principle, to the development proposed but do not wish to comment favourably on an access about which I have no information but that is clearly part of the approval process at this time.

I trust the planning authority will advise as to how this impasse can be addressed. Powys County 17th May 2013 Comments that with reference to the latest plan Council Highways submitted, in terms of detail showing layout, width, gradient, visibility and construction adequate for consideration as a matter for decision, we are no further forward.

The current plan provides dimensions which are clearly meant to depict the visibility splays but do not relate to any lines of sight on the plan. The access now has an acute angle to the highway with no radius on either side and the gradient remains a statement of intent with no evidence to substantiate its achievability. With an access from a carriageway with its own gradient, levels across the width of the access are critical and need to be detailed.

I remain supportive in principle but until it is clear that the required standards at the southern access are achievable it would be unreasonable to make a recommendation with conditions that ultimately may not be workable.

Powys County 8th Jul 2013 I refer to the latest re-consultation and with all the Council Highways best intentions to support the application I am still unable to do so due to the total lack of clarity and detail relating to the southern access.

Two of the plans referred to in Mr. Betham's latest Southern Access Statement are nowhere to be found and paragraph C is unintelligible for the purpose of highway comment.

Drawing 0906/05/C continues to show an access with an acute angle to the carriageway, no discernible radii and is really of an inappropriate scale to depict visibility splays.

The most recent information submitted now

Page 57 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

includes data on a tree root protection system. It is far from clear exactly where this will be used but the text in paragraph b strongly suggests the access area to the class III road. This is not an acceptable construction method in the vicinity of the county highway.

I have been approached by both Kirsty Williams AM and Councillor John Morris regarding this site to whom I have indicated our, in principle, support. But with the access point as a detail to be decided at this stage I cannot even recommend workable conditions because after six months we still have no reasonable access layout plan upon which to comment positively.

Powys County 15th Aug 2013 The County Council as Highway Authority for the Council Highways County Unclassified highway, U0645

Wish the following recommendations/observations be applied.

Recommendations/Observations

The following highway conditions should be included on any permission granted:-

HC2 The gradient of any access shall not exceed 1 in 15 for the first 10.0 metres measured from edge of the adjoining carriageway along the centre line of the access.

HC3 The centre line of the first 10.0 metres of the southern access road measured from the edge of the adjoining carriageway shall be at right angles to that edge of the said carriageway.

HC4 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the southern access shall be constructed so that there is clear visibility from a point 1.05 metres above ground level at the centre of the access and 2.4 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway, to points 0.26 metres above ground level at the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 70.0 metres distant in each direction measured from the centre of the access

Page 58 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 along the edge of the adjoining carriageway.

Nothing shall be planted, erected or allowed to grow on the area(s) of land so formed that would obstruct the visibility and the visibility shall be maintained free from obstruction thereafter.

HC7 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the area of each access to be used by vehicles is to be constructed to a minimum of 410mm depth, comprising a minimum of 250mm of sub-base material, 100mm of bituminous macadam base course material and 60mm of bituminous macadam binder course material for a distance of 10.0 metres from the edge of the adjoining carriageway in respect of the southern access and 5.5 metres in respect of the northern access from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Any use of alternative materials is to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the access being constructed.

HC11 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development provision shall be made within the curtilage of the site for the parking of all construction vehicles together with a vehicle turning area. This parking and turning area shall be constructed to a depth of 0.30 metres in crusher run or sub-base and maintained free from obstruction at all times such that all vehicles serving the site may park within the site and both enter and leave the site in a forward gear.

HC12a The width of the southern access carriageway shall be not less than 5.0 metres for a minimum distance of 10.0 metres along the access measured from the adjoining edge of carriageway of the county highway.

HC12b The width of the northern access carriageway shall be not less than 5.0 metres for a minimum distance of 5.5 metres along the access measured from the adjoining edge of carriageway of the county highway.

HC21 Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the

Page 59 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

area of the access to be used by vehicles is to be finished in a 40mm bituminous surface course for a distance of 10.0 metres in respect of the southern access and 5.5 metres in respect of the northern access from the edge of the adjoining carriageway.

HC31 The area of each private drive and any turning area is to be metalled and surfaced in bituminous macadam, concrete or block paviours, prior to the occupation of that dwelling.

HC32 No storm water drainage from the site shall be allowed to discharge onto the county highway.

Prior to the commencement of the development full details of the permanent barrier to through vehicular movements along the parish road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Within five days from the commencement of the development the permanent barrier shall be erected across the parish road to prevent through vehicular movement across the development site between plots 6 and 7.

Reasons for Comments

To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. Rural Housing Enabler No comments received Vale Of Grwyney 25th Feb 2013 Supports low cost affordable housing and whilst Community Council members support this application in principle clarification is requested on the "intermediate housing for local needs" classification. Please can you confirm: 1) Whether the application is for low cost affordable housing or open market housing.

2) If low cost housing for local needs will a section 106 agreement be formulated to ensure the properties remain affordable in perpetuity. Vale Of Grwyney 19th Mar 2013 Supports this application Community Council

Page 60 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

CONTRIBUTORS Dr Richard Broyd, Penrhiw, Llangenny S E Powell, Gelli Fanw Farm, Llanbedr J Lewis, 2 Moor Parc Cottages, Llanbedr Mr Dave Sherman, Millbrook , Llangenny Susan Fair, Dyffryn Beusych, Llanbedr Mr and Mrs Allen, Tyn Y Pwll, Llangenny Mr Graham Norton, Penlan, Llangenny Mr and Mrs Alexander, Glanffrwd, Llangenny Mr and Mrs Coleman, Penlan, Cwrt Y Gollen Miss B Buckle Sue Richards, Ty-Draw, Llangenny P J Lewis, Ty- Mawr, Llangenny Mr C Jones, Panteg Farm, Llanbedr Rev Colin Bowen, Rector Of The Parish Of Llangenni, The Rectory Sophie Price, Moor Park, Llanbedr Leolin Price Mr Clive Norbury, Llais Y Afon, Llangenny Mr and Mrs Lewis, 3 Springfields, Crickhowell J Schwank, 2 Springfields, Crickhowell Mr Michael Burt, Pen Draig, Llangenny Mr John Morris, Graig Barn Farm, Llangenny Lane Melissa and Nick Gannon, 4 Springfields, Llangenny Mr D J Davies, Montafon, Llangenny Mr Jeff Jones, Bronycoed, Llangenny Lane Mr Phil Rees, Gwen Y Butler, Llangenny

The application has been advertised by site notice and by letter to neighbouring properties and the following is a summary of the comments received.

This development will help the survival of the village and allow local young people to build houses for their needs. The development is not intrusive and is of a scale that the village can support. Whole heartedly support the application.

Supports the application for five houses as there are not enough houses for sale in this area and the few that are available to buy have prices set for those coming from London wishing to buy holiday homes. It is not fair that local people are pushed out of their own communities in this way and as such believe that it is the NPA's responsibility and duty as their local community council to help to provide a solution to this problem, ie more housing for local people. This is not a planning application from some big city developer out to make lots of money, it’s for local people who want to stay in their community. You would be doing them and the local community a disservice by rejecting this application.

Support the application for dwellings as local needs housing within the hamlet of Llangenny. The applicants have always lived in the village, gone to school in the area and

Page 61 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 have had their names down on the local needs housing for a number of years, they also work within the immediate area. Proposed site for this small development would be an ideal location and the provision of the intermediate housing for local needs would also improve the demographic balance within Llangenny. The BBNPA should be encouraging the building of small numbers of local needs houses, where demand exists, in all hamlets and villages so that vibrant and sustainable communities can continue to flourish. The school needs young families to keep it going, if not they face possible closures.

It is noted that a commuted sum has been offered which in turn will be used towards affordable homes elsewhere in the area.

Within this community there is no housing for first time buyers, low waged workers and young families. Locals who have grown up in the area have only one option to travel to work from further afield which is expensive and a detriment to the community.

The field in question has for many years been used for community events - dog shows, pig roasts etc and for a much needed car park when there is a wedding or burial or for large community events in the village hall. All this has been done with the willing consent of the landowner and this facility would continue to be available with the proposed four/five houses to be built. The scale of this proposed housing development would not detract from the current ambience and ethos of the village and community.

Objections have also been received and the following is a summary of the issues raised: Concerned at the proposed development, as owners of the nearest dwelling there will be the greatest impact on this dwelling. The suggestion that we are supporting this application is not the case. We object on the grounds that the "parish road" bounds our property, concerned that the new access will become a thorough fare in the future, this would be undesirable and detrimental to our wellbeing in our own home and to the rural nature of the area in general. The house are not affordable, only by virtue that the land owner can release the land to the applicants without necessary cost. The plans do not show any grading/elevation of the proposed houses, including design and heights, thereby making it impossible to assess the visual impact from the neighbours perspective.

The field is in the centre of Llangenny and its development would spoil the heart of this hamlet. The field was sold on the understanding that it would not be developed.

The plan is being considered against the Authority Approved Unitary Development Plan and not the formally adopted Local Plan (1999) where this site is identified as countryside. o Within the approved UDP Llangenny is identified as a "third tier Settlement" having very little to offer in terms of provision for sustainable development on any significant scale. The scale of this proposal for five dwellings does not comply with the criteria set out in the UDP. o I cannot find any reference regarding "Local Needs" housing within the UPD the

Page 62 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

application not meeting the criteria within the plan. o Even though the field has been included within the village boundary for the UDP there is no reference within the plan regarding development. o This application is contradictory to Policy ES29"Enabling Affordable Housing "within the UDP o Llangenny being a hamlet is only served with miner road network consisting of narrow approach roads from every direction and is not sustainable for large development

Local Development Plan (LDP)

Public consultation meetings were held in Llangenny in 2008 for the LDP. The local residents that attended the consultation meeting made it clear that two areas within Llangenny village should never be built on. These areas were the playground to the south of Llangenny Church and the Dragon Field

The LDP team carried out a survey on this site (The Dragon Field) and it was deemed unsuitable for development. The boundary change made in the UDP to be amended Dragon field to become countryside within the LDP as it had been in previous development plans prior to the UDP.

This site was resubmitted under site alternatives SALT69 in the approaching LDP and rejected. o The Dragon Field also holds value as an important open space in the village. Furthermore, any development of this site would appear as back land development o Public LDP consultation meetings in 2008 concluded the Dragon field the site should not be developed. o The LDP survey concluded this site unsuitable for development. o Historically since the 1950s this field has been used to hold village events. o Llangenny being so small does not have the infrastructure or facilities to accommodate any large housing developments. o The Highways network in Llangenny will not support development the approach roads into the village are very narrow. The village has no public transport, the car being the only main means of transport in and out.

Other Considerations

The Llangenny map dated 1872 submitted with this application does not correspond with an earlier map of 1839 or the ordinance survey map published in 1888. The maps dated 1839 and 1888 and any maps to date do not show the old parish road where the applicant claims. Please see attached maps 1839 and 1888. o The proposed access to the development in fact is a new road way to be constructed in open countryside. o Nine properties surround the Dragon Field. The proposal for five new houses

Page 63 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

increases Llangenny by over 50% o The visual impact of the proposed development in an area of conservation is totally unacceptable o Housing on this site has already been refused planning consent and an appeal dismissed

Given the legitimate issues of concern echoed above, I would respectfully request the application Ref: 13/08809/OUT is dismissed and the scheme refused planning consent. If the matter is being brought to the attention of the PAROW Committee, I would appreciate if you would inform me so I can speak at the Committee against the proposal.

RELEVANT POLICIES

G3: “Development in the National Park” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) G4: “Development Affecting Trees” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) G6: “Design” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q4: “Protected and Important Wild Species” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q5: “Biodiversity and Development” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) S1: “Sustainable Use of Land” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) S10: “Solar Energy” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) S11: “Biomass Energy” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES29: “Enabling Affordable Housing” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES39: “Boundary Features” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES47: “Water Sewage Supply New Developments” (Unitary Development Plan 2007)

PLANNING HISTORY App Ref Description Decision Date

10/05039/OUT Pair of local needs houses. Application 3rd Sep 2010 Refused

OFFICER’S REPORT

This application is brought before Committee as the application has been called in by Councillor P Ashton for reasons of public interest, the need to debate the issues around local need, affordable and intermediate housing in a rural environment so Committee can be aware of the issues.

Site description

The site is located within the settlement development boundary of Llangenny as defined within the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan (2007). Llangenny is a small hamlet predominantly set in a river valet basin with properties situated also on the rising hillside around approximately two miles south east of Crickhowell.

Page 64 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

The site is a field located in the centre of Llangenny with residential dwellings bordering the land to both the north and south boundaries. The field is bounded on the west side by a wooded area on rising land at the bottom of which the application describes is a parish highway. Dropping down into the field from the parish highway the land slopes down to the east, to an access gate onto the adjacent main road through Llangenny. On the opposite side of the road the land drops off again down to the Gwynne Fawr tributary of the River Usk, which is a SSSI and cSAC. The field is otherwise bounded on the remaining sides by residential gardens/houses.

Access to each proposed dwelling is off an existing track as describe as a parish highway. This runs north of the site bounding the residential curtilage of number 4 Springfields exiting onto Powys highways land from behind a small row of mono-pitch garages and runs south joining onto the narrow highway running through Llangenny. Between the site and the residential units bounding the north of the site is a minor tributary/water course to the nearby river.

The field has been described as land used for equestrian purposes, but is also used for overspill carpark when events take place within the area and for local sporting events, hog roasts and other community events. One letter suggests that the field has been used for these types of events for many years.

Proposal

The proposal is for an outline application for the creation of five new dwellings along the western edge of the field and associated access from the dwellings to the highway.

History

The site has been the subject of a number of applications, a number of which were considered invalid due to insufficient information. There has been correspondence between the NPA and the agent where advice has been provided regarding the need for a comprehensive proposal for the site.

Pre-application advice was offered to the agent on the 5th August 2009 where it was identified that the site lay within the settlement development boundary, but that the number of dwellings proposed should not prejudice the development or use of of the remainder of the site; access off the single track road; flood risk; the proposal would need to take account of the NPA Planning Obligation Strategy and would require a robust justification in the design and access statement that it represents the most efficient use of the land. This advice was reiterated in correspondence of the 2nd October 2009 as part of an invalid letter.

In an email of the 10th February 2010, comments were reiterated again to the agent relating to our concern over the piecemeal development of the site and the lack of a comprehensive scheme. Eventually a valid application was submitted (application

Page 65 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

10/05039/OUT) where it was clear that the pre-application advice had not been followed and the application was refused. Application 10/05039/OUT was refused on three grounds:

1 The proposal is for two residential units, within a small area of a whole field that falls within the settlement development boundary, with no consideration given to the rest of the land. It is therefore considered that the proposal fails to meet criteria (iii) of policy G3 and criteria (I) of policy G6 of the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Wales (2010) in relation to the efficient use of land. 2 The application fails to demonstrate that the site is supported by an existing foul drainage system or that new facilities cannot be provided for foul drainage to support this development. As such it is considered there is insufficient information to support the provision of a private septic tank and the proposal would therefore fail to meet the criteria of policy G3(viii) and ES47 of the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan (2007). 3 There is insufficient information to assess the proposed development of this site in terms of its scale and design within the landscape and built environment. On the basis of the limited information provided and with regard to the potential for the development of the whole field it is considered that the proposed development would create an incongruent and discordant element within the built environment and landscape of the National Park. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy G3 (I) (iii) and (IV) of the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority Unitary Development Plan.

There was a subsequent appeal on the decision of this application, which was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate the 27th June 2011 who raised strong concerns at how an access could be achieved to the south exit point onto the highway.

The current application was submitted on 22nd January 2013. There have been extensive negotiations in order to receive the necessary adequate information to reach a recommendation on the proposed scheme.

