Public Document Pack
Planning, Taxi Licensing & Rights of Way Committee
Meeting Venue Council Chamber - Neuadd Maldwyn, Welshpool, Powys
Meeting Date Thursday, 22 October 2015 County Hall Llandrindod Wells Meeting Time Powys 10.00 am LD1 5LG
For further information please contact Carol Johnson 15 October, 2015 01597826206 [email protected]
AGENDA
1. APOLOGIES PTLRW97 - 2015
To receive apologies for absence.
Planning
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PTLRW98 - 2015 a) To receive any declarations of interest from Members relating to items to be considered on the agenda. b) To receive Members' requests that a record be made of their membership of town or community councils where discussion has taken place of matters for the consideration of this Committee. c) To receive declarations from Members of the Committee that they will be acting as 'Local Representative' in respect of an individual application being considered by the Committee. d) To note the details of Members of the County Council (who are not Members of the Committee) who will be acting as 'Local Representative' in respect of an individual application being considered by the Committee.
3. PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION PTLRW99 - 2015 BY THE COMMITTEE
To consider the reports of the Head of Regeneration, Property and Commissioning and to make any necessary decisions thereon. 1 (Pages 3 - 4)
3.1. Updates Any Updates will be added to the Agenda, as a Supplementary Pack, wherever possible, prior to the meeting.
3.2. P2015 0225 The Garage, Tregynon, Newtown, Powys SY16 3EL (Pages 5 - 16)
3.3. P2015 0249 Stone House Farm, Maes Mawr, Welshpool, Powys SY21 9DB (Pages 17 - 26)
3.4. P2015 0878 Plot 6 adj Bryn Afal, Tregynon, Newtown, Powys SY16 3EP (Pages 27 - 34)
3.5. P2014 0165 Land at Kincoed, Mochdre, Newtown, Powys SY16 4JT (Pages 35 - 42)
4. DECISIONS OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION, PTLRW100 - 2015 PROPERTY AND COMMISSIONING ON DELEGATED APPLICATIONS
To receive for information a list of decisions made by the Head of Regeneration, Property and Commissioning under delegated powers. (Pages 43 - 58)
5. APPEAL DECISION PTLRW101 - 2015
To receive the Planning Inspector’s decision regarding an appeal: P/2013/0671 Upper Heath Farm, Presteigne, Powys LD8 2HG: Erection of 2 No poultry buildings and associated control room, 4 feed bins, access and hardstanding. (Pages 59 - 78) PTLRW99 - 2015
Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee 22nd October 2015 Welshpool
For the purpose of the Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the background papers relating to each individual planning application constitute all the correspondence on the file as numbered in the left hand column.
Applications for consideration by Committee:
Application No: Nature of Development: Community: Location of Development: O.S. Grid Reference: Applicant: Date Received: Recommendation of Head of Planning:
P/2015/0225 Full: change of use of ground floor living accommodation to form extension to post Tregynon office stores together with raising of roof height of dwelling incorporating erection of 309710.51 298501.35 a second floor extension to dwelling
25/02/2015 The Garage, Tregynon, Newtown, Powys, SY16 3EL
Mr Noel Owen
Recommendation - Refusal
P/2015/0249 Full: Erection of a general purpose agricultural building together with Guilsfield construction of hardstanding and all other associated works 317787.32 310046.61 Stone House Farm, Maes Mawr, 09/03/2015 Welshpool, Powys, SY21 9DB
Mr Evans
Recommendation - Approval
P/2015/0878 Erection of a dwelling and associated works Tregynon C Plot 6 adj Bryn Afal, Tregynon, Newtown, 309727.36 298801.44 Powys, SY16 3EP
02/09/2015 Mr Malcolm Brown
Page 3 Recommendation - Refusal
P/2014/0165 Erection of a dwelling (outline), formation of vehicular access, installation of a septic Mochdre with Penstrowed tank and associated works
307386.39 287824.39 Land at Kincoed, Mochdre, Newtown, Powys, SY16 4JT 19/02/2014 Mr Robert Beardall
Recommendation - Granted subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement with the Council
Page 4 PTLRW99 - 20152
Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report
Application No: P/2015/0225 Grid Ref: 309710.51 298501.35
Community Tregynon Valid Date: Officer: Council: 25/02/2015 Nicholas Morgan
Applicant: Mr Noel Owen, NEO Fabrication, Tregynon, Whitegates, Newtown, Powys, SY16 3PG
Location: The Garage, Tregynon, Newtown, Powys, SY16 3EL
Proposal: Full: change of use of ground floor living accommodation to form extension to post office stores together with raising of roof height of dwelling incorporating erection of a second floor extension to dwelling
Application Application for Full Planning Permission Type:
The reason for Committee determination
Called in by local County Councillor. In the interest of economic development within the rural village.
Site Location and Description
The above application is in respect of a change of use of part of a ground floor from residential use (C3 Use) to retail use (A3 Use) and the raising of the roof height of the existing dwelling to incorporate a second floor to the dwelling at the Garage, Tregynon.
The Garage is a mixed use (Petrol Station, Retail and Residential) site situated within village of Tregynon immediately adjacent to the B4389 classified highway.
Change of Use
The proposal is to extend to the ground floor shop into entire ground floor area of the attached dwelling onsite increasing the area of the shop by 50m² thus amounting to 99.4m² total retail floor space.
Installation of additional floor
The proposal will essentially add a storey to the property thus resulting in a three storey property of two and half storey design.
A small porch measuring 2.3m x 1.9m is proposed on the north elevation to allow access to the accommodation above the shop.
1 Page 5 The facing materials will include brick to match existing with magnolia rendering, the fenestration and doors shall be stained timber as existing and the roof shall be slate again to match the existing. The roof line will increase from approximately 5.5m to 8.3m in height.
Consultee Response
Tregynon Community Council – No comments received
Powys Highways – Object – comments below:
Whilst I appreciate that some of the shopping trips will be associated with fuel customers the available parking bays as shown on the latest drawing are unachievable in practice. The premises is in a village therefore a large percentage of customers will be by passing trade and the current set-up on site has other businesses trading coupled with a residential property with the parking arrangements all very ad-hoc in nature.
In balance with the current arrangements described above the Highway Authority is unable to support the application.
Powys County Council Building Control - The proposal will require Building Regulations
Wales & West Utilities – No objection however recommends safe digging practices are adhered too.