Appraisal

Whilst the Local Plan remains the formal statutory policy framework for the area, the Authority Approved UDP provides a more up to date and relevant planning framework. The UDP may not have been formally adopted but it has been subject to all the statutory consultation and procedures required for development plans. It is for this reason that the NPA has determined to afford greater weight to the UDP in the determination of planning applications than the Adopted Local Plan of 1999.

This application was considered against policy G3, G4, G6, Q4, Q5, S1, S10, S11, ES29, ES39 and ES47 of the BBNPA UDP. Local Plan policies will only be considered where they differ significantly from their UDP counterpart. The relevant polices of the former BBNPA Local Plan (adopted 1999) have not been referred to as under the proposals

Page 66 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 map of this document the site would have been sited within countryside and would not therefore have been considered acceptable.

In making a recommendation on this application, I have taken into consideration the relevant policies of the Development Plan and the comments made by the consultees and other interested parties and the following national guidance: o Planning Policy Wales (PPW, 2010) o Technical Advice Note 12 (Design)

The dual purposes of National Park designation are, as first set out in the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949 and updated by the Environment Act 1995: o conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage; and o promotion of opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park by the public

Following a review in 1974 of the operation of the 1949 Act, led by Lord Sandford, an important recommendation emerged that became known as the Sandford Principle. This principle was enshrined in the 1995 Act, to the effect that where irreconcilable conflict arises between the two main National Park purposes, then the conservation of natural beauty should prevail over promotion of public enjoyment and understanding.

Technical Advice Note 22: Sustainable Buildings (July 2010) sets out that for residential development the policy uses the Code for Sustainable Homes ('the Code') to expect all new applications for residential development to meet Level 3 of the Code, with additional expectations that 6 credits will be achieved under Category Ene1 Energy/CO2.

The DAS provides a code for Sustainable Homes Pre-Assessment setting out how the proposed dwellings could achieve in the region of Code Level 5. The mandatory minimum for Wales is Code Level 3 and based on the figures provided it I considered that this could be achieved in principle. Further consideration of this level to be achieved will be considered under the approval of reserved matters, however conditions will be imposed on this application. Officers therefore support the sustainability credentials of this proposal.

Issues

The main issues of the case are considered to be the following; Has the current submission overcome the previous reasons of refusal and satisfied all material planning considerations. Namely: 1. is the proposal acceptable in principle; 2. is there an impact on the amenity of the area; 3. is there adequate supporting infrastructure for the proposed development;

Page 67 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

4. would there be a negative impact on protected species or their habitats; 5. would there be a detrimental impact on highways safety; and 6. would there be a detrimental impact visually.

Principle of development

The previous application was refused as the proposal was for two residential units, within a small area of a whole field that falls within the settlement development boundary, with no consideration given to the effect on the remainder of the site. Therefore, whilst the application site falls within the current approved settlement development boundary where development is generally supported the proposal before the Authority was not an efficient use of the land and opened the door to the potential of piecemeal development across the field. A comprehensive proposal needed to be considered for the whole of the site.

Turning to the particulars of this application, the proposed development has been described as five house, four as intermediate housing for local needs with a commuted sum as affordable housing component. The application suggests that four of the dwellings will provide for housing local people who cannot afford the high house prices within the area. This may well be the case, however there are no occupancy restrictions proposed on the dwellings and the owners will be free to sell them on the open market. The proposal does not meet Welsh Government Guidance or the UDP definition of affordable housing as follows; “……..properties for rent at registered social landlord (RSL) benchmark rent levels and properties available for shared ownership, in accordance with Welsh Assembly Government or other recognised criteria.”1 I consider therefore that the application is for five market houses. The Authority in the first instance will seek to secure the provision of affordable housing units on site. Taking a minimum amount out of five dwellings at least one would be expected to be affordable as Policy ES29 requires a minimum of 20% affordable housing. Exceptionally the NPA may accept a commuted sum payable to the relevant Unitary Housing Authority (in this instance Powys County Council) to enable the provision of affordable housing in the local area. In order to meet the requirements of Policy ES29 in this instance a commuted sum is appropriate. The reason for this is as follows;

The local housing needs survey for the Vale of Grwyney within which this area is located identifies a housing need for 9 to 13 households for the total area. The comprehensive scheme for this site would initiate the use of Policy ES29 which provides for affordable housing where a need is established. Policy ES29 is triggered where an application is submitted for three or more dwellings or on land which could reasonably contain these numbers which lies within the settlement development boundary (white area).The proposal is for five dwellings along the boundary of a field that lies wholly within the settlement development boundary.

Page 68 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

Evidence has been provided to the Authority by the applicant’s agent and by Powys County Council's Housing Strategy Officer that there are no Registered Social Landlords who would be interested in taking on a single dwelling in this location. If the Authority considered negotiating a land swap in the community, the same situation would arise. I considered therefore that this option would not be expedient to pursue. I am satisfied in this instance that a commuted sum would be appropriate. This will be agreed through the section 106 agreement. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle.

Neighbouring Amenity

Policy G3 (v) aims to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties from proposed development. The overlooking of dwellings and gardens is a material planning consideration, although it is normally accepted that some overlooking of gardens by neighbours is inevitable in most medium to high density situations. However, the planning system will still operate to safeguard existing property owners from the worst excesses of garden overlooking.

The nearest dwellings would be at 4 Springfields to the north and Bron y Coed to the south. Both dwellings would be at distances in excess of 20 metres between elevations and those of the nearest proposed house (based on the indicative layouts). Restricting the level of glazing in those proposed elevations that face onto the neighbouring properties would fundamentally overcome the issue of overlooking, this can be resolved at detailed stage.

It is not considered unreasonable to seek to ensure that existing gardens have at least some private area that is not easily overlooked. In this instance limited detail has been provided in order to assess this element, however with due regard to the distances between the proposed development and the existing housing this could be reasonably resolved under a more detailed application. With the use of appropriate screening and ensuring that there are no windows looking towards to the neighbouring properties this is considered not an issue.

Foul water drainage

Policy G3 (viii) and ES47 identify that development requiring foul drainage will only be permitted where it has been reasonably demonstrated that adequate infrastructure exists or can be provided.

The previous application was refused as the application failed to demonstrate that the site is supported by an existing foul drainage system or that new facilities cannot be provided for foul drainage to support this development. Is has been recognised by Dwr Cymru that the existing mains sewer for the area does not currently have the capacity for supporting additional dwellings. It is now proposed for foul drainage to be disposed of through a private treatment plant. Natural Resources Wales (formerly the

Page 69 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

Environment Agency) have not raised any concerns to the use of a private system in this instance. The previous reason for refusal has now been resolved.

As such it is considered that the meets the criteria of policy G3(viii) and ES47 of the BBNPA UDP (2007).

Ecological Issues

Policy G3 (i), Q4 and Q5 aim to ensure that development does not have a detrimental impact upon protected species and their habitat and enhances such habitats through positive management.

It is accepted in principle that the proposals will not have a significant effect on the improved grassland site or the western boundary hedgerow/treeline, and on this basis there has been no request for an ecological survey in support of this application.

Comments received from the NPA Ecologist note the information provided in the Design and Access Statement (7th December 2012), particularly Section 3. "Biodiversity and the draft Landscape Management Plan (9th January 2013)". It is agreed that in principle the proposal will not have a significant effect on the field categorised as improved grassland or on the western boundary hedgerow/treeline. Consequently, there is no requirement for an ecological survey. The NPA Ecologist disagrees with the Design and Access Statement conclusion, which states that the "field itself is of little biodiversity value." The field acts as important natural, open space for both wildlife and people, linking surrounding wooded and hedgerow systems with the River Gwyne Fechan for certain mobile species such as bats that will use the area for foraging and commuting, for example. The field also provides ecosystem services for people including open space, rainfall capture and aesthetic qualities.

With these thoughts in mind, the field and its boundaries offer opportunities to provide biodiversity enhancement. It is therefore welcomed that the proposal will restore the hedgerow, which forms the western boundary of the site east of the parish road. It is recognised that access to the proposed properties has been paired to reduce the effect on the hedgerow and that there are plans to manage the ash woodland along the western side of the parish road through coppicing to maintain a foraging route for bats and to provide heating fuel for residence without overshadowing the buildings. The creation of hedge boundaries around the properties and the circumference of the remaining field boundary is supported. Hedgerow creation and improvements should be completed using native species.

The proposed development falls within 100 metres of the River Grwyne Fechan, which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Proposed works are of a nature and scale that they are not likely to have a significant effect on the SSSI or SAC. Nevertheless, the precautionary principle should be applied and all construction works should be designed such that any activities do not lead to a negative impact on the SSSI features (e.g., soil erosion and contaminants).

Page 70 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

At this outline stage there is no detail of the design of the individual houses. Incorporating design elements into the buildings, which provide opportunities for roosting bats would be a welcome biodiversity enhancement, complimenting the hedgerow proposals. Equally, lighting schemes should minimise negative impacts on bats and other nocturnal species that will have benefited from other biodiversity enhancement measures noted herein.

Consideration for securing a potential community allotment or orchard area on part of the remaining improved grassland and the retention and management of the western boundary hedgerow/treeline in combination with the woodland block to maintain the habitat corridor was expressed during pre-application discussions. A plan depicting the future management of the site has been provided, however this will more than likely need to be included within the 106 legal agreement.

It is appreciated that there is no detail of the design of the individual houses at outline stage however such features should be included within these buildings that offer opportunities for roosting bats as an additional or part alternative biodiversity enhancement. This can be achieved either through condition or the use of informatives directing the future deign of the dwellings.

In conclusion should the BBNPA be minded to permit the outline application it is recommended that the location and design of the access road should avoid any significant adverse effects on the western boundary hedgerow/treeline and further biodiversity enhancements within and around the application site should be secured. These maybe appropriately controlled as a reserved matter.

Highways Safety

Criterion vii) of policy G3 requires that all proposals are compatible with the road hierarchy in that it is within the capacity of existing approach roads and does not have an unacceptable impact on traffic circulation or highway safety. Criterion ix) requires that adequate means of access and parking space can be provided to cater for the traffic generated by the proposal.

Access is for consideration under this current application. It is proposed to create two new access points onto the adjacent highway, to the north and to the south. There is an existing track running along the western boundary of the proposed plots that is described as a parish road. The status of this track has been queried, however this is not pertinent to the determination of this application. A track exits and this will be upgraded in order to accommodate the traffic movements of the proposed dwelling.

The local highways has been supportive of the proposed development in principle, however the application has had to undergo extensive negotiations in order to reach a stage where sufficient information has been provided to reach a conclusion. Of particular concern was how the proposed access point to the south would connect to

Page 71 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 the highway given the constraints of the site and surrounding land. Adequate detail has now been provided to satisfy the Highways requirements and to reasonably allow for a positive recommendation subject to conditions imposed in the interests of highways safety.

Visual amenity

Policy G3 (i) (iii) and (iv) aims to ensure that proposed development will not have a detrimental impact upon the natural beauty, landscape and built environment of the character of the National Park.

The previous application was refused as there was insufficient information to assess the proposed development of this site in terms of its scale and design within the landscape and built environment. On the basis of the limited information provided and with regard to the potential for the development of the whole field it is considered that the proposed development could create an incongruent and discordant element within the built environment and landscape of the National Park.

The site has a definite rural feel the character of which would be impacted upon by the creation of any development within. As the whole site/field falls within the development boundary it is considered important that a comprehensive scheme is considered to assess properly the potential visual impact. Limited detail has been provided in relation to the physical appearance of the proposed dwellings although this is usual under outline applications. However it is important to consider the comprehensive development of this site. Full detail can be reasonably considered under the reserved matters application, however it is considered that piecemeal development of the site must be avoided and a comprehensive scheme for the five houses considered under one future application.

Following discussions between officers of the NPA and the applicant/landowner and their agent it has been agreed that a lower density of development would be more in- keeping in this area along with safeguarding the rest of the land from further development through a land management scheme, this will be secured through a section 106 agreement. Failure to achieve this level of security would result in the current application still not being acceptable to the NPA, as there would not be sufficient clarity on the density levels of dwellings on the whole of the land, the expected level of affordable housing that could be achieved and any other planning obligations necessary for a more intensive use of the land.

It is proposed therefore to provide five dwelling bounding the western boundary of the field leaving a village green type open space at the heart of Llangenny. This will form part of the legal agreement.

On balance the potential for a piecemeal type development across the whole field let alone the western boundary would create a situation that could significantly impact upon the visual amenity of this part of the park. However, as the proposal is only for part of

Page 72 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 the field and the rest of the land will be protected from further development through a management agreement it is considered that sufficient control can be maintained to prevent an inappropriate form of development that would have a detrimental visual impact on this part of the Park. It is considered that a piecemeal scheme along the western boundary will not be appropriate and that a comprehensive, well designed, integrated scheme into this attractive hamlet will be essential. As such the proposed development complies with the criteria of policy G3 (i) (iii) and (iv) of the BBNPA UDP.

Conclusion

There is strong local support for this application and it is likely that the development if approved will benefit local people in the first instance and allow them to stay within an area, where due to the cost of the existing housing stock they may fail to get onto the housing ladder. However, this proposal is for unrestricted market housing and will therefore not add to the local areas affordable housing stock. A need for affordable housing has been identified in this area, which is not met through this application. A commuted sum can contribute to the provision of affordable housing in the wider local area. Policy ES29 indicates that a commuted sum will only be considered in exceptional circumstances. It is my view from the reasons set out above that there are exceptional circumstances in this case and it is reasonable for the Authority to accept a commuted sum.

Issues over the access have now been successfully negotiated and all other issues will be conditioned for future consideration under an approved matters application. In order to avoid piecemeal development of the site a comprehensive scheme for all five dwellings will be required to be submitted.

On balance the proposal is therefore considered to comply with the requirements of policies G3, G4, G6, Q4, Q5, S1, S10, S11, ES29, ES39 and ES47 of the BBNPA UDP and the application is hereby recommended for approval subject to a section 106 agreement being entered into.

RECOMMENDATION: Minded to Permit

Conditions and/or Reasons:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. 2 Approval of the details of the layout, scale and appearance of the building[s] and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. 3 The dwellings shall achieve Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. No dwelling shall be occupied until a final Code Certificate has been issued for it

Page 73 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

certifying that Code Level 3 has been achieved. 4 No development shall take place until a detailed landscape management plan is developed incorporating the existing proposals for hedgerow restoration on the east side of the parish road, ash woodland management along the western side of the parish road, and hedgerow creation along the perimeter of the properties and remaining field boundaries. Appropriate native species shall be used for hedgerow restoration and creation. 5 No development shall commence until an external lighting plan is submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall avoid conflict with the other bat mitigation measures on site and shall be implemented in full. 6 The gradient of any access shall not exceed 1 in 15 for the first 10.0 metres measured from edge of the adjoining carriageway along the centre line of the access. 7 The centre line of the first 10.0 metres of the southern access road measured from the edge of the adjoining carriageway shall be at right angles to that edge of the said carriageway. 8 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the southern access shall be constructed so that there is clear visibility from a point 1.05 metres above ground level at the centre of the access and 2.4 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway, to points 0.26 metres above ground level at the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 70.0 metres distant in each direction measured from the centre of the access along the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Nothing shall be planted, erected or allowed to grow on the area(s) of land so formed that would obstruct the visibility and the visibility shall be maintained free from obstruction thereafter. 9 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the area of each access to be used by vehicles is to be constructed to a minimum of 410mm depth, comprising a minimum of 250mm of sub-base material, 100mm of bituminous macadam base course material and 60mm of bituminous macadam binder course material for a distance of 10.0 metres from the edge of the adjoining carriageway in respect of the southern access and 5.5 metres in respect of the northern access from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Any use of alternative materials is to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the access being constructed. 10 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development provision shall be made within the curtilage of the site for the parking of all construction vehicles together with a vehicle turning area. This parking and turning area shall be constructed to a depth of 0.30 metres in crusher run or sub-base and maintained free from obstruction at all times such that all vehicles serving the site may park within the site and both enter and leave the site in a forward gear. 11 The width of the southern access carriageway shall be not less than 5.0 metres for a minimum distance of 10.0 metres along the access measured from the adjoining edge of carriageway of the county highway. 12 The width of the northern access carriageway shall be not less than 5.0 metres for a minimum distance of 5.5 metres along the access measured from the

Page 74 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

adjoining edge of carriageway of the county highway. 13 Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the area of the access to be used by vehicles is to be finished in a 40mm bituminous surface course for a distance of 10.0 metres in respect of the southern access and 5.5 metres in respect of the northern access from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. 14 The area of each private drive and any turning area is to be metalled and surfaced in bituminous macadam, concrete or block paviours, prior to the occupation of that dwelling. 15 No storm water drainage from the site shall be allowed to discharge onto the county highway. 16 Prior to the commencement of the development full details of the permanent barrier to through vehicular movements along the parish road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the barrier approved shall be implemented in full and maintained as such in-perpetuity. 17 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking, amending and re-enacting that Order) no development of the types described in Part(s) 1; Class(es) A, B, C, D, E, F, H, G; Part 2 Classes A, B; Part 40 Classes G, H of Schedule 2, other than that hereby permitted shall be carried out without the written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons:

1 Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2 To enable the National Park Authority to exercise proper control over these aspects of the development. 3 In the interests of creating a sustainable development 4 In the interests of protecting biodiversity for the area. 5 In the interests of protecting biodiversity and their environments. 6 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 7 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 8 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 9 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 10 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 11 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 12 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 13 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III

Page 75 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

and unclassified roads. 14 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 15 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 16 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III and unclassified roads. 17 In order to safeguard the character and visual amenities of the locality, to safeguard the amenities of the neighbouring properties and in the interests of creating a sustainable form of development.

Informative Notes:

1 (a) Plans should be made to incorporate into building design opportunities for roosting bats. (b) Protected species are not likely to be encountered during the planned works if the appropriate care and attention is exercised. However, in the event that protected species are encountered: (c) Work should halt immediately and Natural Resources Wales contacted for advice in the unexpected event that protected species are discovered during the course of the development. To proceed without seeking the advice of Natural Resources Wales may result in an offence being committed. Natural Resources Wales, Cantref Court, Brecon Road, Abergavenny, NP7 7AX. Tel. 01873 737000. 2 The development to which this permission relates is the subject of an agreement under, inter alia, Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This permission should be read in conjunction with that agreement.

Page 76 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

ITEM NUMBER: 4

APPLICATION NUMBER: 13/09460/FUL APPLICANTS NAME(S): L Isherwood SITE ADDRESS: Rhiwddu Gwynfe Llangadog SA19 9PA GRID REF: E: 272979 N:220041 COMMUNITY: Llangadog DATE VALIDATED: 31 May 2013 DECISION DUE DATE: 30 August 2013 CASE OFFICER: Mrs Vicky Simpson

PROPOSAL Extension of residential curtilage and construction of patio area (retrospective)

ADDRESS Rhiwddu , Gwynfe, Llangadog

Page 77 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS Consultee Received Comments

Heritage Officer 11th Jun 2013 Consultation of the regional Historic Environment (Archaeology) Record and sources held by the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority indicates that no known historic or archaeological features will be affected by this development, and this application is unlikely to have any archaeological impact. No archaeological mitigations required. Llangadog Community 22nd Jul 2013 Supports this application. Council

CONTRIBUTORS

NEIGHBOUR/THIRD PARTY RESPONSE SUMMARY

A site notice has been displayed, and the application has been advertised in the local press as a departure from the approved Unitary Development Plan.

RELEVANT POLICIES

G3: “Development in the National Park” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) G6: “Design” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q8: “Historic Landscapes” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) LPG3: “Development in the National Park.” (Local Plan 1999) LPG7: “Design and energy conservation.” (Local Plan 1999) LPCL9: “Archaeology and cultural features.” (Local Plan 1999)

PLANNING HISTORY App Ref Description Decision Date

C20200 Proposed barn conversion and Application 6th May 2005 extension to three holiday units Permitted

OFFICER’S REPORT

This application is brought for consideration by the Planning and Rights of Way Committee because its approval would represent a departure from the policies of the approved Unitary Development Plan.

The application has been advertised in the South Wales Guardian, because its approval

Page 78 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 would represent a departure from the development plan. The consultation period for the press notice ends on the 19th September 2013. It is requested that the determination of the application be delegated to the Officers on the expiry of the press notice, subject to no new matters being raised by any third parties that have not already been evaluated within this report.

Introduction

This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the extension of the residential curtilage and construction of patio area at Rhiw Ddu, which lies outside of any settlement limits as defined by the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan 2007 ('the UDP') settlement limits.

Site Description

The application site which has an area of 125 square metres (5.75m x 21.75m) currently comprises the outdoor amenity space associated with one of the three holiday cottages at Rhiw Ddu. Rhiw Ddu is positioned at the end of a long track in an isolated rural location approximately 10km to the south of Llangadog and 3km to the west of the Black Mountain in a highly elevated position. Far reaching views are secured from the application site over the local landscape particularly to the north and east.

To the immediate east of the application site is an area of hardstanding and a 'Dutch' style barn, both of which are under the control of the applicant.

The boundaries of the site are demarked by Circa.1m high timber post and rail fencing to the east, timber close boarded fencing to the north and south and the converted holiday cottage to the west.

Within the application site a couple of terraces have been formed (which follow the topography of the site). These terraces have been surfaced with stone or stone effect paving slabs.

Proposal Description

This application seeks retrospective planning consent for the extension of the curtilage associated with one of the holiday cottages at Rhiw Ddu. The development has resulted in the change of use of former agricultural land to residential curtilage). The rear garden area has been approximately doubled in size (from that approved under planning permission reference C20200). The conversion was originally approved with the provision of an area of 60square metres of garden, but an area of 123square metres has been provided to serve holiday let.

A mixture of timber post and rail, and close board fencing has been used to demarcate the garden area from the adjoining area of hardstanding. Within the extended curtilage area, a range of small to medium height shrubs have been planted which appear to be

Page 79 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 establishing well.

Officer Appraisal

Whilst the development plan for the area includes the adopted Local Plan (1999), it has been largely superseded by the more up to date UDP (2007) which stopped short of formal adoption but was adopted for development control purposes. The UDP therefore provides a more up to date and relevant planning framework. This application is considered against policies G3, G6 and Q8 of the UDP and policies G3, G7 and CL9 Local Plan policies. Whilst the development proposal will be considered against both the Approved UDP and Adopted Local Plan policies, greater weight shall be given to the more up to date UDP policies unless the Local Plan policies materially differ to warrant a departure from the UDP

The Brecon Beacons National Park Authority Local Development Plan (LDP) has been published in draft and progressed to public deposit state. Legal Advice is that whilst the emerging LDP is now material, little weight can be given to it in planning decision making at this stage.

There is one main issue to be considered:

1) Visual Amenity and impact upon the character and appearance of the area

Visual amenity and impact upon the character and appearance of the area

Policy G3 sets out the development control function to ensure that all development complies with the UDP's aims and objectives to protect the natural beauty and resources of the Park. Criterion (iii) indicates 'the scale, form, design, layout, density, intensity of use and use of materials will be appropriate to the surroundings and will maintain or enhance the quality and character of the Park's landscape and built environment'.

With specific emphasis on design, Policy G6 of the BBNP UDP indicates that applications for development will be expected to meet the Welsh Government's key design objectives and respond to local context. Criterion ii of the policy states 'Proposals will be required to demonstrate where appropriate how they sustain or enhance character in townscape and landscape by responding to and reinforcing, where appropriate, locally distinctive patterns and form of development'

When viewed from vantages outside of the application site it is not at all obvious that the amenity space associated with the holiday let has been enlarged. Instead, the barn conversions, and their associated amenity spaces are viewed in the context of the main house to the west, and the 'Dutch' style barn to the east.

The erection of appropriate boundary treatment and landscaping works - including post and rail fencing along the longest eastern length of the garden area, ensures that the

Page 80 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 curtilage extension relates well to the rural character of the area, and the appearance of the traditional (albeit converted) farm complex.

The further projection of the garden area by approximately 2.75m beyond that approved under planning permission C20200 has very little visual impact, and would not appear at all prominent in the landscape. It has also facilitated the creation of a much more practical garden area, which well reflects the size of the holiday let it serves. It is therefore considered that the development should be conditionally approved, contrary to criteria ii of Unitary Development Policy G3.

Conclusion

Whilst the extension of the residential curtilage encroaches into an open countryside location outside of any Local Plan or Unitary Development Plan defined settlement boundaries, it is considered that the extension which is of a minor nature would have no adverse impact upon the character or appearance of the area, especially given the presence of the 'Dutch' barn and the hardstanding area to the east of the site.

Upon the expiry of the press notification and on the basis that no new matters are raised by any third parties (that have not already been evaluated within this report) it is recommended that this application be conditionally approved.

RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Conditions and/or Reasons:

1 Notwithstanding the time limit given to implement planning permissions as prescribed by Sections 91 and 92 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) this permission, being a retrospective permission as prescribed by Section 73A of the above Act, shall have been deemed to have been implemented on 31st May 2013 .

Reasons:

1 To comply with Section 73A of the above Act.

Informative Notes:

Page 81 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

ITEM NUMBER: 5

APPLICATION NUMBER: 13/09596/OUT APPLICANTS NAME(S): Ms Lucinda Hawkins-Adams SITE ADDRESS: Land adjoining St John's Close, Tretower, Crickhowell, Powys GRID REF: E: 318706 N:221270 COMMUNITY: DATE VALIDATED: 27 June 2013 DECISION DUE DATE: 22 August 2013 CASE OFFICER: Mr Lloyd Jones

PROPOSAL Outline planning application for two residential units

ADDRESS Land adjoining St John's Close, Tretower, Crickhowell, Powys

Page 82 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS Consultee Received Comments

Cwmdu And District 14th Jun 2013 Strongly opposed to the application on the following Community Council grounds:

1. Traffic generation through St John's Close and impact upon the community; 2. Land required for access belong to Powys County Council Housing Department and is designated as recreational area for the residents of St John's Close 3. There is evidence that the proposed site is liable to flooding as seen during recent flooding. Cwmdu And District 22nd Jul 2013 Strongly opposed to the application on the following Community Council grounds:

1. Traffic generation through St John's Close and impact upon the community; 2. Land required for access belong to Powys County Council Housing Department and is designated as recreational area for the residents of St John's Close 3. There is evidence that the proposed site is liable to flooding as seen during recent flooding. Heritage Officer 11th Jun 2013 To ensure that any remains of archaeological (Archaeology) significance disturbed in the course of the development are excavated, recorded and reported in order to mitigate the impact of the development on the archaeological remains.

The applicant will need to engage an archaeological contractor to undertake the Excavation, and I will need to produce a Brief for the work required to allow contractors to tender for the work and produce a written scheme of investigation for the work. Please let me know when/if the Brief is required.

Heritage Officer 2nd Jul 2013 To ensure that any remains of archaeological (Archaeology) significance disturbed in the course of the development are excavated, recorded and reported in order to mitigate the impact of the development on the archaeological remains.

The applicant will need to engage an archaeological

Page 83 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

contractor to undertake the Excavation, and I will need to produce a Brief for the work required to allow contractors to tender for the work and produce a written scheme of investigation for the work. Please let me know when/if the Brief is required.

NP Head Of Strategy 4th Jun 2013 Given the difficulty accessing the development site Policy And Heritage from the A40, it seems reasonable to enable access from St John's Close. As such the development represents an acceptable departure from the development plan. The policy team have no objections to the principle of this development

If you require any further comments on policy matters relating to this application not discussed above please do not hesitate to get in contact.

NP Head Of Strategy 3rd Jul 2013 My previous comments in relation to this proposal Policy And Heritage still stand and I have no further comments to make.

Powys County No response Council Building Regulations Powys County 14th Jun 2013 I have no objection, in principle, to this application Council Highways but must point out that a query has been raised regarding the true extent of the adopted highway. I note that the appropriate notice has been served.

In any event the following conditions should be included on any permission granted.

HC7 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the area of the access to be used by vehicles is to be constructed to a minimum of 410mm depth, comprising a minimum of 250mm of sub-base material, 100mm of bituminous macadam base course material and 60mm of bituminous macadam binder course material for a distance of 5.5 metres from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Any use of alternative materials is to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the access being constructed.

HC21 Prior to the occupation of the dwellings the area of the access to be used by vehicles is to be

Page 84 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

finished in a 40mm bituminous surface course for a distance of 5.5 metres from the edge of the adjoining carriageway.

HC32 No storm water drainage from the site shall be allowed to discharge onto the county highway.

Powys County 12th Jul 2013 I refer to the amended plans relating to the above Council Highways site and have no additional comments to make. Powys County No response Council Land Drainage Department Welsh Government 19th Jun 2013 The Welsh Government as highway authority for Transport the A479 trunk road does not issue a direction in Department respect of this application. Welsh Government 22nd Jul 2013 The Welsh Government as highway authority for Transport the A470 trunk road does not issue a direction in Department respect of this application.

CONTRIBUTORS Graham Jenkins, 5 St John's Close, Tretower Cllr Kathryn Silk, [email protected], J.M Nicholls, 6 St Johns Close, Tretower A. J. Caton, 4 St Johns Close , Tretower G Grant, 4A St Johns Close , Tretower J.M Williams, 4B St Johns Close , Tretower Mrs H.G. Sweeting, 1 St John's Close, Tretower

NEIGHBOUR/THIRD PARTY RESPONSE SUMMARY

A total of ten letters of objection have been received and can be summarised as:

1. Inappropriate development; 2. Lead to additional traffic and congestion; 3. Loss of amenity land; 4. Increased risk of flood risk; 5. Loss of parking for residents on St John's Close; 6. Dwellings for own personal gain; 7. Dwelling will not harmonise with bungalows and stone cottages; 8. Site is not vacant, grazed by sheep; 9. Should not have installed gate in existing fence; 10. Loss of view; 11. Poor drainage; 12. Not in keeping and not sympathetic;

Page 85 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

RELEVANT POLICIES

G3: “Development in the National Park” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) G6: “Design” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES28: “Provision of Open Space in Housing Sites” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q11: “Sites of Archaeological Importance” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) Q12: “Archaeological Evaluation” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) LPG2: “Allocation of Land for development.” (Local Plan 1999) LPG3: “Development in the National Park.” (Local Plan 1999) LPG7: “Design and energy conservation.” (Local Plan 1999) LPCL9: “Archaeology and cultural features.” (Local Plan 1999) LPCL10: “Archaeology and cultural features.” (Local Plan 1999) LPH2: “New housing in larger settlements.” (Local Plan 1999)

PLANNING HISTORY App Ref Description Decision Date

12/08786/FUL Erection of two dwellings. Application 8th Mar 2013 Refused

08/02046/OUT Proposed erection of 2 No. Application 22nd Apr 2009 dwellings Permitted

13/09463/OUT Outline planning application for Application 31st May 2013 two residential units Withdrawn

OFFICER’S REPORT

Introduction

Outline planning permission with all matters reserved is sought for the provision of two dwellings on land adjacent to St John's Close, Tretower. The application is being reported to PAROW as the application comprises a technical departure from the development plan.