CADW - Historic Gardens –
Thank you for your letter of 3 March 2015 inviting Cadw’s comments on the planning application for the proposed development as described above.
Cadw’s role in the planning process is not to oppose or support planning applications but to provide the local planning authority with an assessment concerned with the likely impact that the proposal will have on scheduled ancient monuments or Registered Historic Parks and Gardens. It is a matter for the local planning authority to then weigh Cadw’s assessment against all the other material considerations in determining whether to approve planning permission.
The advice set out below relates only to those aspects of the proposal, which fall within Cadw’s remit as a statutory consultee. Our comments do not address any potential impact on the setting of any listed building, which is properly a matter for your authority. These views are provided without prejudice to the Welsh Government’s consideration of the matter, should it come before it formally for determination.
Applications for planning permission are considered in light of the Welsh Government’s land use planning policy and guidance contained in Planning Policy Wales (PPW), technical advice notes and circular guidance. PPW explains that the desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in determining a planning application whether that monument is scheduled or not. Furthermore, it explains that where nationally archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings are likely to be affected by proposed development, there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation in situ. Paragraph 17 of Circular 60/96, Planning and the Historic
2 Page 6 Environment: Archaeology, elaborates by explaining that this means a presumption against proposals which would involve significant alteration or cause damage, or which would have a significant impact on the setting of visible remains. PPW also explains that local authorities should protect parks and gardens and their settings included in the first part of the Register of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales.
This proposal also lies within the essential setting of the historic park and garden known as Gregynog PGW (Po) 33 which is included in the Register of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales.
This application is for the change of use of ground floor living accommodation to form an extension to post office stores together with the raising of the roof height of a dwelling incorporating the erection of a second floor extension to the dwelling.
In Cadw’s opinion the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the setting of the registered park and garden.
Historic Garden Society – No comments received CPAT – no objection – comments below:
Thank you for the consultation on this application
I write to confirm that there are no archaeological implications for the proposed development at this location.
NRW –
- First Response:
Thank you for your consultation regarding the above proposal. We note that no ecological survey information has been submitted with this application.
Natural Resources Wales objects to the proposal pending the receipt of additional information on bats, whereupon we will review our position.
Legislation and Policy: Regulations 9(3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) requires public bodies in exercise of their functions, to have regard to the provisions of the 1992 ‘Habitats’ Directive (92/43/EEC) and the 2009 ‘Birds’ Directive Birds’ Directive (2009/147/EC) so far that they might be affected by those functions. In respect of NRW specifically Reg 9 (1) requires NRW to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Habitats Directive.
Natural Resources Wales’s advice on the application: No information on European Protected Species is provided with the application. The dwelling that is the subject of the application is of a type that can be very suitable for bats, especially pipistrelles. The proposal would involve the removal of the roof and the creation on an extra storey. The BIS database shows several records of pipistrelle species close to the application site.
3 Page 7 Bats are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). Legislation protects both individual bats and their breeding sites and resting places.
Implementation of the proposal is considered likely to result in the killing or injury to bats and damage, destruction of their breeding sites and resting places, if they were present.
Please note that we have not considered possible effects on all species and habitats listed in section 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, or on the Local Biodiversity Action Plan or other local natural heritage interests. To comply with your authority's duty under section 40 of the NERC Act, to have regard to conserving biodiversity, your decision should take account of possible adverse effects on such interests. We recommend that you seek further advice from your authority's internal ecological adviser and/or nature conservation organisations such as the local Wildlife Trust, RSPB, etc. The Wales Biodiversity Partnership's web site has guidance for assessing proposals that have implications for section 42 habitats and species (www.biodiversitywales.org.uk).
In summary, Natural Resources Wales objects to the proposal pending the receipt of additional information on bats, whereupon we will review our position.
- Second Response:
Natural Resources Wales previously objected to this proposal in a letter dated 20 March 2015. In response the applicant has submitted an initial bat report (Gerald Longley, April 2015) on 28 April 2015.
NRW agree with the conclusions of this report and consider that it is sufficient to inform the application. Based on the results of this survey NRW withdraws its previous objection and we have no outstanding concerns. We advise your authority that it can be demonstrated that this proposal would not be of detriment to the maintenance of the favourable conservation status of European Protected Species.
Powys Contaminated Land
-First Response:
It is noted that the proposed development is situated on land indicated as being a former / current petrol filling station (identified on historic Ordinance Survey Maps) which has the potential to cause contamination.
Based on the former uses of the site and an absence of a Phase 1 desk study (with a preliminary risk assessment), the application should be refused until such time as the applicant demonstrates that potentially significant liabilities have been assessed and understood.
In summary, there are three aspects to this objection. These are that: • We consider the level of risk posed by this proposal to be unacceptable. • The application fails to give adequate assurance that the risks of pollution are understood and that measures for dealing with them have been devised.
4 Page 8 Therefore, under Planning Policy for Wales (s.13.7 on) , the application should not be determined until information is provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the risk to human health and controlled waters has been fully understood and can be addressed through appropriate measures.
-Second Response:
It is noted that the proposed development is situated on land indicated as being a former / current petrol filling station (identified on historic Ordinance Survey Maps) which has the potential to cause contamination.
Based on the assessment provided in the Phase 1 desk study submitted on the 15th June 2015, the application should be granted with the following informant applied.
Potential Contamination informant The development site is identified as potential contaminated land due to its former use as a petrol filling station. Due to the potential for contamination issues as a result of this historical industrial use, should any made ground and/or contamination be identified during the works it would be prudent to investigate the potential for such contamination and inform the Councils Senior Contaminated Land Officer immediately.
Public Response
Three objections have been received, They can be summarised as follows:
- As we live in a bungalow directly behind the Post Office house, we are strongly against the plans for a three storey building being put here. At its current dormer bungalow height, we have been able to block out views over our property from the post office house. From the proposed plans, the third storey windows would most certainly overlook our bungalow and garden with no chance of shielding our home and garden from view, so we would lose our privacy.
-The distance between our boundary and the post office bungalow is small, and any increase in height would be an eyesore where the surrounding residences are all single storey.
-The proposed extension would be taller than the existing garage, which is high enough anyway for its location.
-My mother, owns the bungalow adjacent to the post office, at 3.Tan yr Eglwys, and although she now lives in a residential home, the concerns above would be greater for her as the side windows of the planned extension would look directly into her kitchen, lounge and private garden.