Site Description

The application site comprises an irregular shaped parcel of land that measures 0.18 hectares. The site lies at the edge of the settlement of Tretower, and has a direct frontage of 38.0m on to the A479. This boundary is demarked by a traditional stone wall, although the application site itself lies at a lower level and slopes gently downwards to its southern boundary. A stream runs along the north eastern boundary of the application site. Set at a minimum of 4.0m off the western boundary is a pair of semi- detached bungalows, Nos. 3 and 4 St John's Close, which is one of a pair of three similarly designed properties that are served by this cul-de-sac. Open countryside lies

Page 86 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 beyond the southern and eastern boundaries of the site. Tretower Court, a scheduled monument lies approximately 100m to the south.

Members should note that at the end of the cul-de-sac, a grass verge separates the site from the metalled road. In the determination of the previous outline planning application (08/02046/OUT) Powys County Council Highway Section confirmed that this grass verge formed part of the adopted Highway network. Notwithstanding this, Powys County Council Legal Section advised on 11th June 2013 that this land forms an amenity area, which is maintained by the Council's Housing Department, for the benefit of the residents of St John's Close housing estate rather than being maintained as part of the adopted highway network. The applicant has completed Certificate B and served the appropriate notice on Powys County Council Housing Department.

Planning History

Outline planning permission (08/02046/OUT) for the provision of two dwellings on the site was approved on 22nd April 2009. A full planning application (12/08786/FUL) for the provision of two dwellings was refused on design grounds on 8th March 2013. More recently an outline planning application (13/09463/OUT) was withdrawn on 31st May 2013.

Proposal

The planning application is made in Outline with all matters reserved for subsequent approval. The submitted indicative layout identifies that the site will be accessed via St John's Close, Tretower.

The application details the provision of two dwellings on land adjacent to St John's Close. The indicative layout indicates the provision of two dwellings with plot 1 set 1.8m off the north western boundary of No.3 St Johns Close and having the maximum dimensions of 15m by 8m. The dwelling will have a maximum height of 6.8m.

The dwelling on plot 2 will be sited some 1.4m to the east of the dwelling on plot 1. The dwelling will have maximum dimensions of 12m by 9m. The dwelling will have a maximum height of 6.8m

Planning Policy Context

Whilst the development plan for the area includes the adopted Local Plan (1999), it has been largely superseded by the more up to date UDP (2007) which stopped short of formal adoption but was adopted for development control purposes. The UDP therefore provides a more up to date and relevant planning framework. This application is considered against policies G3, G4, G6, ES28, Q11and Q12 of the Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and policies LPG2, LPG3, LPG7, LPCL9, LPCL10 LPH2 and LPH4 of the Local Plan. Whilst the development proposal will be considered against both the Approved UDP and Adopted Local Plan policies, greater weight shall be

Page 87 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 given to the more up to date UDP policies unless the Local Plan policies materially differ to warrant a departure from the UDP.

The Brecon Beacons National Park Authority Local Development Plan (LDP) has been published and is now at public examination. Legal advice is that whilst the emerging LDP is now material, little weight can be given to it in planning decision making at this stage.

Principle of Residential Development

The application site lies at the southern edge of Tretower. The proposed layout identifies that the two units will be located within the "white areas" of the settlement of Tretower as defined by policy G3 (ii). However, it does show that the access into the site will be via St John's Close and as a result the section of the access road is located outside the settlement limit. The only alternative means of access would be off the A479, which the application site directly fronts. The Mid Wales Trunk Road Agency has previously advised that the sole means of access shall be from St John's Close to safeguard the free flow and safety of trunk road traffic. In this particular case, it is considered that as a small proportion of the site falls outside the defined settlement limits and in light of the previous comments received from the Trunk Road Agency, the inclusion of land outside the defined settlement is justified on highway grounds, and as such does not represent a significant departure. The Head of Strategy, Policy and Heritage have no objections to the principle of the residential development of the site. The principle of the residential development of this site is therefore considered to be acceptable.

Impact on Character and Appearance of Area

Policy G3 (iii) aims to ensure that the scale, form, design, layout, density, intensity of use and use of materials will be appropriate to the surrounding and will maintain or enhance the quality and character of the Park's landscape and built environment. Policy G6 refers to design and states that development will be expected to meet the WAGs key design objectives and respond to the local context. Furthermore TAN 12 Design (2009) sets out national policy guidance on how to achieve good design.

As the application is made in outline with all matters reserved for subsequent approval there are no specific details available relating to the appearance of the proposed dwellings, and this will be addressed as part of any future reserved matters application. Notwithstanding this it is considered that the submitted illustrative layout demonstrates that two dwellings can be provided on the site, which respects the adjacent pattern of development.

Overall, it is considered that subject to the applicant adopting a sensitive design approach the site could be developed that would maintain the character of this part of the National Park.

Page 88 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

Sustainable Design

The application identifies that the dwelling will achieve a Code Level 3 under the Code for Sustainable Homes. The proposal, by achieving Code Level 3, will satisfy the provisions set out in Technical Advice Note 22: Planning for Sustainable Buildings (June 2010).

Neighbour Amenity

Policy G3 (v) of the Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan aims to ensure that any proposed development does not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the area, adjacent properties or the general public.

The design details of the scheme are reserved for future approval and, as a result, it is not possible at this stage to fully assess the potential impacts upon neighbouring residents by way of loss of privacy, loss of light or overbearing effect. Notwithstanding this, the indicative layout drawings illustrate that the proposed dwellings would not be orientated to face directly into neighbouring habitable room windows. Officers consider that the scheme can be designed to eradicate any potential overlooking or excessive overshadowing of other adjoining. These matters will be considered in further detail and ultimately determined at the 'Reserved Matters' stage. Accordingly the proposal is considered to accord with policy G3 (v) of the UDP.

Highway Safety

Policy G3 (ix) of the Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan identifies that adequate means of access and parking space can be provided to cater for the traffic generated by the proposal.

The proposed access will be via St John's Close. The Welsh Government Transport Department and Powys County Council Highways Section do not have any objection to the proposal. The proposal is therefore considered to be satisfactory on highway grounds.

Archaeological Implications

Policy Q11 relates to sites of archaeological importance and development will only be permitted where archaeological remains can be protected in situ by appropriate design and siting or in the opinion of the NPA, the benefits of the proposal outweigh any adverse effects.

The submitted Archaeological Assessment identifies that a total of four trenches were excavated on the application site. The report concluded that the majority of the proposed development site is likely to be archaeologically sterile, although the area of trench 2 and between trenches 2 and 4 is likely to be more archeologically sensitive.

Page 89 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

The National Park Archaeologist highlights that there is medieval archaeology potentially relating to a timber framed building and associated deposits such as pits, gullies and post holes. It is recommended that an appropriately worded condition be added to any planning permission to ensure the provision of a programme of archaeological excavation is submitted for the written approval of the LPA. It is therefore considered that, subject to this condition, the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impact on the archaeological interests of the site.

Third Party Representations, Cwmdu and District Community Council and Councillor Response

In relation to the concerns raised by third parties and the Community Council the report above has addressed many of the issues raised. In relation to the development being inappropriate and not sympathetic, the fundamental issue for consideration in this application is the principle of the residential development of this site, which as discussed above is considered to be acceptable. At the reserved matters of scale, appearance, layout and landscaping will be carefully assessed to ensure the development maintains the character of this part of the National Park. As discussed in the main body of the report above, the strip of land at the end of St John's Close was previously considered to be highway verge and Powys County Council consider this to be land forms amenity land for the benefit of the residents of St John's Close. Officers consider that the loss of a proportion of land measuring 4.4m by 3.2m is considered to be acceptable to allow a safe means of access into the site and would not warrant the refusal of the application on these grounds. Notwithstanding this, the applicant or successor in title will need to secure a resolution with Powys County Council regarding using this land to achieve access to the development. In relation to the loss of parking, traffic generation and the impact on highway safety, the Welsh Government Transport Department and Powys County Council Highway Section has no objection to the proposal. With regards to flood risk, the site falls outside the flood risk zones as defined in TAN 15: Development and Flood Risk. It is, therefore considered that the proposal will not be at any increased risk to flooding. In relation to drainage, an appropriately worded condition could be added to any planning permission to ensure satisfactory disposal of foul and surface water drainage. It should be noted that the loss of a view and the occupants of the future dwellings is not a relevant material planning consideration. Finally, the insertion of the gate in the existing fence is a matter between Powys County Council and the applicant.

Conclusion

Overall, the principle of the development of this site for two dwellings is considered to be acceptable. It is considered that the provision of two dwellings will not result in any visual harm to this part of the National Park, will not unduly impact on residential amenity or lead to a significantly adverse impact on highway safety or the archaeological interest at the site. The proposal therefore accords with policies G3, G4, G6, ES28, Q11and Q12 of the Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and policies LPG2, LPG3, LPG7, LPCL9, LPCL10 LPH2 and LPH4 of the Local Plan.

Page 90 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Conditions and/or Reasons:

1 Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 2 The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. 3 Approval of the details of the layout, scale, appearance, access and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. 4 The development shall be carried out in all respects strictly in accordance with the approved plans (drawing nos. NP1v2, NP2v2), unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 5 There shall be no vehicular or pedestrian access from the development site to the trunk road (A479) and the sole means of access shall be from St John's Close. 6 No development shall take place within the application area until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological excavation in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The archaeological work shall be undertaken to the standards laid down by the Institute of Field Archaeologists. On completion of site works and any post-excavation analysis a report on the investigation shall be submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority, to the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments for Wales for inclusion in the National Monument Record and of the Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust inclusion in the Regional Historic Environmental Record (HER). 7 Foul and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site and no surface water shall be allowed to connect directly, nor indirectly to the public sewerage system unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 8 Prior to the commencement of development, details of any external lighting proposed to illuminate the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and there shall be no other external illumination of the development. 9 Details of any walls, railings or fences to be erected on the site, including location, height, materials and a timetable for their erection shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development

Page 91 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

commences. The walls, railings or fences shall be constructed in accordance with the details and timetable agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Timber or panel fencing shall not be used fronting any highway. 10 The dwellings hereby permitted shall be constructed to achieve a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and achieve a minimum of 6 credits under category 'Ene1 - Dwelling Emission Rate' in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide 2010. The development shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the approved assessment and certification. 11 Construction of the dwellings hereby permitted shall not begin until an 'Interim Certificate' has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority, certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and a minimum of 6 credits under 'Ene1 - Dwelling Emission Rate', has been achieved for that individual dwelling or house type in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide 2010. 12 Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, a Code for Sustainable Homes 'Final Certificate'' shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and a minimum of 6 credits under 'Ene1 - Dwelling Emission Rate', has been achieved for that dwelling in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide 2010. 13 No development shall take place until details or samples of materials to be used externally on walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 14 The number of dwellings on the site shall not exceed two. 15 No building on any part of the development hereby permitted shall exceed 6.8 metres in height. 16 Within 5 days from the commencement of development the area of the access to be used by vehicles is to be constructed to a minimum of 410mm depth, comprising a minimum of 250mm of sub-base material, 100mm of bituminous macadam base course material and 60mm of bituminous macadam binder course material for a distance of 5.5 metres from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Any use of alternative materials shall first be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 17 Prior to the occupation of the dwellings, the areas of the access to be used by vehicles shall be finished in a 40mm bituminous surface course for a distance of 5.5metres form the edge of the adjoining carriageway. 18 No storm water shall be allowed to discharge onto the county highway.

Reasons:

1 Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2 Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Page 92 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

3 To enable the Local Planning Authority to exercise proper control over these aspects of the development. 4 To ensure adherence to the approved plans in the interests of a satisfactory form of development 5 In order to preserve the free flow and safety of trunk road traffic 6 To ensure that any remains of archaeological significance disturbed in the course of the development are excavated, recorded and reported in order to mitigate the impact of the development on the archaeological remains. 7 In the interest of the integrity of the public sewerage system. 8 To maintain the character of the neighbouring area. 9 In the interests of the amenity of the area. 10 To satisfy the requirements of Technical Advice Note 22: Planning for Sustainable Buildings (June 2010) 11 To satisfy the requirements of Technical Advice Note 22: Planning for Sustainable Buildings (June 2010) 12 To satisfy the requirements of Technical Advice Note 22: Planning for Sustainable Buildings (June 2010) 13 To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings. 14 To allow the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the final scale of development 15 To safeguard the character of the area 16 In the interests of highway safety 17 In the interests of highway safety 18 In the interests of highway safety

Informative Notes:

1. Pre-commencement conditions

Page 93 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

ITEM NUMBER: 6

APPLICATION NUMBER: 13/09675/FUL APPLICANTS NAME(S): Mr John Spottiswood SITE ADDRESS: Talybont Farm Talybont-On-Usk Brecon LD3 7YJ GRID REF: E: 311405 N:222713 COMMUNITY: Talybont-on-Usk DATE VALIDATED: 17 June 2013 DECISION DUE DATE: 12 August 2013 CASE OFFICER: Mrs Ffion Bevan

PROPOSAL Retention of timber-clad storage container for temporary (one year) period, retention of enclosed storage area and access track.

ADDRESS Talybont Farm , Talybont-On-Usk, Brecon

Page 94 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS Consultee Received Comments

NP Head Of Strategy 25th Jun 2013 Consideration The proposal relates to the retention Policy And Heritage of a timber clad storage container, storage area and access track at Talybont farm. The proposal is for a temporary permission for one year. The proposal lies outside the development boundary for Talybont as indicated in the UDP and is therefore classed as open countryside. Policy G3 of the UDP sets out that all proposal for development should lie within the 'white areas' of settlements indicated on the proposals map unless there are exceptional circumstance that justify development in the open countryside. Whereas it is acknowledged that the operation of the storage yard serves the needs of the Monmouthshire and Brecon Canal, there is no justification that this development requires this countryside location for its sustained operation.

I note from the file that the applicants are aware that the continuation of the storage area is unacceptable and are undertaking scoping exercises to relocate the operation to a more acceptable location. I understand that the applicants have approached the NPA for pre-application advice in relation to the suitability of alternative locations. As such I believe that the departure from the policy position to enable temporary 12 month permission for the continued operation could be considered acceptable if it enables the transition of canal management operations from this site to a more suitable location.

After the 12 month period of the temporary permission has expired (if not before) the site in question should be cleared, I can see no justification for any future renewal of a temporary permission beyond the 12 month period being sought.

Recommendation: The policy team have no objection to the granting of a 12 month temporary permission on this site to enable the continued operation of the Canal and River Trust whist a more appropriate location for the operation is sought. The policy team would remind the applicant that there is no justification for any extension to this

Page 95 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

temporary permission at this location beyond the 12 month period being sought.

Powys County 1st Jul 2013 Does not wish to comment on the application. Council Highways Talybont-on-Usk 21st Jun 2013 I have received the above application. The next Community Council meeting of Talybont-on-Usk Community Council is 15th July and I will communicate the comments of the Councillors shortly after this date.

No further response was received.

CONTRIBUTORS Mr H.J. Jones, 12 Penpentre, Tal-y-bont Ar Wysg Julie Burdon, Y Gorlan, Talybont-On-Usk

NEIGHBOUR/THIRD PARTY RESPONSE SUMMARY

2 letters of representation received. Concerns raised in relation to visual impact, noise and waste management issues/mess.

RELEVANT POLICIES

G3: “Development in the National Park” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) LPG3: “Development in the National Park.” (Local Plan 1999)

PLANNING HISTORY App Ref Description Decision Date

08/01955/FUL Retention of timber-clad storage Application 11th Nov 2008 container for temporary period Permitted (3 years), construction of enclosed storage area and access track.

OFFICER’S REPORT

Introduction

This application is being reported to PAROW because the application is a technical departure from the Development Plan.

It seeks retrospective temporary permission for 1 year for a timber-clad storage container, retention of enclosed storage area and access track for the Canal and River Trust.

Page 96 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

This site is located outside the development boundary for Talybont-on-Usk as defined by the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan 2007 ('the UDP') and the Brecon Beacons National Park Local Plan 1999 ('the Local Plan').

Site Description

The compound is located to the north-west of Talybont Farm and is located outside the development boundary of the village, however it is located immediately on the boundary and is surrounded by residential properties to the west, Talybont Farm to the east and a burial ground and further residential properties to the south. The site is accessed via Mill Lane and shares the same access through the farm complex to the site.

This is a retrospective application and it currently contains maintenance equipment and materials for the management of the Monmouthshire and Brecon Canal. The site is also surrounded by agricultural paraphernalia associated with Talybont Farm.

Proposal Description

This application seeks retrospective temporary permission for 1 year for a timber-clad storage container, retention of enclosed storage area and access track for the Canal and River Trust.

The storage container is located on a hardcore base within a works compound containing other plant and material. The use was granted temporary permission by application 08/01955/FUL for three years. The permission expired in November 2011 and the current application seeks consent for one year, following a previous application 13/08919/FUL, which was withdrawn.

The site area measures 21 metres in width and 25 meters in depth. It is slightly different to the approved scheme under permission 08/01955/FUL, given that the farmer has installed a lifting structure, which has encroached to the side of the compound. As a result, the compound has been reconfigured. It is closer to neighbouring properties to the west of the site, than what was originally approved in 2008, by 16 metres, however there is a gap of 5 metres between the compound and the rear boundary of properties on Penpentre, to allow access for the farmer to carry out maintenance works. The cabin is positioned approximately 9 metres from the rear boundary of 11 Penpentre.

The surface area of the compound has been slightly increased to accommodate vehicles entering the site. It has been increased by 15 cm and is constructed of limestone. The access track from the compound to Mill Lane has also been constructed in the same material, although it is mainly used by the farmer to access his land.

The storage container measures 2.4 metres in width, 9 metre in depth and has a total pitched height of 3 metres. It is accessed via a main door to the front elevation, with no other openings. The steel framed cabin has timber cladding on its external elevations

Page 97 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 and the compact hardcore base is 300mm wider than the cabin to ensure adequate support.

The compound is surrounded by a post and stock proof wider fence with timber posts and a galvanised steel double access gate. The farmer has also planted a hedge around the compound. Officer Appraisal

Planning Policy Framework

Whilst the development plan for the area includes the adopted Local Plan (1999), it has been largely superseded by the more up to date UDP (2007) which stopped short of formal adoption but was adopted for development control purposes. The UDP therefore provides a more up to date and relevant planning framework. This application is considered against policies G3 of the UDP and policy G3 Local Plan policies. Whilst the development proposal will be considered against both the Approved UDP and Adopted Local Plan policies, greater weight shall be given to the more up to date UDP policies unless the Local Plan policies materially differ to warrant a departure from the UDP.

The Brecon Beacons National Park Authority Local Development Plan (LDP) has been published in draft and progressed to public deposit state and is in the process of being examined. Legal Advice is that whilst the emerging LDP is now material, little weight can be given to it in planning decision making at this stage.

It has been determined that the main considerations are:

1) Principle of the Development 2) Impact on Visual Amenity 3) Neighbouring Amenity 4) Impact on Highway Safety

Principle of the Development

Policy G3 (ii) of the BBNP UDP states that 'the proposed development lies within the "white areas" of the settlements as shown on the Proposals Map, with the exception of those developments covered by policies which enable development in the countryside.

The proposal lies outside the development boundary for Talybont as indicated in the UDP and is therefore classed as open countryside. Whereas it is acknowledged that the operation of the storage yard serves the needs of the Monmouthshire and Brecon Canal, there is no justification that this development requires this countryside location for its sustained operation and therefore in this instance there are no "enabling" policies of relevance.

From the submitted Design and Access Statement and supporting information within the

Page 98 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 application, the applicants (Canal River Trust) are aware that the continuation of the storage area is unacceptable and are undertaking a scoping exercise to relocate the operation to a more acceptable location. The applicants have approached the National Park Authority with the intention of engaging in pre-application advice on the suitability of alternative sites during the Autumn of 2013.

It is therefore believed that the continued operation on this site is acceptable if it enables the transition of canal management operations from this site to a more suitable location. No objection is received from the National Park's Strategy and Policy section.

Impact on Visual Amenity

Farm machinery, trailers and materials are currently stored randomly over the existing field along with the equipment and materials used by the Canal Trust.

The timber clad storage container has been positioned as close as possible to the existing farm complex, without compromising the operation of the working farm. The farmer has also constructed a large lifting structure immediately on the boundary with the compound, which overpowers the size and scale of the timber clad container. As such, when viewed from the rear of the properties at Penpentre and from access across the fields to the north, the wooden cladded storage container and compound would be seen within the context of the farm complex. Views from the south and west are blocked by existing buildings and a hedgerow has been planted around the compound. The items to be stored within the compound are agricultural in nature (tractors, trailers, fence posts etc) and would not therefore look out of place on a working farm and would blend with the surrounding farm equipment.

Two letters of objection have been received in relation to the proposal, and both mention concerns in relation to the visual impact of the site. It is acknowledged that the site is outside the development boundary of Talybont-on -Usk , however given the reasons above, with the compound being enclosed with a standard post and stock proof wire fence, maintaining the agricultural appearance as any other form of enclosure would appear, it is considered that a one year temporary consent is considered adequate to allow the Canal Trust to seek an alternative site.

As a result, the application is considered to comply with policy G3 (iii) of the BBNP UDP.

Page 99 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

Neighbouring Amenity

Policy G3 (v) of the UDP aims to ensure that any proposed development does not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the area, adjacent properties or the general public.

The compound would be used primarily Monday to Friday. A condition was attached to application 08/01955/FUL, which restricted the hours of use between 8.30am and 4pm and not used on weekends and Bank Holidays unless in the case of an emergency. It is acknowledged in the supporting information submitted that the Canal Trust are happy to adhere with this, however would prefer it if it could be changed to 4.30pm, given the fact that tasks on the waterway can often run over.

This activity is less varied than that of a working farm and therefore is it considered that whilst there would be some additional movement at the farm, it would not be to such a degree as to warrant refusal and a condition can be attached to control the hours. Given the nature of the use and the reasons presented by the Canal Trust, it is considered that in this case, a condition can be attached to restrict the use of the site between 8.30am and 4.00pm. It is not considered adequate to extend the hours of operation on the site, given the impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

In relation to amenity, concerns have been raised from neighbouring properties in relation to the noise on the site. The site is located close to an existing working farm and some noise is expected on site given its use. It is however considered that in this case, given that the application seeks temporary approval for one year, it is not considered the issue of noise on site within weekday working hours would warrant a refusal of the application.

Concerns have also been raised from neighbouring properties in relation to waste management and mess on site. A condition was attached to application 08/01955/FUL in relation to the control of waste material on site, and will be attached to this application.

As such, although the location is not ideal in relation to the amenity of neighbouring properties, it is considered that in this case a one year temporary period is adequate to allow the Canal Trust to seek alternative site options, and therefore complies with policy G3 (v) of the BBNP UDP.

Impact on highway safety

Policy G3 (vii) aims to ensure that proposed development has an adequate means of access and parking space and would not create an impediment on highway safety.

Parking is accommodated within the existing compound and usually occurs on an informal basis and normally only when vehicles attend to pick up or drop off materials. The compound is reached via the existing farmyard which is in turn accessed from Mill Lane by an existing short concrete access drive and through a farm gate. No objection

Page 100 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 is raised from the Powys County Council Highways Authority.

As a result, it is considered that the proposal would comply with policy G3 (vii) of the BBNP UDP.

Conclusion

The application seeks retrospective temporary permission for 1 year for a timber-clad storage container, retention of enclosed storage area and access track for the Canal and River Trust at Talybont Farm, Talybont-on-Usk.

The application has been advertised as a departure from the Development Plan, given its location outside the development boundary of Talybont-on-Usk and is considered as open countryside.

Temporary permission was granted for 3 years for the compound and wooden clad steel container in 2008, and this application has now been submitted for a one year period to allow time for the Canal Trust to seek an alternative site. The site has been modified slightly since the approval of the scheme in 2008, due to the construction of a lifting structure for the farm.

The site has been developed close to the farm complex and although concerns have been raised in relation to the visual impact of the site and impact on neighbour amenity in relation to noise and waste material/mess it is considered appropriate to allow temporary permission for one year to allow the Canal Trust to seek out alternative sites and planning permission if required.

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions below. However, Members are advised that the overall expiry of the consultation period of this application is the 19th September 2013XXXX and therefore it is requested that, subject to Members authorising the recommendation to approve the application, that delegated powers are given to the Director of Planning/Head of Development Control to approve the application following expiry of the consultation period unless new material considerations are raised.

RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Conditions and/or Reasons:

1 Notwithstanding the time limit given to implement planning permissions as prescribed by Section 91 and 92 of the 1990 Town and County Planning Act (as amended) this permission, being a retrospective permission as prescribed by Section 73A of the above Act, shall have been deemed to have been implemented on the 17th June 2013.

Page 101 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

2 The building, compound and track hereby approved shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before the 17th June, 2014 in accordance with a scheme of restoration to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 3 The development shall be carried out in all respects strictly in accordance with the approved plans (drawing nos. NP1-V1, NP2-V1, NP3-V1, NP4-V1, NP5-V1, NP6-V1, NP7-V1), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 4 No vehicles may arrive or depart, be loaded or unloaded at or from the site outside the hours of 8.30 and 16.00 on Monday to Friday and shall not take place on weekends or public holidays unless in the case of an emergency 5 Materials including scrap material shall not be stacked or deposited in the open to a height exceeding 2 meters. 6 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking, amending and re-enacting that Order) no development of the types described in Part 2 Class A (erection of fences other than that approved under this permission) and Part 8 Classes A, B and C of Schedule 2, other than that hereby permitted shall be carried out without the written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons:

1 To comply with Sections 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) 2 In accordance with the application 3 To ensure adherence to the approved plans in the interests of a satisfactory form of development. 4 To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of buildings within the locality. 5 To protect the appearance of the locality. 6 In order to safeguard the character and visual amenities of the locality.

Informative Notes:

Page 102 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

ITEM NUMBER: 7

APPLICATION NUMBER: 13/09787/OUT APPLICANTS NAME(S): Mr & Mrs D and L Waddington SITE ADDRESS: land adjoining Glan yr Afon Castle Road Llangynidr Crickhowell NP8 1NG GRID REF: E: 315378 N:219466 COMMUNITY: Llangynidr DATE VALIDATED: 22 July 2013 DECISION DUE DATE: 16 September 2013 CASE OFFICER: Mr Rhodri Davies

PROPOSAL Erection of 8 dwellings on land adjoining Glan yr Afon: Phase 2 of Housing Development LGY1 UDP Housing Allocation

ADDRESS land adjoining Glan yr Afon , Castle Road, Llangynidr

Page 103 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS Consultee Received Comments

Brecon Beacons Park 13th Aug 2013 I am writing on behalf of the Brecon Beacons Park Society Society to object to the planning application cited above. We feel that the proposed development does not accord with the purposes of the National Park and is contrary to the aims of the Unitary Development Plan and Local Development Plan.

I. The proposal is contrary to UDP Policy SS2 Housing Land in Second Tier Settlements in the UDP site LGY1 is allocated for 18 houses. Planning application P21311 gives permission for these 18 houses and were this further application to be permitted this allocation would be exceeded.

2. The proposed development does not accord with UDP Policy ES28 and Policy G3iii) To squeeze 8 more houses onto this site allocated for 18 houses would limit the amount of amenity space for each house. Paragraph 5.107 of the UDP states: "New developments must contribute in a positive manner towards the quality and local distinctiveness of the environment and thus our quality of life. The provision of amenity space within developments is an important element in achieving this goal...". The scale, form, layout, density and intensity of use would not be appropriate to this rural village and will not maintain or enhance the quality and character of the Park's landscape and built environment. The proposal to add 8 further houses facing the back of the development of 18 houses already permitted would lead to a lack visual coherence.

3. The proposed development is contrary to UDP policy G3 ii). The proposed development does not lie fully within the "white area" of the settlement of Llangynidr.* The developer suggests that there is space within the settlement boundary not fully used in P21311. We consider that if there is unused space, this is due to the majority of the 18 houses in approved

Page 104 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 application P21311 being compacted with little land around them: eleven are arranged in two terraces and four are semidetached. The whole of the allocated site should be used to provide amenity space within the development for the 18 houses already permitted, or for screening vegetation around it.

4. The proposed development is contrary to UDP Policy G3 i), and v). The proposal to build 8 more houses on this greenfield site would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the area and the natural beauty and cultural heritage of the National Park. The village of Llangynidr has historically consisted of two separate parts, Upper and Lower Llangynidr. We consider that it is important that the fields separating them should not be built on as this would diminish the open rural feel that is a particular feature of the village. Overdevelopment of this site would create an urban feel and seriously diminish the special qualities, the peace and tranquillity, the sense of place and cultural identity, the outstanding natural beauty and intimate sense of community which are what attract visitors to the area and which the National Park designation and the NPA Management Plan seek to protect. (M.P. Section 7.1.5.).

5. The proposal is contrary to UDP Policy G3 vi). Tourism is an important source of employment in the village, with the attractions of the canal, the River Usk , the historic bridge and the views of the surrounding mountains drawing walkers, cyclists, canoeists and people using barges on the canal. This proposed development is adjacent to the village car park and the houses would be very visible to the many visitors who use it as a starting point for walks and canoe trips in the area.

6. The proposal is contrary to UDP Policy G3 vii). A development of 8 dwellings would be unlikely in itself generate so many cars that they would cause an unacceptable impact on traffic circulation. However the impact has to be added to that of the cars generated by the 18 homes already permitted on LGY1 and to those generated by the already

Page 105 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 permitted development of 5 homes on the other side of Castle Road and by the very large number of single sites that have permission in the village. Llangynidr has road infrastructure restrictions. Llangynidr bridge, an important Grade 1 listed historical structure, has a single restricted width carriageway and is the road access to the A40. Any further developments in Llangynidr will place additional pressure on the bridge which is being repeatedly damaged by the increasing volume of traffic. The roads to the east to Crickhowell and west to Talybont are narrow with many sharp bends. In places it is not possible for the school buses or lorries to pass cars. There have been numerous accidents on these roads over the past 10 years. The unfenced mountain road to the south to Beaufort, used by residents commuting to the Valleys and Cardiff, has a very poor vehicle accident record including fatalities in recent years. Any increase in traffic, which the development would generate, would worsen the situation.

7. The proposal is contrary to UDP Policy G3 ix). The response to the application from Powys Highways indicates that the parking provision is inadequate for 3-4 bedroom houses. The adjacent village car park could not provide a solution to this problem as it is already very fully used and is at capacity for many village events.

8. UDP Paragraph 5.91 (page 97) The Supply of Housing Land. Point 3 of this paragraph of the UDP emphasises the "need to ensure that development does not solely encourage and satisfy externally derived demand unrelated to the economic and social needs of the resident population". Although the proposed development includes two affordable houses we understand that part of the approved application P21311 is being developed by Melin Homes, a registered RSL, to provide 10 affordable homes; 4 rented and 6 intermediate homes for low cost home ownership. This would seem to fill any local need for affordable homes at the current time. Due to the limitations of the road infrastructure, Llangynidr has very little prospect of new employment. Further market housing development

Page 106 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 will result in the village being used as a dormitory with residents travelling long distance by car to reach employment.