-From looking at the plans submitted on your website personally we feel that this is out of scale compared to the size of the adjoining existing garage giving the size of the site it sits on. -With regards to the gable elevation x – x we feel the window in the roof which is proposed to be one of the bedrooms will be overlooking our property. However in principle we would not object to a rooflight being put in the roof on the back elevation to overcome this to mitigate
5 Page 9 being overlooked. We would be happy if you want to see this from our property looking up at the proposed location.
Planning History
M20062 – Erection of motor vehicle repair garage, canopy and relocation of fuel tanks – Conditional Consent – 12/09/90 M19730 – Erection of Bungalow and motor vehicle garage, canopy and installation of fuel tanks – Conditional Consent – 10/07/90 M18810 – Use of garage for specialist light steel fabrication and extension – Conditional Consent – 10/11/89 M16760 – Outline for Dwelling – Conditional Consent – 07/10/88
Principal Planning Constraints
Flood Zone Near SSSI Gregynog Hall Historic Park
Principal Planning Policies
National Policies Planning Policy Wales (Edition 7, 2014) TAN 5 TAN 15 - Development and Flood Risk (2004) TAN 23 – Economic Development
Local Policies UDP GP1- Development Control UDP GP4- Highway and Parking Requirement UDP CS2- Protecting Existing Community Facilities and Services UDP RP10 - Neighbourhood and Village Shops and Services UDP HP4 - Settlement Development Boundaries and Capacities UDP SP14 - Development In Flood Risk Areas UDP RP5 - Living over the Shop UDP EC1 – Business, Industrial and Commercial Developments
RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement
Officer Appraisal
Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Members are advised to consider this application in accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that, if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise
Key Policies
6 Page 10 In determining an application of this nature, due consideration must be given to national and local planning policies. The key policies to consider in respect of this application are RP10 and RP5 which seek to protect neighbourhood and village facilities and seek to allow accommodation above the retail facilities on the proviso that it does not detract from the viability of such a business.
UDP policy HP16 sets out the general requirements applied to all household extensions and the main planning considerations relating to this type of proposal relate to the compatibility of the development with the existing dwelling and that neighbouring amenity and highway safety are not impacted upon in a detrimental manner by such proposals.
In addition, policy EC1 relates to the businesses where any such developments will be permitted where the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the environment and would be sited and designed to be sympathetic to the character and appearance of its surroundings.
Justification
According to the details provided, the works are necessary to extend the retail aspect of the site as the operator/occupant has been approached by a number of companies to obtain a franchise. In order to obtain any franchise, the site must increase in size to satisfy the necessary requirements.
As the operator resides in a dwelling which is attached and includes a portion of the garage/shop, an additional floor is required in order to provide suitable accommodation for the operator and their family.
If the operator is unable to achieve this requisite floor space, the Post Office and shop, which are the only facilities within the village, it is stated that it may close down.
Impact upon Amenity
The proposal to extend the retail aspect into the ground floor of the dwelling would not appear to impact upon the local amenity in terms of appearance. Consideration must however be given to the increase in height of the dwelling with the potential loss of privacy, light and amenity value to the adjoining properties.
The nearest potentially affected properties are 3 Tan Yr Eglwys some 10m to the north, 3 Tan Llan approximately 12m to the west and 5 Tan Llan some 9m to the south west.
It is noted that the proposal includes an array of fenestration on all elevations with the northern facing fenestration on the first and second floors being obscurely glazed and the window on the rear, west facing elevation at first floor level is also being obscurely glazed. This has been undertaken to seek to minimise overlooking in particular to properties 3 Tan yr Eglwys and 3 Tan Llan.
In respect of any loss of privacy, The Powys Residential Design Guide states:
7 Page 11 “that unless it can be demonstrated that privacy can be maintained through design, there should normally be a minimum separation of 20m between directly facing habitable room windows on rear elevations.”
According to the details, the windows on the southern facing elevations are to remain clearly glazed and a concern has been raised by the occupants of 5 Tan Llan to the west, relating to overlooking by said window. However, due to the orientation of the south facing windows, it is considered that the potential overlooking to 5 Tan Llan would not be deemed unacceptable in this instance.
The potential overbearing impact of the raised roof by approximately 3m above the neighbouring properties is also requires careful consideration. The Powys Residential Design Guide recommends that in order to avoid unnecessary overshadowing, the height of new development should generally be set below a line of 25º taken from the nearest habitable room of adjoining existing properties at a height of 2m.
Having undertaken measurements from the three adjoining properties, it appears that the 25º viewing line appears to intersect the upper section of the roof line from at least one property and as such does not satisfy the requirements of the guide. In light of the above it is considered that the extension by reason of height would have an unacceptable impact on local amenity.
Economic Benefit
The economic benefit of the proposed development is a material consideration. TAN 23 states that in the event that the proposal may cause environmental or social harm which cannot be fully mitigated, careful consideration of the economic benefit would be necessary.
In terms of quantifying the economic benefits, it is difficult to assess such benefits. However consideration needs to be given to the increase in the retail area, the benefit to the community in terms of potential greater choice of products and the continued viability of the proposed facility and associated employment.
Highway Safety
The proposal will utilise the existing parking area which is used in conjunction with the adjoining business to the south. Due to the ambiguity of the boundaries of the parking areas, the Highway Authority objects to the proposed development on parking and turning grounds.
The agent has illustrated the provision of 5 car spaces and one commercial space on the submitted plans although one of the car spaces can only facilitate a two wheeled vehicle.
In light of the Highway Authority comments regarding the development have unacceptable parking and turning facilities, it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to highway planning policy, in particular policy GP4..
Ecology
As a result of NRW comments relating to bats roosting at the property a preliminary bat survey was undertaken. The survey revealed that there was no evidence of bats, bat roosts
8 Page 12 or any birds in the buildings. NRW subsequently withdrew their original objection. In light of the contents of the survey and the NRW comments it is considered that the proposal complies with planning policy relating to biodiversity.
Contamination:
As a result of comments from the Contaminated Land Officer a Phase 1 Contaminated Risk Assessment was undertaken. The result of which revealed the risks arising from potential contamination being present on site are low to negligible. The Contaminated Land Officer has withdrawn his objection and the proposed development is now considered to comply with planning policy relating to contamination.