9. The proposal is contrary to the the spatial strategy of the deposit LDP. Although the LDP has yet to be approved by the Inspector we would suggest that weight can be given to it in judging planning applications following the precedent of the Cwrt y Gollen enquiry. In his report on the Cwrt Y Gollen enquiry (dated 19.07.2011) the Inspector, Mr Alwyn B Nixon, gives considerable weight to the LDP (paragraphs 20 to 23, 241-246 and the conclusion, paragraph 280). He states in paragraph 243 "Notwithstanding that the independent examination of the emerging LDP has not yet occurred, I consider that the clear shift to a more proportionate and sustainable approach to the provision of new housing within the settlements of the locality, based on their respective sizes, characteristics and the services and the facilities that they contain, is a significant material consideration in this case. Moreover, the very different approach now being taken by the emerging LDP reduces the weight that should be placed on the provisions of the NPA-approved UDP in this respect." The completion of the independent examination of the LDP is now much nearer with a final hearing in September. In the LDP Llangynidr is to be classified as a Level 4 Limited Growth Settlement. These are defined as "villages and hamlets that do not have the environmental capacity to accommodate general needs development; however the importance given to supporting community sustainability in these areas is recognised in this LDP. Within these Settlements evidenced local needs growth will be enabled to support the continued socio-economic vitality and viability without compromising the character of the Settlement or the community." We would agree with the classification of Llangynidr as a village that does not have the environmental capacity to accommodate more general needs development.

For the above reasons we consider that the application should be refused. The LGY1 site

Page 107 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

already has permission for the 18 houses allocated in the UDP and there is no reason why this should be exceeded. Furthermore, should there be a properly evidenced requirement for more affordable local needs housing in Llangynidr during the period of the LDP it would be a pity if this site had been sterilised by prior use for un-needed open market housing.

* Without the facilities to superimpose the UDP Housing allocation map over the map for the current application site on the same scale it is difficult to ascertain how far outside the settlement boundary the current application site extends. However, comparison of the measurement of the line AB on the enclosed version of the UDP map and the submitted map of the application site give the following results: AB: 52.5m on UDP map, 72m on application site map. If the straight line AC is extended it can be seen that it meets the the most southerly front corner of Glan yr Afon House on the UDP map. On the application site map an equivalent line projected from the north-western edge meets the house at a point about half way back along the north east wall. Thus the application site takes in a segment of the field outside the settlement development boundary and is not within the "white area" for Llangynidr in the UDP.

Dwr Cymru Welsh 7th Aug 2013 We would request that if you are minded to grant Water - Developer Planning Consent for the above development that Services the Conditions and Advisory Notes provided below are included within the consent to ensure no detriment to existing residents or the environment and to Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's assets.

Sewerage

Conditions

Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site. Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.

No surface water shall be allowed to connect, either directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system

Page 108 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment.

Land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment.

The proposed development site is crossed by a public sewer with the approximate position being marked on the attached Statutory Public Sewer Record. Under the Water Industry Act 1991 Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has rights of access to its apparatus at all times. No part of the building will be permitted within 3 metres either side of the centreline of the public sewer. Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewer and avoid damage thereto.

Advisory Notes

The Welsh Government have introduced new legislation that will make it mandatory for all developers who wish to communicate with the public sewerage system to obtain an adoption agreement for their sewerage with Dwr Cymru Welsh Water (DCWW). The Welsh Minister's Standards for the construction of sewerage apparatus and an agreement under Section 104 of the Water Industry Act (WIA) 1991 will need to be completed in advance of any authorisation to communicate with the public sewerage system under Section 106 WIA 1991 being granted by DCWW. If a connection is required to the public sewerage system, the developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's Developer Services on 0800 917 2652.

Water Supply

A water supply can be made available to serve this

Page 109 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

proposed development. The developer may be required to contribute, under Sections 40-41 of the Water Industry Act 1991, towards the provision of new off-site and/or on-site watermains and associated infrastructure. The level of contribution can be calculated upon receipt of detailed site layout plans which should be sent to the address above.

Llangynidr 31st Jul 2013 Regarding Case 13/09787/OUT - 8 dwellings at Community Council Glan-yr-afon, Llangynidr Community Council would like to object to the development on the following grounds; 1. It is outside the settlement boundary, just. 2. The village has reached environmental capacity. 3. It is over-development and the Community is strongly against the scale of this development. 4. It will have a negative impact on the visual amenity of the village. 5. Tourism is important to the village and the proposed development will have a detrimental effect on this. 6. There are no health services to support an expanded village. 7. Some 37 houses have either been given planning permission or are applying for planning permission, this represents an increase of about 12% in the number of houses in the village. 8. The highways are poor and cannot support more traffic.

Natural Resources 13th Aug 2013 No adverse comments to make. Wales/Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru Natural Resources 23rd Aug 2013 No adverse comments to make. Wales/Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru NP Ecologist No comments received NP Head Of Strategy 26th Jul 2013 I refer to the above proposal which has been Policy And Heritage forwarded to the Strategy and Policy Team for comment.

Following statutory adoption of the Brecon Beacons National Park Local Plan 1999 (hereinafter called 'the Local Plan'), work on the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan (hereinafter called 'the UDP') commenced in 2000.

Page 110 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

The UDP was subject to all the statutory consultations and procedures associated with the preparation of development plans, including a local inquiry and an Inspector's report.

The Brecon Beacons National Park Authority Local Development Plan has been published in draft and progressed to Examination stage. Legal advice is that whilst the emerging LDP is now material, little weight can be given to it in planning decision making at this stage.

For the above reasons, the above application should be determined in accordance with the plans and policies of the UDP, and relevant National Planning Policy.

Page 111 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

Proposal The proposal relates to the extension of the form of proposed housing development at UDP allocation LGY1. The proposal seeks to enable 8 residential units behind permitted scheme for 18 units (LGY1 phase 1).

The development site is located within the settlement boundary for Llangynidr as defined by the UDP proposals map. The proposed development is located on housing allocation LGY1 of the UDP. Policy SS2 of the UDP allocates the site for 18 units (as supplemented by table 7.3). The proposal sets out that an additional 8 units could be fitted within the site without impacting on the amenity of the permitted phase 1 of the Glan Yr Afon site. This represents a more sustainable use of land than was envisioned as possible under the UDP, and is therefore supported in the interest in the development of sustainable communities.

I note that the plans indicate a section of "ecological buffer" which extends beyond the development boundary for the settlement. As this is not "hard" development, and does not include any forms of construction, this extension into open countryside is considered acceptable.

I note that the applicant proposes 2 of the 8 units being provided as Affordable Housing. I note that delivery of the affordable element will be through Melin Homes housing association. I note that this will extend the offer of affordable housing from the current 4 to 6. This provision meets requirements for affordable housing as required under policy ES29 of the UDP.

Recommendation:

Subject to the signing of amended S106 agreement regarding the provision of affordable housing on the entirety of the site, the Policy team are satisfied that the principle of development at this site is sound.

NP Head Of Strategy 20th Aug 2013 Many thanks for giving me the opportunity to Policy And Heritage provide additional comments in relation to the above proposal. I have reviewed the additional plans

Page 112 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

and have no further comments to add to my previous observations. NP Tree Consultant 30th Jul 2013 I've read the file and the accompanying Hedgerow information supplied by James Pinder of Treecare Consulting and can confirm that I have no arboricultural comments or objections to raise.

The proposed development does not threaten the long term retention of significant trees within the application boundary. I do recommend however that the BBNPA ecologist is consulted as to the value of the hedge.

Powys County No comments received Council Affordable Housing Officer Powys County 29th Jul 2013 The County Council as Highway Authority for the Council Highways County Unclassified highway, U0666

Wish the following recommendations/observations be applied.

Recommendations/Observations

There would appear to be a shortage of parking being indicated for these 3 and 4 bed dwellings but I hope this issue can be addressed at reserved matters stage.

The following conditions should be included on any permission granted:-

HC1 Any entrance gates shall be constructed so as to be incapable of opening towards the highway.

HC4 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the access shall be constructed so that there is clear visibility from a point 1.05 metres above ground level at the centre of the access and 4.5 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway, to points 0.26 metres above ground level at the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 45 metres distant in each direction measured from the centre of the access along the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Nothing shall be planted, erected or allowed to grow on the area(s) of land so formed

Page 113 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 that would obstruct the visibility and the visibility shall be maintained free from obstruction thereafter.

HC6 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development clear visibility shall be maintained above a height of 0.26 metres above carriageway level over the full frontage of the developed site to the estate road effective over a bandwidth of 2.4 metres measured from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Nothing shall be planted, erected or allowed to grow on the area(s) of land so formed that would obstruct the visibility and the visibility shall be maintained free from obstruction thereafter.

HC7 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the area of the access to be used by vehicles is to be constructed to a minimum of 410mm depth, comprising a minimum of 250mm of sub-base material, 100mm of bituminous macadam base course material and 60mm of bituminous macadam binder course material for a distance of 10.0 metres from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Any use of alternative materials is to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the access being constructed.

HC19 No building shall be occupied before the estate road carriageway and one footway shall be constructed to and including binder course level to an adoptable standard including the provision of any salt bins, surface water drainage and street lighting in front of that building and to the junction with the county highway.

Page 114 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

HC20 The estate road carriageway and all footways shall be fully completed, to a standard to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, upon the issuing of the Building Regulations Completion Certificate for the last house or within two years from the commencement of the development, whichever is the sooner.

HC21 Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the area of the access to be used by vehicles is to be finished in a 40mm bituminous surface course for a distance of 10.0 metres from the edge of the adjoining carriageway.

HC31 The area of each private drive and any turning area is to be metalled and surfaced in bituminous macadam, concrete or block paviours, prior to the occupation of that dwelling.

HC32 No storm water drainage from the site shall be allowed to discharge onto the county highway.

Reasons for Comments

To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county unclassified road.

CONTRIBUTORS Phil And Corinne Evans, [email protected], Mr R And Mrs K Graves, Glan Yr Afon Barns, Castle Road Martin Evans

NEIGHBOUR/THIRD PARTY RESPONSE SUMMARY

Mr. and Mrs. Graves of Glan yr Afon Barns, Castle Road have objected to the scheme on the following grounds:

We wish to state our strong objections to the planning application of eight dwellings on land adjoining Glanyrafon, Castle Road, Llangynidr, Crickhowell NP8 ING. As you are undoubtedly aware there is already consent for the erection of eighteen houses in front of this site and a further five on the opposite side of the road and this would bring the number of new houses in this area to thirty-one, effectively creating a small housing estate, which would inevitably have a major impact on the immediate area. Our precise objections to this new development are as follows:

Page 115 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

1. The present main road access (Castle Road leading into Church Close) is severely limited even now, especially at times of day when the junior school is starting and finishing. We know from our own regular experience that it is often extremely difficult to negotiate our way through rows of parked vehicles at these times in order to reach our property.

2. Access into Llangynidr in general is of poor quality. From the A40 access is strictly limited by the width of the river bridge, and many local residents will testify to the inability of drivers to correctly read road signs. The B4558 which gives access to Crickhowell and Talybont on Usk is narrow in places with numerous bends, and the addition of thirty-one new houses, presumably each possessing two cars would result in an increase in traffic which could have serious consequences. We presume you are aware of the problems which affect the B4560 particularly during the winter.

3. The site chosen for this development would have a serious impact on the immediate area, and the building of thirty-one houses in this vicinity would utterly alter the nature and character of the village. We fail to understand the reasons for such a development on this scale in this area when other villages and hamlets are in urgent need of additional housing to enable young people to remain and to maintain more mixed communities. Surely it is not beyond the wit, even of the National Park Authority, to recognise this fact, glaringly obvious as it is to the rest of us.

4. The facilities within Llangynidr are limited. The increase in population which this plan would entail would place increasing pressure on already overstretched services such as schooling and sewerage.

5. The number of properties at present for sale in Llangynidr suggests that there is little demand for large-scale movement into the village. Whilst recognising the requirement for social housing as a general principle, we feel that this development would certainly not satisfy any such criteria.

Lastly, we would point out that we are strongly of the view that the needs and opinions of residents are invariably ignored by the National Park Authority and subordinated to the interests of developers with no concern for the well-being of the existing community. The National Parks Authority might do well to remember whose interests they are intended to represent.

Mr. and Mrs. Evans (address unknown) have objected to the scheme as follows:

We have received notice of the above proposal. After all that has gone on with this development area in the past I cannot believe that this proposal has been made. Planning permission has already been given for 18 TOWN HOUSES on this site which is totally ridiculous and totally out of character for the village.

The sewerage system in the village has never been updated in the twenty five years we have lived here and numerous houses have already been built in the village as have none

Page 116 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 of the other utilities. This is a problem waiting to happen as proved in the development built in Crichowell!!!

The village does not want or cannot sustain (point made in previous Park plan) any more development on this area of land, for once can the people who live and love Llangynidr be listened too?

There are already numerous houses already for sale in the village and have been for a lengthy period.

By allowing any more development in this area you are putting children’s lives at risk because the proposal area is the access to the village primary school and pavements would have to be altered. During school term time the road is a nightmare with the number of cars and so by adding even more go the equation would be ludicrous.

The access roads to the village are not the easiest and cannot cope with any more volume of traffic.

Also the field opposite this site has been given planning permission for housing development and by allowing this new proposal would bring the appeal of the village to go down even further, villagers are already totally fed up with the Parks total disregard to the feelings of local people and to the appearance and character of the village - we feel Llangynidr is just a dumping ground for any type of development, surely you should follow the guidelines of other National Parks and want to enhance and maintain an area of natural beauty that people outside should want to come visit.

Can you please stop and think, surely it is time for Llangynidr’s future housing development to be at an end before the village becomes famous as being a blot on the landscape and not the wonderful place is used to be, what used to be a village we were happy and content to live in now is starting to be a total nightmare!

Mr. Martin Evans (address unknown) has objected to the scheme as follows:

I refer to the above, which I see is referred to as Phase 2. I understood that eighteen houses were to be built. Are the eight referred to part of that, extra to it or has the development been scaled down?

I have already made clear my opposition, to filling the field in question with houses, since it forms a flood plain. I have a letter, from Powys County Council, confirming this, plus numerous photographs of the field in flood.

I would also question why Llangynidr needs more housing, when there is so little work in the area, very few amenities, narrow roads in all directions and barely half a bus service (I am aware that it is proposed to build, what amounts to an extension, to Church Close)? At what point are we to regard Llangynidr as a town, as opposed to a village? There are already five private housing estates in the village (And how many of

Page 117 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 the council houses are no longer council?), which is far more than other villages in the area (Most of which have a much better bus service), like Talybont or Llanfrynach. Do we really want to create a mini Milton Keynes?

Looking further ahead, it is suggested that food will become scarcer, as third world demand for it increases. Surely we should be protecting agricultural land, not destroying it, in the interests of satisfying short term greed.

I have little doubt that my email will be ignored. Already we see a digger in the field, suggesting the land owner sees the matter as a foregone conclusion!!