Recommendation
Whilst it is acknowledged that this enterprise is valuable to the economic activity of the rural area it is considered that this economic benefit is not sufficient to outweigh the harm to residential amenity and the highway parking and turning safety concerns.
Refusal Reasons:
1. It is considered that the height of the proposed development to facilitate an additional floor would have an unacceptable overbearing impact upon neighbouring residential properties. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010) policies HP16 and GP1.
2. The proposed development has inadequate parking and turning areas to the detriment of highway safety. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010) policies EC1, RP10 and GP4.
Case Officer: Nicholas Morgan- Planning Officer Tel: 01938 551051 E-mail:[email protected]
9 Page 13 This page is intentionally left blank Page 15 This page is intentionally left blank PTLRW99 - 20153
Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report
Application No: P/2015/0249 Grid Ref: 317787.32 310046.61
Community Guilsfield Valid Date: Officer: Council: 09/03/2015 Nicholas Morgan
Applicant: Mr Evans, Stone House Farm, Maes Mawr, Welshpool, Powys, SY21 9DB
Location: Stone House Farm, Maes Mawr, Welshpool, Powys, SY21 9DB
Proposal: Full: Erection of a general purpose agricultural building together with construction of hardstanding and all other associated works
Application Application for Full Planning Permission Type:
The reason for Committee determination
The local member has called the application to be determined at planning committee due to the sensitive nature of the application.
Site Location and Description
This application is in respect of the erection of an agricultural building at Stonehouse Farm, Guilsfield. The site is located approximately 4km to the west of the village of Guilsfield within the area known as Maesmawr. The farm complex and application site is situated adjacent to the B4392 highway.
The proposal is to be set in a field to the south west of the existing farmstead. The proposal is for steel portal frame building for the purposes of a feed store which measures 18.29m in length, 9.14m in width and 6.15m in height to the ridge. It is proposed that the building will have concrete walls with box profile sheeting and a fibre cement sheet roof. The application also includes an area of hard standing surrounding the building.
Consultee Response
Community Council - Support
Cllr David Jones – Requests it goes to Planning Committee
Building Control – No comments received
Powys Highways – No objection
Environmental Health – No objection
Powys Ecologist – No comments received
1 Page 17 NRW – No objection
We have no comments to make other than to refer you to the ‘Guidance notes for developers’ that is attached. We request that a copy of the guidance notes is provided to the applicants with any permission given for the proposal.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any further information or clarification.
Land Drainage – No objection subject to conditions – comments below
Thank you for consulting the local Land Drainage Authority on this application. Having reviewed the submitted information may we make the following observations/comments/recommendations:-
Flood Defence. Comment: The Authority holds no historical flooding information relating to the site.
Informative: Any proposed interference of any existing watercourse (open channel or culverted) will require the prior consent from Powys CC Land Drainage under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991 (as amended by the Flood & Water Management Act 2010). Relevant application forms and guidance notes should be sought from the Land Drainage Section.
Surface Water Drainage. Observation: Reference is made in Item 6.1 ‘Policy Context’ of the Design & Access Statement to the development incorporating adequate provision for drainage including the use of sustainable drainage system. Further mention to surface water disposal is shown in Item 13 - ‘Assessment of Flood Risk’ on the planning application, where it indicates disposal of surface water run-off to soakaways.
No drainage details/drawings have been submitted in support the design principles mentioned above.
Comment: The hydrology of receiving water bodies can be affected by the presence of a new impermeable surface. A new roof and hardstanding may increase the volume of runoff that reaches the receiving watercourse and also reduce the time it takes to get there. This has implications for channel stability, aquatic habitats and flooding. Where the movement of any existing channels is required, this may also affect the local hydrological regime.
It is noted that the applicant proposes to dispose surface water to soakaway. In accordance with good practice the design of the soakaway should be in accordance with BRE Digest 365 to cater for a 1 in 100 year return storm event plus an allowance of 20% for climate change.
Engineering details/drawings, calculations and location of the proposed soakaway(s) and should be submitted and approved in writing by the LPA.
If soakaways or other sustainable drainage designs are not feasible, drainage calculations to limit the discharge rate from the site equivalent to a Greenfield run-off rate would need to be
2 Page 18 prepared. The attenuation drainage system should be designed so that storm events of up to 1 in 100 year + 20% for climate change and will not cause flooding of any property either within the proposed development or any other in the vicinity. There must be no discharge to a surface water body or sewer that results from the first 5mm of any rainfall event.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed surface water drainage systems for the site are fully compliant with regulations and are of robust design.
Recommendation: No development shall commence until a scheme for the surface water drainage of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be completed before any of the site becomes operational.
Contaminated Land – No objection – comments below:
Concerning Planning Application P/2015/0249 it is possible to advise that there are no concerns in relation to risks associated with the potential presence of historic land contamination
Wales and West Utilities – No comments received.
Public Response
Neighbours as P/2014/0175 – no comments received
Planning History
AGRI 2008 0059 - Formation of a silage pit – Planning Permission needed - 17.7.08 P2008 1536 - Construction of a silage pit – Conditional Consent - 22.12.08 P2008 1721 - Erection of an agricultural building – Conditional Consent - 2.2.09 P/2010/0827 - Earth Banked Slurry Store – conditional consent – 15.10.10 P/2012/0914 - Construction of a stone cow track (retrospective) – 27.12.12 P/2013/0569 - Change of use of existing forestry land associated with the importation, tipping and spreading of waste material (top soil and sub soil) and associated engineering operations (retrospective) and material operations on land involving the spreading of 300 mm of topsoil to cap the area of soil deposition (proposed) – Conditional Consent - 16.04.14 P/2014/0175 - Full: Erection of an agricultural building for the accommodation of livestock, construction of hardstanding and all other associated works – conditional consent – 01.05.14 P/2014/1077 - Erection of an extension to agricultural building to cover existing yard area and all associated works – Conditional Consent – 08.01.15
Principal Planning Constraints
Public Right of Way 261/L.39/1 travels through the farm complex Public Right of Way 261/522/1 (Glyndwr’s Way) travels along the U2431 highway, approximately 133 metres south of the application site
Principal Planning Policies
National Policies
3 Page 19 Planning Policy Wales (Edition 7, July 2014 TAN 5 - Nature Conservation and Planning (September 2009) TAN 6 – Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (2010) TAN 23 – Economic Development (2014)
Local Policies Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010) UDP GP1 - Development Control UDP GP4 – Highway Parking and Requirements UDP DC9 – Protection of Water Resources UDP DC13 - Surface Water Drainage UDP EC9 - Agricultural Development UDP ENV 2 - Safeguarding the Landscape UDP ENV 3 – Safeguarding Biodiversity and Natural Habitats UDP ENV 7 – Protected Species UDP TR 2– Tourist Attractions and Development Areas
RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement
Officer Appraisal
Key Policies
As Local Planning Authority, Powys County Council has a statutory duty to determine submitted applications in accordance with the provisions of the development plan unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for Powys is the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) which was adopted in March 2010.
The UDP recognises the need for development in the open countryside and supports agricultural development in principle providing that the proposals do not give rise to unacceptable amenity, access or environmental issues. The appropriate bodies have been consulted on the above matters to provide Development Management with expert advice and have not expressed any concerns regarding the development.
Policy EC9 of the Powys UDP provides the specific context for the application. This policy seeks to reduce the visual impact of such developments by encouraging agricultural structures to be grouped together, by using appropriate materials to assimilate the development into the landscape, and insisting on additional landscaping or earth mounding in particularly sensitive situations.
Bearing the above policy context in mind and having considered the development in question, the relevant principal material planning matters are those of visual and landscape impact, neighbouring amenity, highway safety and pollution control.
Visual and landscape impact
The site is located in an agricultural field adjacent to the B4392 and will be clearly visible for a short section of this vehicular highway. In addition, there is a footpath which passes through the existing farmyard which will also give clear public views of the proposal. From these receptor points, the proposed building will be grouped with existing buildings of similar ilk and
4 Page 20 it is not considered that it will have a significant impact on the visual amenity of the area. It is evident that the building will visible from the nearest non-associated property namely the Old School approximately 150m to the south west however as it will form part of the existing farm complex with the majority of the farm forming the backdrop, it is unlikely to cause an unacceptable landscape or visual impact.
The proposed building is not considered to be out of scale with the existing structures at Stonehouse Farm and will be set in the context of an existing farm complex. In light of these matters, it is not considered that the proposal will appear conspicuous within the wider landscape and no objection is raised on landscape grounds.
Overall, the proposal by nature of its siting, scale and appearance is considered to be acceptable on landscape and visual grounds and accords with the objectives of policy EC9 in this respect.
Neighbouring amenity
In considering applications for agricultural buildings, the main factors taken into account in respect of neighbouring amenity are those of noise, odour and pest nuisance.
It is noted that the nearest residential property to the proposed facility would be that of Old School which is also a B & B accommodation. It is also noted that a holiday chalet site is located on the opposite side of the B4392 road from the farm.
Taking into account the degree of separation between the development and the nearest sensitive uses, together with the fact that the facility is to be used for feed storage in connection with an existing farm complex, the potential for residential amenity to be affected by the proposed development is limited and would not be so great as to warrant the refusal of the application on amenity grounds.
The Environmental Health Department have raised no objection to the scheme.
Highway safety
It is noted that the proposed development is in connection with an existing use of land and any increased use of local highways in connection with this development is not considered to be significant.
It is also noted that the Highway Authority has not objected to the scheme and have not suggested any improvements to be made.
In light of the advice received from the Highway Authority, Development Management raises no objection to the development on highway safety grounds.
Pollution control
Whilst the control of pollution is a material planning matter and the UDP contains a policy in respect of the protection of water resources (policy DC9), it is Natural Resources Wales that is the statutory body responsible for the management of the water environment and the
5 Page 21 pollution of it. They have been consulted on the application and raise no objection in respect of either ground or surface waters.
Overall, the proposal is considered to be complaint with the objectives of UDP policy DC9 and as such no objection is raised on the grounds of pollution.
Land Drainage
It is noted that the application does not include any drainage details/drawings relating to surface water drainage. However, the land drainage engineer has been consulted and does not object to the proposal subject to the inclusion of an informative relating to land drainage as well as a condition requiring a scheme for the surface water to ensure the development satisfies land drainage specification.
Conclusion
It is concluded that the proposal complies with the relevant planning policies, and that it can proceed without causing unacceptable detriment to the visual amenity of the area or the local environment. It is recommended that consent is granted subject to the following conditions:
Recommendation
The recommendation is one of approval.
1. The development to which this permission relates shall be begun no later than the expiration of five years from the date of this permission. 2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans stamped as approved on XXXX (drawing no's: RJC/REE/AE/01/1, RJC/REE/AE/02/1, RJC/REE/AE/S2/05 & RJC/REE/AE/S2/06). 3. No development shall commence until a scheme for the surface water drainage of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be completed before any of the site becomes operational. 4. Notwithstanding any details shown on the approved plans submitted the roof shall be coloured a dark blue grey (BS 18B29). 5. The external cladding of the building(s) shall be a dark blue grey, brown or green.
Reasons 1. Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. To ensure adherence to the plans stamped as approved in the interests of clarity and a satisfactory development. 3. To prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal in accordance with policies GP1 and DC13 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan. 4. In order to minimise visual impact in accordance with policies GP1 and EC9 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan. 5. In order to minimise impact in accordance with policies GP1, (EC9 orEC1) of the Powys Unitary Development Plan.
Notes
6 Page 22 Any proposed interference of any existing watercourse (open channel or culverted) will require the prior consent from Powys CC Land Drainage under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991 (as amended by the Flood & Water Management Act 2010). Relevant application forms and guidance notes should be sought from the Land Drainage Section.
______Case Officer: Nicholas Morgan- Planning Officer Tel: 01938 551051 E-mail:[email protected]
7 Page 23 This page is intentionally left blank Page 25 This page is intentionally left blank PTLRW99 - 20154
Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report
Application No: P/2015/0878 Grid Ref: 309727.36 298801.44
Community Tregynon C Valid Date: Officer: Council: 02/09/2015 Dunya Fourie
Applicant: Mr Malcolm Brown, Olivers Lane, Bryn Afal, Tregynon, Newtown, Powys, SY16 3EP
Location: Plot 6 adj Bryn Afal, Tregynon, Newtown, Powys, SY16 3EP
Proposal: Erection of a dwelling and associated works
Application Application for Full Planning Permission Type:
The reason for Committee determination This application is before committee at the request of the Local Member
Site Location and Description
The site is located in Tregynon, the site plan indicates that the dwelling will be located within land which currently forms part of the residential curtilage/planning unit for the applicant’s property to the north. The site is access via Oliver’s Lane which is under private ownership, off the unclassified road. The site is bounded by residential dwellings to the north, east and south.