RELEVANT POLICIES

G3: “Development in the National Park” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) G6: “Design” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES28: “Provision of Open Space in Housing Sites” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES29: “Enabling Affordable Housing” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES38: “Road Layouts and Open Spaces” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES39: “Boundary Features” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES47: “Water Sewage Supply New Developments” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) SS2: “Housing Land Second Tier Settlements” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) LPG3: “Development in the National Park.” (Local Plan 1999) LPG7: “Design and energy conservation.” (Local Plan 1999) LPG8: “Accessibility and safety.” (Local Plan 1999) LPCB10: “Open space in settlements.” (Local Plan 1999) LPH1: “New housing in larger settlements.” (Local Plan 1999) ES11: “Protection of Agricultural Land” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) LPR5: “Estate roads and access to properties.” (Local Plan 1999)

PLANNING HISTORY App Ref Description Decision Date

13/09646/CON Application for variation of Application 19th Jul 2013 section 106 on Land adjoining Permitted Castle Road, Llangynidr. P21311 13/09114/CON 1. Variation of Condition 2 of Application 4th Jun 2013 the planning permission Permitted P/21311 amending wording and references accordingly to allow improved highway, footpaths and amenity provision for the development of the site; and 2. variation of Condition 18 in order to clarify the timing and implementation of the surface water scheme which relates to

Page 118 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

the approved site layout plan showing the highway, footpath and amenity provision. Variation to Condition 18 to clarify the timing and implementation of the surface water scheme.

condition 18: allow amended phasing of agreement and delivery of drainage provision to resolve typing error. - condition 2: wording as existing with plan references changed accordingly condition 18: to clarify timing of implementation and agreement P21311 Proposed 18 unit residential Application 31st Mar 2009 development Permitted

OFFICER’S REPORT

Introduction

This is an Outline planning application for 8 No. detached residential units to the rear (north-west) of an extant consent for 18 No. dwellings (App. Nos. P21311 and 13/09114/CON refer) on land adjacent to Glan yr Afon, Castle Road, Llangynidr.

All matters are reserved for subsequent approval apart from access as the site will utilise the approved estate road serving the approved scheme for 18 No. units.

The site is crossed by a public sewer although this will be diverted as part of the approved scheme for 18 No. units fronting the road.

The application is being referred to PAROW Committee as Llangynidr Community Council has objected to the development on the following grounds:

1. It is outside the settlement boundary, just. 2. The village has reached environmental capacity. 3. It is overdevelopment and the Community is strongly against this development. 4. It will have a negative impact on the visual amenity of the village. 5. Tourism is important to the village and the proposed development will have a detrimental effect on this. 6. There are no health services to support an expanded village. 7. Some 37 houses have either been given planning permission or are applying for

Page 119 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 planning permission, this represents an increase of about 12% in the number of houses in the village. 8. The highways are poor and cannot support more traffic.

Site Description

The application site lies within the settlement development boundary of Llangynidr and comprises a rectangular parcel of land forming the final third of the allocated housing site (Site Code LGY1 under policy SS2 of the UDP). It lies to the south-west of the village car park, the Village Hall and tennis courts.

The site is currently used for grazing, measures approximately 5100 sq. m. (0.51 of a Hectare) in area and is generally flat. The site is not crossed by any Public Rights of Way.

Proposal

As stated in the introduction this is an Outline planning application with all matters reserved for subsequent approval apart from access.

The indicative layout illustrates 8 No. detached dwellings with detached double garages and 2 No. surface parking spaces to the north of the approved estate road. The illustrative scheme also includes a 10m wide landscaped buffer zone beyond the allocated site but within the ownership and control of the applicant to screen and separate the development from the open countryside to the north.

The overall number of units to be constructed on this allocated site will now increase to 26 with this scheme representing plots 19-26) and will include a combination of 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 bed units and a mixture of detached, semi-detached and terraced units.

The required Affordable Housing provision will be achieved within the previously approved site (plots 13 and 14) adjacent to the Affordable Housing units already secured under the original consent (plots 15, 16, 17 and 18). This equates to 23% Affordable Housing provision in line with current policy. Melin Homes Housing Association will retain control over a total of 10 No. units including 3 x 3 bed low cost home ownership units and 6 No. social rented 2 and 3 bed units.

This application will be the subject of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to ensure that the Affordable Housing requirement will be satisfied within the consented scheme and the signed Legal Agreement for 18 unit scheme will be modified to take into account the additional 2 No. social rented units within the scheme.

With regard to the suggested scale parameters of the proposed dwellings it is suggested that they will be in the range between 9.6m and 10m in length, between 6.6m and 7m in depth and between 7m and 8.6m at ridge height. The garages will range between 6.1m and 6.6m in length, 6.1m and 6.6m in depth and up to a maximum of 6m to ridge height.

Page 120 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

The site relates to an area of semi improved grassland and no trees or hedgerows will be affected by the proposal.

Appraisal

Following statutory adoption of the Brecon Beacons National Park Local Plan 1999, work on the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan commenced in 2000. The UDP was subject to all the statutory consultations and procedures associated with the preparation of development plans, including a local inquiry and an Inspector’s report.

The UDP was subsequently approved by the Authority for development control purposes in March 2007 and sets out the policies and proposals to guide development in this area from 2001 to 2016 and beyond. As a point of clarification, the direction from the WAG relates solely to sand and gravel issues.

In this instance it is considered that the proposed scheme for 8 No. dwellings within an allocated housing site under the UDP is not of a sufficient scale to adversely prejudice the LDP strategy. Therefore, although the LDP is a material consideration, little weight should be given to the LDP in determining this planning application.

For the above reasons, the above application should be determined in accordance with the plans and policies of the UDP, and relevant National Planning Policy.

This application is considered against policies G3, G6, ES11, ES28, ES29, ES38, ES39 and

Page 121 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

SS2 of the UDP and policies LPG3, LPG7, LPG8, LPCB10, LPH1 and LPR5 of the Local Plan.

In making a recommendation on this application, I have also taken into consideration the relevant policies of the Development Plan and the comments made by statutory consultees and other interested parties and the following national guidance:

• Planning Policy Wales (PPW, 5th Edition November 2012) • Technical Advice Note 2 Planning and Affordable Housing (2006) • Technical Advice Note 12 Design (2009) • Technical Advice Note 22 Sustainable Buildings (2010)

The dual purposes of National Park designation are, as first set out in the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949 and updated by the Environment Act 1995: • conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage; and, • promotion of opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park by the public

Principle of Development

When considering the proposal in simple land-use terms, the principle of development is acceptable. The site is located within the development settlement boundary of Llangynidr as identified by the UDP proposals map and policy G3 (ii) of the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan and it is also within the allocated housing site (LGY1) of policy SS2 of the UDP.

Although the policy allocates the site for 18 units, the current proposal for an additional 8 No. units can be successfully incorporated within the allocated site without impacting on the residential amenities of the dwellings as approved for the remainder of the site. As confirmed by the Head of Policy, Strategy and Heritage, the combined scheme now represents a more sustainable use of the land than was estimated under the UDP. The principle of the second phase of development and the overall increase in density to a total of 26 No. residential units is therefore supported in the interests of the development of sustainable communities.

Therefore, as the development is located within the settlement development boundary of Llangynidr and the allocated housing site and represents an efficient and sustainable use of a green field site close to amenities, it is considered that the development is acceptable in principle and complies with policies G3 and SS2 of the Brecon Beacons

Page 122 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

National Park Unitary Development Plan and National Planning policy.

Impact on the Visual Amenities of the Rural Village

Policy G3 i) aims to ensure that development does not have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area or impact upon the special qualities of the National Park. Criteria iii) of the same policy aims to ensure that the scale, form, design, layout, density, and use of materials will be appropriate to the surrounding and will maintain or enhance the quality and character of the Park’s landscape and built environment. Criteria iv) of the same policy also requires that the proposed development is integrated successfully into the landscape to the satisfaction of the NPA through planting and appropriate management of native species or through the construction of appropriate boundary features.

Policy G6 stipulates the need for developments to have regard to the Welsh Assembly Government’s key design objectives and respond to the local context and criteria (ii) in particular requires that developments sustain and enhance character and townscape.

Whilst all matters are reserved for future approval apart from access, the indicative layout plan and cross sections suggest a row of 8 No. large detached dwellings. The village is predominantly characterised by large detached traditional dwellings along with farm buildings, converted barns, an estate of semi-detached properties and bungalows. The main building material is natural stone with some render and timber cladding. The majority of the dwellings are set within relatively large residential curtilages and are set away from the highway.

It is likely that the individual units will be sold off separately as “self-build” plots. Although the initial couple of plots are intended for members of the applicant’s family and are likely to be developed first and can set a standard for others to follow, Officers are keen to ensure that the units are generally consistent in terms of design and finishes with each other and the 18 No. dwellings within Phase 1. To that extent it is reasonable to impose a condition requiring the submission of a Design Code that all subsequent plots can follow.

The proposed development can be successfully designed to be modern in design yet sympathetic to the surrounding area and rural fringe in terms of materials and scale. It is close to existing and approved residential developments and to local facilities and amenities and the proposed 10m landscaped buffer zone will successfully soften the northern boundary of the site that will back onto the remainder of the field.

It is considered that the development can be designed to be acceptable in visual amenity terms and complies with policies G3 and G6 of the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan and National Planning policy.

Page 123 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

Highway Safety in and around the site

Policy G3 (vii) of the UDP identifies that proposals must be compatible with the National Park Road hierarchy in that it is within the capacity of the existing approach roads and does not have an unacceptable impact on traffic circulation or the environment.

Policy ES39 states that where development requires a new or improved access from the highway, existing traditional boundary features should be retained as far as possible. Where boundaries must be set back to improve visibility, the same boundary type must be re-created on the new line.

The 8 No. units will all be accessed via the approved estate road for the 18 No. unit scheme at Phase 1. The Highway Authority is satisfied with the access junction, internal estate road and the visibility splays as amended under App. No. 13/09114/CON. The Highway Authority has expressed a concern relating to parking provision but in Planning terms it is considered that 4 no. on-site parking spaces (made up of 2 No. garage spaces and 2 No. surface parking spaces) are sufficient for each dwelling.

It is therefore considered that the scheme will comply with the provisions of policies G3, ES38 and ES39 of the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority Unitary Development Plan and National Planning Policy Guidance.

Impact on Residential Amenity

Policy G3 v) advises against development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the area, adjacent properties or the general public.

The layout and design details of the scheme are reserved for future approval and, as a result, it is not possible at this stage to fully assess the potential impacts upon neighbouring residents by way of loss of privacy, loss of light or overbearing effect.

Notwithstanding this, the illustrative layout drawings indicate that the proposed dwellings can be positioned at least 27m from the rear elevations and habitable windows of plots 1-18 in Phase 1 and the units are orientated so that the front and rear elevations of each unit will not look directly into the gardens of neighbouring properties.

It is considered that the scheme can be easily designed to eliminate any potential overlooking or excessive overshadowing of other adjoining properties. These matters will be considered in further detail and ultimately determined at the ‘Reserved Matters’ stage.

Therefore, it is considered that the development is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of existing residents and the future occupiers of the adjoining site and complies with policy G3 v) of the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan and National Planning policy.

Page 124 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

Impact on the Natural Environment

Part 1 Policy 2 ‘Biodiversity and Earth Heritage’ states that development will only be allowed where there is no unacceptable impact on biodiversity and Earth heritage.

Policy G3 i) and iv) aim to protect the natural beauty and wildlife of the National Park through planting and appropriate management of native species or through the construction of appropriate boundary features or by ensuring adequate mitigation is provided which protects and enhances the natural environment.

The development relates to the second phase of an allocated housing site and an area of semi-improved grassland which has been historically used for grazing and does not sustain any wildlife. The scheme will not have any impact on hedgerows or trees and, as the application is Outline in nature, landscaping details are reserved for later determination.

Therefore, having regard to the above, it is considered that the development complies with policy G3 of the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan.

Code for Sustainable Homes

In May 2009 the Welsh Assembly Government published an innovative national planning policy expecting most new developments seeking planning permission to meet a minimum sustainable buildings standard. This is contained in Section 4.11 of Planning Policy Wales and is supplemented by Technical Advice Note 22 Planning for Sustainable Buildings (2010) which provides guidance for local planning authorities and developers in implementing the planning for sustainable buildings policy.

Since 1st September, 2010, applications for 1 or more dwellings are required to meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and Obtain 6 credits under issue Ene1 – Dwelling Emission Rate.

As the application is made in Outline with all matters apart from access reserved for future approval the submission does not include a detailed Code for Sustainable Homes pre-assessment. However, the application does include a commitment to achieving at least the minimum standard (Code Level 3 plus 6 credits under issue Ene 1 – Dwelling Emission Rate) and conditions will be imposed to ensure this.

Having regard to the above it is considered that the development complies with policy G3 of the UDP and advice contained within national planning guidance relating to sustainable development.

Response to Objections

The Community Council consider that the application should be resisted as the

Page 125 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 application site is outside the settlement boundary but the application site is consistent with the extent of the allocated site and the settlement development boundary for Llangynidr as illustrated within the UDP.

In terms of environmental capacity, whilst the LDP has identified that Llangynidr is not a settlement that can accommodate future residential development, the site has been the subject of a housing allocation under the UDP and the development represents an efficient use of the site in line with National Planning Guidance.

The site cannot be deemed to be an overdevelopment of the site as it equates to approximately 16 dwellings per hectare. As the proposals also include for a 10m landscaped buffer along the northern boundary of the site it is felt that the development can be screened to reduce the possibility of any detrimental impact on the visual amenities and character of the village. It is difficult to understand how tourism will be affected by the development and the fact that the village does not benefit from a range of health services does not outweigh the allocation of this site for residential development.

The suggested 12% increase in the number of consented or proposed dwellings in Llangynidr is likely to be the response to the future designation of this village under the LDP and cannot be solely attributed to this development on an allocated housing site. Finally, the Highway Authority is satisfied with the development in terms of highway safety and capacity.

The Brecon Beacons Park Society has also objected to the scheme on the basis that it does not accord with the purposes of the National Park and is contrary to the aims of the Unitary Development Plan and Local Development Plan.

As stated above, the dual purposes of National Park designation are the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage and the promotion of opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park by the public. Officers consider that the development of the allocated housing site will not have any impact on these two purposes.

It is accepted that UDP Policy SS2 allocates 18 No. units for site LGY1. However, this was evidently an estimate and the development of the remainder of the site will result in a more efficient use of the available land and will also provide two extra affordable houses for social rent in the area. The site did not form part of the amenity areas for the houses in the approved scheme and its development will not reduce the parking provision or amount of garden space in the approved scheme. Officers consider that the scheme does not represent an overdevelopment of the site and the landscaped buffer would successfully integrate the development with the rural fringe.

There is no evidence to suggest that the development of 8 No. houses on this site will have a negative impact on tourism in the area and the Highway Authority is satisfied with the proposals. In terms of the local need for affordable housing it is likely that the

Page 126 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5 demand for the 6 No. social rented properties and the 4 No. low cost home ownership units (managed by Melin Homes Housing Association) will increase by the time that they are available. Finally, Officers consider that a development of 8 No. dwellings in Llangynidr is not of a sufficient scale to prejudice the future designation of the village under the LDP.

Other issues raised by objectors that have not been covered above include the following:

“The increase in population would place increasing pressure on already overstretched services such as schooling and sewerage.” In response, it is likely that the local primary school has not reached its capacity in terms of pupil numbers. Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water has not raised an objection against the development.

“The number of properties at present for sale in Llangynidr suggests that there is little demand for large-scale movement into the village. Whilst recognising the requirement for social housing as a general principle, we feel that this development would certainly not satisfy any such criteria.” There is a recognised need for affordable housing in and around the Llangynidr area and the number of houses for sale in any particular area is not a material planning consideration and could be a result of other factors.

“Lastly, we would point out that we are strongly of the view that the needs and opinions of residents are invariably ignored by the National Park Authority and subordinated to the interests of developers with no concern for the well-being of the existing community. The National Parks Authority might do well to remember whose interests they are intended to represent.” This is simply not the case as the residents of Llangynidr would have had the opportunity to make representations regarding the allocation of this site for housing under the UDP.

“Planning permission has already been given for 18 TOWN HOUSES on this site which is totally ridiculous and totally out of character for the village.” This is not the case. The majority of the 18 No. units on this site are two storey dwellings.

“I have already made clear my opposition, to filling the field in question with houses, since it forms a flood plain.” The site is not within zone C2 of the TAN15 flood maps.