This application seeks full planning consent for the erection and siting of a two storey, two bedroom dwelling. The overall height of the dwelling is 4.6m from ground level to roof plane on the western elevation. The dwelling is cut into the existing bank to create a single storey east elevation and two storey west elevation. The overall footprint of the proposed dwelling is 92m2.
The dwelling is proposed to be sited approximately 6 metres from the boundary fence of the neighbouring property to the east and 5 metres from the boundary treatment with the property to the north and 16 metres from the corner of the dwelling to Cream Cottages to the south west.
The application also seeks consent for extension to the existing access, internal parking and turning area and construction of a new boundary fence along the southern boundary of the site. The fence for which consent is sought would extend to approximately 2.7m in height.
Consultee Response
County Councillor Joy Shearer E mail of 23 September 2015 Please will you arrange for this application to be determined by the Planning Committee. Reason
1 Page 27 In the interest of the wider community and history of this plot.
Tregynon Community Council E mail of 9 October 2015
I write as clerk to Tregynon Community Council.
The councillors have considered the application for Plot 6 adjacent to Bryn Afal. The have made the following comments:
1. They are still concerned about water and run off. 2. They are adamant that any building must not overlook any other property. 3. They do not consider that the proposed building is in keeping with the rest of the Olivers Lane development. 4. Any future fencing must not take light away from other properties. 5. They make the point that the area of Tregynon concerned is meant to be a conservation area.
Highways Authority No response received.
Wales & West Utilities Letter of 18 September 2015 According to our mains records Wales & West Utilities has no apparatus in the area of your enquiry. However Gas pipes owned by other GT's and also privately owned may be present in this area. Information with regard to such pipes should be obtained from the owners.
Safe digging practices, in accordance with HS(G)47, must be used to verify and establish the actual position of mains, pipes, services and other apparatus on site before any mechanical plant is used. It is your responsibility to ensure that this information is provided to all persons (either direct labour or contractors) working for you on or near gas apparatus.
Please note that the plans are only valid for 28 days from the date of issue and updated plans must be requested before any work commences on site if this period has expired.
Public Response
A site notice was erected on a tree adjacent on Oliver’s Lane adjacent to the entrance into the residential estate. The properties adjoining the site and adjacent to the site to the south were notified in writing.
One third party response has been received raising objection to the proposed development.
Planning History
Appeal Decision-APP/T6850/A/11/2164773 Erection of a dormer bungalow and formation of vehicular access. Appeal Dismissed.
P/2010/1172-Erection of a dormer bungalow and formation of vehicular access. Refused 16 June 2011
2 Page 28 P2010 0291 - Erection of a dormer bungalow & formation of a new vehicular access. Refused 6 May 2010
Principal Planning Policies
National planning policy Planning Policy Wales (7th Edition, July 2014) Technical Advice Note 12-Design (2014) Technical Advice Note 18-Transport (2007)
Local planning policy-Unitary Development Plan for Powys (March 2010) UDP SP2-Strategic Settlement Heirarchy UDP SP5-Housing Development UDP GP1-Development Control UDP GP3-Design and Energy Conservation UDP GP4-Highway and Parking Requirements UDP ENV11-Development in Conservation Areas UDP HP4-Settlement Development Boundaries and Capacities UDP HP5-Residential Development UDP HP17-Backland Development UDP DC10-Mains Sewerage Treatment UDP DC13-Surface Water Drainage
RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement
Officer Appraisal
Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Members are advised to consider this application in accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that, if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise
Principle of Development The site is within Tregynon development limits, within which there is a presumption in favour of appropriate new residential development.
Suitability of design
The surrounding properties to the north and east comprise detached two storey dwellings under a pitched roof construction. The dwellings are set within their own curtilage and the layout is predominantly low density.
In relation to the site, the dwellings to the north are at a higher ground level. The dwellings to the south west of the site are at a considerably lower ground level and comprise a mixture of detached and terraced two storey properties under pitched roof construction.
3 Page 29 Tregynon Conservation Area joins the southern boundary of the site and includes the dwellings to the south of the site.
The proposed dwelling has an unusual design and does not reflect the design of properties within the surrounding area. While it is noted that abstract designs can be incorporated into areas with a particular design precedent, for this to work they need to be of carefully sited and balanced with character of the surrounding area. The siting of this dwelling close to the east and north boundaries would appear cramped. As well as appearing cramped, the layout of the site is considered out of character with the low density layout of the properties to the north and east.
The cramped layout would be particularly noticeable when viewed from the B road to the south of the site and within the Tregynon Conservation Area. As a result of the difference in ground level the properties adjoining the site to the north and east are clearly visible from this aspect and the proposed dwelling would appear at odds with the design of these existing properties.
The cramped form of development and associated impact on the character of the surrounding area was included as a reason for dismissal of the previous planning appeal, indeed when considering residential development on the site the inspector states “cramped appearance at odds with the open appearance of the surrounding area”.
Impact on amenity
The key amenity concerns regarding residential development on the proposed site are overbearing impact on the occupiers of the proposed dwelling and on the occupiers of the neighbouring Cream Cottages, overlooking of the occupiers of Cream Cottages and impact on visual amenity from the surrounding area.
The ground level of the site and adjoining land varies greatly, the steep bank ascending to the north and the existing house to the north would have an overbearing impact on the residents of the proposal. Indeed the inspector states “as a result of the rapid changes in elevation the proposal would also result in a poor quality of life for its residents”. While the siting and design of the dwelling have changed from that considered in the appeal, the concerns regarding the overbearing impact of the neighbouring property on the occupiers of the proposed dwelling and associated curtilage remain.
Cream Cottages are at a much lower level than the proposed dwelling. This application proposes to construct a fence along the southern boundary of the site which would extend to approximately 2.7m in height. It is acknowledged that there is an existing fence under 2m on the southern boundary, nonetheless the increase in height of the boundary treatment would exacerbate the existing overbearing impact created through a difference in ground level and extended blank elevation, the additional height of the fencing would have a significant overbearing effect on the occupiers of Cream Cottages.
The western elevation of the proposed dwelling includes a balcony and floor to ceiling glazing at first floor height. The orientation and design of the dwelling has attempted to reduce the impact of overlooking by removing fenestration on the southern elevation. However, the use of the projecting balcony and glazing on this elevation would give the impression of
4 Page 30 overlooking of the amenity area associated with Cream Cottages which is at a considerable lower ground level.
Short range views into the site are clear from the road to the south of the site, the dwellings to the north and east of the site particularly frame these views due to the difference in ground level. When viewed from this aspect the proposed dwelling would appear cramped and ad hoc development. The inspector in the recent appeal decision considered development on this site is based on the use of land available rather than any considered approach to the character of the area. This consideration remains relevant to this proposal and as a result the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the visual character of the area.
Suitability of access arrangements
Access to the site is via Oliver’s Lane which is a narrow single width road with earth banks either side. The inspector states that the lack of footways would result in conflict with other vehicles and pedestrians by vehicles serving an additional dwelling.
It is acknowledged the additional traffic generated by the proposal dwelling may not be a lot, however as confirmed within the appeal statement, the conditions along Oliver’s Lane are unsatisfactory and any additional traffic would lead to an additional risk to road safety. When visiting the site, no footways existed on Oliver’s Lane and as such the concerns raised by the inspector remain relevant to this application.
Impact of surface water drainage
Information regarding the proposed discharge of surface water runoff has not been submitted with this application, however it is considered that a suitable drainage scheme could be implemented on the site and as such this information could be secured via condition without being to the detriment of surface water drainage and flooding.
Recommendation The proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and on residential amenity. The development would also have a detrimental impact on road safety. The recommendation is one of refusal.
Reasons for Refusal 1. The proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and as such fails to accord with Powys Unitary Development Plan policies GP1, GP3, ENV11 and HP17. 2. The proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity afforded to the occupiers of the proposed dwelling and those of Cream Cottages to the south of the site, as such the proposal fails to accord with Powys Unitary Development Plan policies GP1 and HP17. 3. The proposed development would have a detrimental highway safety impact on the users of Oliver’s Lane and as such fails to accord with Powys Unitary Development Plan policies GP1 and GP4. ______Case Officer: Dunya Fourie- Planning Officer Tel: 01597 82 7230 E-mail:[email protected]
5 Page 31 This page is intentionally left blank Page 33 This page is intentionally left blank PTLRW99 - 20155
Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report
Application No: P/2014/0165 Grid Ref: 307386.39 287824.39
Community Mochdre with Penstrowed Valid Date: Officer: Council: 19/02/2014 Louise Evans
Applicant: Mr Robert Beardall, The Kincoed, Mochdre, Newtown, Powys, SY16 4JW.
Location: Land at Kincoed, Mochdre, Newtown, Powys, SY16 4JT
Proposal: Erection of a dwelling (outline), formation of vehicular access, installation of a septic tank and associated works
Application Application for Outline Planning Permission Type:
The reason for Committee determination At the request of the Head of Development Management.
Site Location and Description The application is submitted in respect of the erection of a detached dwelling to fulfil a stated need for an affordable home which is to be located within a rectangular area of land to the south of a property known as New Bungalow, Mochdre. The site, which comprises of 600sq.m, constitutes an area of agricultural land which currently forms part of the agricultural holding of Kincoed.
The application has been submitted in outline with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale being reserved for approval at a later stage.
The submitted plan indicates that the site will be accessed via a private driveway gaining access from a class 3 highway. The proposed means of foul water disposal is via a septic tank and associated soak away. Detailed porosity test results are submitted to demonstrate the suitability of the soil for such soakaways.
Consultee Response Powys Highways: No objection subject to recommended conditions relating to access visibility, access gradient and access surfacing.
Mochdre with Penstrowed Community Council: Support on the basis that the development would keep local people in the community. Expresses a view that the Community Council considered it preferable for the site of the proposed dwelling to be moved closer to the farm house and that the existing access serving Kincoed Farm is used as opposed to a new access.
Powys Building Control: Building Regulations application required
1 Page 35 Powys Council Environmental Health Services: No objection
Powys Council Affordable Housing Officer: Supports the application
Cllr Roche Davies: Supports the application
Representations No representations received
Planning History None
Principal Planning Constraints Rural Settlement
Principal Planning Policies National Planning Guidance Planning Policy Wales edition 7 (2014) Technical Advice Note 2 Planning and Affordable Housing (2006) Technical Advice Note 6 Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (2010)
Local Planning Policy Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010) UDP SP2 - Strategic Settlement Hierarchy UDP HP9 - Affordable Housing in Rural Settlements UDP HP10 - Affordability Criteria UDP DC13 - Surface Water Drainage UDP ENV 2 - Safeguarding the Landscape UDP ENV3 – Safeguarding Biodiversity and Natural Habitats UDP GP1 - Development Control UDP GP3 - Design and Energy Conservation UDP GP4 - Highway and Parking Requirements UDP DC11 - Non Mains Sewage Treatment UDP DC13 - Surface Water Drainage
Supplementary Planning Guidance Powys Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing for Local Needs (July 2011)
RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement
Officer Appraisal
Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Members are advised to consider this application in accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that, if regard is to be had to
2 Page 36 the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise
Principle of development The principle of this development has been assessed against Unitary Development Plan policy HP9 - Affordable Dwellings in Rural Settlements. This policy permits single dwellings within rural settlements which provide affordable housing for a local need where the dwelling would be sensitively designed and located within a rural settlement. In addition, satisfactory arrangements must be put in place to ensure that the dwelling would remain affordable in perpetuity and available for local people. The application has also been considered against the Affordable Housing for Local Needs SPG which provides more detailed guidance for determining such applications.
In light of the above policy context, the main issues to be considered with this application are whether the proposal is located within the settlement of Mochdre, whether it can be integrated within the settlement without affecting the amenity and character of the area, whether it is an affordable dwelling and whether the applicants are in ‘need’.
Siting The application seeks consent for an affordable dwelling as an exception to normal housing policy on the basis that the site is considered to be grouped with the existing built form which collectively comprises the rural settlement of Mochdre.
Rural settlements have no definitive settlement development boundaries which define the limits where new residential developments (as exceptions) will be permitted. The assessment of site suitability is a matter to consider on the merits of the specific application taking into account the objective of planning policy which is to safeguard the character and amenity of the area by resisting isolated forms of development.