“Looking further ahead, it is suggested that food will become scarcer, as third world demand for it increases. Surely we should be protecting agricultural land, not destroying it, in the interests of satisfying short term greed.” The site is not an example of good quality agricultural land i.e. it is not graded 3a agricultural land or higher.

“I have little doubt that my email will be ignored. Already we see a digger in the field, suggesting the land owner sees the matter as a foregone conclusion!!” The email was not ignored and the “digger in the field” was probably preparing the part of the site that has the benefit of an extant planning consent.

Page 127 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

Conclusion

Overall, the principle of the redevelopment of this site for residential purposes is considered to be acceptable. It is considered that the scheme will not result in any visual harm to this part of the National Park, will not unduly impact on residential amenity or lead to a significantly adverse impact on highway safety.

The proposal therefore accords with policies G3, G6, ES11, ES28, ES29, ES38, ES39 and SS2 of the UDP and policies LPG3, LPG7, LPG8, LPCB10, LPH1 and LPR5 of the Local Plan and should be granted subject to the imposition of the following conditions and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure affordable housing provision.

RECOMMENDATION: Permit subject to Section 106 Agreement

Conditions and/or Reasons:

1 Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 2 The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. 3 Approval of the details of the layout, scale and appearance of the dwelling and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. 4 Foul and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site. 5 No surface water shall be allowed to connect directly, nor indirectly to the public sewerage system unless otherwise agreed in writing by the National Park Authority. 6 Land drainage shall not be allowed to discharge either directly or indirectly into the public sewerage system. 7 The proposed development site is crossed by a public sewer with the approximate position being marked on the attached Statutory Public Sewer Record. Under the Water Industry Act 1991 Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has rights of access to its apparatus at all times. No part of the building will be permitted within 3 metres either side of the centreline of the public sewer. 8 During the construction phase no machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or despatched from the site outside the following times: Monday-Friday 7.00 am-6.00pm, Saturday 8.00 am-1.00 pm nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. 9 Prior to the commencement of development, details of any external lighting proposed to illuminate the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the National Park Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and there shall be no other external

Page 128 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

illumination of the development. 10 Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed plan, showing the levels of the existing site, the proposed slab level of the dwellings approved and a datum point outside of the site, shall be submitted to and approved by the National Park Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 11 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking, amending and re-enacting that Order) no development of the types described in Part 1 Classes A-H; Part 2 Classes A-C and Part 40 Class H of Schedule 2, other than that hereby permitted shall be carried out without the written permission of the National Park Authority. 12 Construction of the dwellings hereby permitted shall not begin until an Interim Certificate has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority, certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and a minimum of 6 credits under Ene1 - Dwelling Emission Rate has been achieved for that individual dwelling or house type in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide 2010. 13 Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, a Code for Sustainable Homes Final Certificate shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 and a minimum of 6 credits under Ene1 - Dwelling Emission Rate has been achieved for that dwelling in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide 2010. 14 Notwithstanding the parameters as indicated in the Outline submission, the Reserved Matters relating to layout, scale and appearance shall show dwellings of no more than two storeys in height and garages that do not exceed 6m to ridge height. 15 Any entrance gates shall be constructed so as to be incapable of opening towards the highway. 16 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the access shall be constructed so that there is clear visibility from a point 1.05 metres above ground level at the centre of the access and 4.5 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway, to points 0.26 metres above ground level at the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 45 metres distant in each direction measured from the centre of the access along the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Nothing shall be planted, erected or allowed to grow on the area(s) of land so formed that would obstruct the visibility and the visibility shall be maintained free from obstruction thereafter. 17 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development clear visibility shall be maintained above a height of 0.26 metres above carriageway level over the full frontage of the developed site to the estate road effective over a bandwidth of 2.4 metres measured from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Nothing shall be planted, erected or allowed to grow on the area(s) of land so formed that would obstruct the visibility and the visibility shall be maintained free from obstruction thereafter.

Page 129 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

18 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the area of the access to be used by vehicles is to be constructed to a minimum of 410mm depth, comprising a minimum of 250mm of sub-base material, 100mm of bituminous macadam base course material and 60mm of bituminous macadam binder course material for a distance of 10.0 metres from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Any use of alternative materials is to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the access being constructed. 19 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development provision shall be made within the curtilage of the site for the parking of all construction vehicles together with a vehicle turning area. This parking and turning area shall be constructed to a depth of 0.30 metres in crusher run or sub-base and maintained free from obstruction at all times such that all vehicles serving the site may park within the site and both enter and leave the site in a forward gear. 20 No building shall be occupied before the estate road carriageway and one footway shall be constructed to and including binder course level to an adoptable standard including the provision of any salt bins, surface water drainage and street lighting in front of that building and to the junction with the county highway. 21 The estate road carriageway and all footways shall be fully completed, to a standard to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, upon the issuing of the Building Regulations Completion Certificate for the last house or within two years from the commencement of the development, whichever is the sooner. 22 Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the area of the access to be used by vehicles is to be finished in a 40mm bituminous surface course for a distance of 10.0 metres from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. 23 The area of each private drive and any turning area is to be metalled and surfaced in bituminous macadam, concrete or block paviours, prior to the occupation of that dwelling. 24 No storm water drainage from the site shall be allowed to discharge onto the county highway. 25 The garages and access thereto must be reserved for the garaging or parking of private motor vehicles and the garages shall at no time be converted to habitable accommodation. 26 Notwithstanding the provisions of condition 3 above and the requirement for landscaping details to be submitted with a future reserved matters application, full details of the proposed landscaped buffer between the application site and the field to the north shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on site. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 27 Notwithstanding the provisions of condition 3 above and the requirement for details of the layout and appearance of the development to be submitted as part of future reserved matters applications, a Design Code for the scheme, to include details of design features and a palette of materials and finishes, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the submission of the first reserved matters application.

Page 130 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

Reasons:

1 Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2 Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 3 To enable the National Park Authority to exercise proper control over these aspects of the development and as required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 4 To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system. 5 To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment. 6 To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment. 7 To protect the integrity of the public sewer and avoid damage thereto. 8 To protect the amenity of local residents. 9 To safeguard local amenities and to preserve the use of the wider area by bats. 10 In order to define the permission and ensure that the development is of a scale and height appropriate to the site. 11 To ensure a satisfactory and well planned development and to preserve and enhance the quality of the environment. 12 To satisfy the requirements of Technical Advice Note 22: Planning for Sustainable Buildings (June 2010). 13 To satisfy the requirements of Technical Advice Note 22: Planning for Sustainable Buildings (June 2010). 14 In the interests of the visual amenities of the streetscene. 15 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county unclassified road. 16 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county unclassified road. 17 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county unclassified road. 18 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county unclassified road. 19 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county unclassified road. 20 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county unclassified road. 21 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county unclassified road. 22 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county unclassified road. 23 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county unclassified road.

Page 131 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

24 To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county unclassified road. 25 To ensure adequate off street parking arrangements remain available at all times. 26 To ensure a satisfactory form of development. 27 In order to define the permission and ensure a consistent form of development that is appropriate to the site.

Informative Notes:

1 The Welsh Government have introduced new legislation that will make it mandatory for all developers who wish to communicate with the public sewerage system to obtain an adoption agreement for their sewerage with Dwr Cymru Welsh Water (DCWW). The Welsh Minister’s Standards for the construction of sewerage apparatus and an agreement under Section 104 of the Water Industry Act (WIA) 1991 will need to be completed in advance of any authorisation to communicate with the public sewerage system under Section 106 WIA 1991 being granted by DCWW. If a connection is required to the public sewerage system, the developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water’s Developer Services on 0800 917 2652. 2 A water supply can be made available to serve this proposed development. The developer may be required to contribute, under Sections 40-41 of the Water Industry Act 1991, towards the provision of new off-site and/or on-site watermains and associated infrastructure. The level of contribution can be calculated upon receipt of detailed site layout plans which should be sent to the address above. 3 The timing of site clearance/demolition works should be such as to avoid conflict with the bird nesting season. 4 This planning permission is pursuant to condition precedent conditions. Failure to comply with such conditions without obtaining written approval by the National Park Authority prior to the commencement of development works will render this planning permission invalid and formal enforcement action being taken to regularise the unauthorised development works.

Page 132 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

ITEM NUMBER: 8

APPLICATION NUMBER: 13/09819/FUL APPLICANTS NAME(S): Mr & Mrs Martin Tong SITE ADDRESS: 21 Caepound Hay-On-Wye Hereford Powys HR3 5DU

GRID REF: E: 322848 N:241994 COMMUNITY: Hay-on-Wye DATE VALIDATED: 1 August 2013 DECISION DUE DATE: 26 September 2013 CASE OFFICER: Mrs Kate Edwards

PROPOSAL Single storey extension

ADDRESS 21 Caepound, Hay-On-Wye, Hereford

Page 133 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS Consultee Received Comments

Hay On Wye Town 27th Aug 2013 I write to advise that Hay Town Council has no Council objection to the above planning application. Powys County 12th Aug 2013 The proposal appears to convert the garage and Council Highways replace some of the potential off-street parking area to the front of the former garage with steps. At this time this is looking like a refusal due to a serious lack of off street parking space. Can you ask the applicant to provide some information regarding off street parking and let him know he will need three spaces within his curtilage in order to get our support.

CONTRIBUTORS Mr And Mrs P Davies, Nursery Farm Cottages, Forest Road

NEIGHBOUR/THIRD PARTY RESPONSE SUMMARY

The proposed extension is single storey but by the time the roof is put on the views from the kitchen window more closed in. The other developments in the past six months have resulted in the feeling of being 'hemmed in'.

The works would affect the sale of the objector’s property as there would not be much to look at from the back.

Potential detriment to residential amenity caused by the accumulative impact of development in the vicinity of the objectors property is considered in the section of this report titled 'Impact on Residential Amenity'.

The comments regarding the sale of the objectors property is not a material planning consideration. No further consideration will, therefore, be given to this objection.

RELEVANT POLICIES

G3: “Development in the National Park” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) G6: “Design” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) ES27: “House Extensions and Ancillary Buildings” (Unitary Development Plan 2007) LPG3: “Development in the National Park.” (Local Plan 1999) LPG7: “Design and energy conservation.” (Local Plan 1999) LPH14: “House extensions and ancillary buildings” (Local Plan 1999)

Page 134 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

PLANNING HISTORY App Ref Description Decision Date

N/A

OFFICER’S REPORT

This planning application is brought before the Planning, Access and Rights of Way Committee due to a requirement for the Highway Authority that three parking spaces are required. Officers consider that by reason of the town location of the site two parking spaces will be sufficient.

Introduction

Planning permission is sought for the construction of a single storey extension against the northern elevation of a dwelling located within the settlement boundary of Hay-on- Wye.

Whilst the development plan for the area includes the adopted Brecon Beacons National Park Local Plan (1999), it has been largely superseded by the more up to date Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan (2007) (UDP) which stopped short of formal adoption but was approved for development control purposes. The UDP therefore provides a more up to date and relevant planning framework. Whilst the development proposal will be considered against both the Approved UDP and Adopted Local Plan policies, greater weight shall be given to the more up to date UDP policies unless the Local Plan policies materially differ to warrant a departure from the UDP. The Brecon Beacons National Park Authority Local Development Plan (LDP) has been published and is now at public examination. Legal advice is that whilst the emerging LDP is now material, little weight can be given to it in planning decision making at this stage. This application is considered against the policies referred to above.

Local Context

The planning application site is part of a residential estate of semi-detached dwellings. Beyond the planning application site's north and east boundaries are residential dwellings that are not part of the estate.

In terms of materials used on the external elevations of the housing estate properties are red brick elevations, concrete tile roof and uPVC window frames and doors.

Design Considerations

The extension will be located in the north-west corner of the site. The existing garage will be demolished. It is considered that the proposed extension is appropriate in terms of scale, mass and design and would be in keeping with the character of the host dwelling in terms of design and finishes.

Page 135 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

Neighbour Amenity

An objection stating that the proposed extension will represent an overbearing development caused by an accumulation of other development in the vicinity. It is noted that the proposed extension is some 21 m from the boundary of the objector's property. Due to the shape of the planning application site views of the proposed extension from the objector's property will be through a 1.5 m gap between the corner of the application house and the nearest boundary fence. Given the relationship between the properties, it is considered, that there would not be a material adverse impact in the form of over-bearing impact on the objectors property or any other dwelling in the area.

Due to the relationship between the proposed development and nearby properties there are no issues regarding loss of privacy or loss of light.

Highway Safety

The response of the Highway Authority is provided above. The provision of parking and the parking spaces required by the Highway Authority has been considered against the existing off-road spaces available, the south wales parking guidelines, the location of the property and the number of parking spaces available on the site.

Officers have received revised plans illustrating the provision of 2 off-street parking spaces within the property's curtilage.

At the present time the property has the benefit of one off-road parking space. There is concern that the highway response does not refer to a need to retain the outbuilding referred to as a converted garage but that three off-road parking spaces are required.

The guidelines state that, based on the property being three bedroomed, there should be a maximum of three off-street parking spaces available. as two spaces will be provided within the site boundary it is considered difficult to justify a reason for refusal based on lack of parking when the proposed development represents a net gain of one parking space. Further to this Hay-on-Wye town centre is approximately 1 km from the application site and the town has the benefit of a regular bus service.

Given the net gain in off-street parking provision, proximity to Hay-on-Wye town centre and the regular bus service, it is considered, on balance, that there would be insufficient justification to refuse the proposed development on the basis of insufficient off-road parking provision.

Page 136 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

Protected Species

By reason of the corrugated metal roof of the existing garage and the lack of openings which bats may use to enter the building there are no concerns in terms of the impact of the proposed development upon protected species.

Conclusion

It is recommended that, whilst the off-street parking provision required by the Highways Authority cannot be met the proposed development results in a net gain in parking provision, this application be approved subject to the following conditions.

RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Conditions and/or Reasons:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission. 2 The development shall be carried out in all respects strictly in accordance with the approved plans (drawing nos. NP1v1, NP3v1, NP5v1 received 31/07/13 and drawing no.NP7v1 received 23/08/13) except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 3 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used on the existing building and be maintained as such in perpetuity. 4 Prior to the beneficial use of the extension hereby approved an area shall be laid out within the curtilage of the property for the parking of two cars as illustrated on the approved plan reference NP7v1. The parking areas shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose than the parking of motor vehicles. 5 No works to provide the access hereby permitted shall commence until surface water drainage works have been implemented in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Before these details are submitted an assessment shall be carried out of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system in accordance with the principles set out in Appendix 4 of Technical Advice Note 15 - Development and Flood Risk 2004 (or any subsequent version), and the results of the assessment provided to the Local Planning Authority. Where a sustainable drainage scheme is to be provided, the submitted details shall: i. provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; ii. include a timetable for its implementation; and

Page 137 of 138 ENCLOSURE 5

iii. provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.

Reasons:

1 Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2 To ensure adherence to the approved plans in the interests of a satisfactory form of development. 3 To ensure the external materials harmonise with the existing building. 4 To ensure the parking of motor vehicles provided in perpetuity. 5 To ensure any additional surface water run-off is sufficiently managed.

Informative Notes:

1 The developer shall note if there are changes to the plans hereby approved due to building regulation requirements or any third party requirements, details should also be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of work. 2 Without the appropriate licence it is a criminal offence to harm or disturb many protected species of mammal (for example bats), reptile, amphibian, bird, plant and habitat. It is also an offence to disturb the nests or eggs of any wild bird during their breeding season. For further information about protected species visit www.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk. If, during any works in relation to the development hereby permitted any protected species are discovered or nesting birds disturbed, works must immediately cease and Natural Resources Wales be contacted.

Page 138 of 138