It is considered that the site is suitable in terms of location as the dwelling will be viewed in conjunction with other dwellings from close, mid and long range. The comments received from Mochdre with Penstrowed Community Council with regards to an alternative site are noted, however, it is considered that the selected site is the optimum site in terms of minimising overall environmental impact with regards to visual amenity and highway safety. It is acknowledged that the settlement of Mochdre is characterised by a scattered built form of detached dwellings and farmsteads and it is considered that this proposal would not be incongruous with that pattern of development.
Scale and design The application has been submitted as a proposal for an affordable dwelling, as such the scale of the property is limited to 130 sq.m of internal floor area and a plot size of 600 sq.m. In addition, any approval will be subject to a legal agreement which restricts the sale value of the property as well as eligible occupiers. These mechanisms are used to ensure that the property remains affordable in perpetuity.
The specific design details of the proposal including its scale will be the subject of further consideration at the reserved matters stage. However, the indicative parameters of scale as set out in this application are indicated to be 9m in height, 12m in length and 7m in width, which although are external measurements, do allow for an internal floor area in excess of
3 Page 37 130sq.m as permitted by policy HP10. In order to control this matter, a condition can be attached to this outline permission limiting the internal floor area of the property to 130sq.m.
Therefore, subject to the inclusion of this condition and the requirement for the applicant to enter into a Section 106 agreement with the Council, it is considered that the proposal could meet the requirements of planning policy.
The need for an affordable dwelling There is clearly support in principle for affordable housing in rural areas to help support rural services and the local economy. However, appropriate justification is essential as the affordable housing policies override the general presumption against housing in the countryside.
In this instance, the applicants have submitted an Affordable Housing Eligibility Questionnaire together with additional information regarding their financial position. It is considered that sufficient information has been submitted in order for Development Management to conclude that the applicants meet the requirements of policy HP10 and the SPG relating to affordable housing.
Highway safety The location of the proposed vehicular access serving the site is considered to be at an optimum location in terms of ensuring maximum visibility from the access along the highway in each direction and forward stopping site distance as such relates to other road users. The plans demonstrate visibility of 2.4x120m in each direction along the highway from the proposed private access can be achieved. The Local Highway Authority has no objection to the scheme subject to conditions to safeguard adequate visibility and surfacing. In light of the above, the proposal is considered to comply with Unitary Development Plan GP4.
Foul water arrangements The submitted porosity calculations indicate that the soil type is suitable to provide soak away drainage for the foul water. There are no private water supplies or watercourses likely to be affected by the proposal and Powys Environmental Health Services has no objection to the scheme. The proposals comply with Powys Unitary Development Plan policy DC11.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that outline planning permission be granted subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement with the Council to secure an affordable dwelling in perpetuity and subject to the following conditions:
Conditions:
1. No development shall commence until matters reserved for further submission of details and plans in this application, namely layout, scale, external appearance and landscaping, have been submitted to and approved in writing and by way of plans stamped approved by the Local Planning Authority.
2. Application for approval of reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
4 Page 38 3. 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, whichever is the later.
4. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans stamped as approved (date of confirmation that section 106 agreement has been engrossed)
5. Prior to their first use full details of materials to be used externally on walls and roof of the development including fenestration shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details
6. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out within 12 months of the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no garages, buildings, extensions, dormer windows or rooflights shall be erected or constructed other than those expressly authorised by this permission or subsequent Reserved Matters approval.
8. The gross internal floorspace of the dwelling hereby permitted (excluding any detached garage) shall not exceed 130 square metres.
9 The vehicular access improvement works as shown on the submitted plan including the construction of the improved visibility splays in each direction along the highway from the access shall be undertaken in full and completed prior to the commencement of building operations. 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.
10. Any entrance gates shall be set back at least 9 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway and shall be constructed so as to be incapable of opening towards the highway.
11. The centre line of the first 9 metres of the access road measured from the edge of the adjoining carriageway shall be at right angles to that edge of the side of the access to the development site.
12. Prior to the commencement of building operations the area of the access to be used by vehicles is to be constructed to a minimum of 250mm of sub-base material, for a distance of 9 metres from the edge of the adjoining carriageway.
13. The gradient of the access shall not exceed 1 in 15 for the first 5.5m measured from the edge of the adjoining carriageway along the centre line of the access 14. No storm water drainage from the development site shall be allowed to discharge onto the county highway
5 Page 39 Reasons
1. To enable the Local Planning Authority to exercise proper control over the development in accordance with 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. Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
4. To ensure adherence to the plans stamped as approved in the interests of clarity and a satisfactory development.
5. To ensure satisfactory appearance of the development and to safeguard visual amenity in compliance with Policy GP1 and HP10 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan.
6. To ensure the sympathetic integration of the development with its setting in compliance with Policy GP1 and HP9 and ENV 2 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan.
7. In order to control further development which has the potential to have adverse effects on affordability of the dwelling in contradiction to policies HP9 and HP10 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan
8. To establish the upper parameters of scale which is considered to constitute an affordable dwelling in perpetuity in compliance with Powys Unitary Development Plan policy HP9
9 to 14. To safeguard highway safety in compliance GP4 and GP1 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan.
______Case Officer: Louise Evans - Senior Planning Officer (MRTPI) Tel: 01938 551127 E-mail:[email protected]
6 Page 40 Page 41 This page is intentionally left blank PTLRW100 - 2015
Delegated List
23/09/2015 00 14/10/2015 00 For the purpose of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the background papers relating to each individual planning application constitute all the correspondence on the file as numbered in the left hand column.
FOR INFORMATION Decisions of the Head of Regeneration, Property & Commissioning on Delegated Applications
Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate
land at Wynnstay Premises P/2014/1264 11/12/2014 00 CONSENT23/09/2015 Full: Erection of a Llanfair Caereinion FULL building for use as dental practice (use Watergate Street class D1) and all associated works, including the demolition SY 21 0 RB of an existing buidling
The Courtyard P/2015/0316 30/03/2015 00 REFUSE23/09/2015 Full : Conversion of part Four Crosses FULL of an agricultural building to a private Domgay Lane dwelling and installation Llanmynach of a private treatment plant SY 22 6 SL
Page 43
1 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate
Providence Chapel P/2015/0328 31/03/2015 00 CONSENT23/09/2015 Full: Change of use of Garthmyl FULL chapel to residential use, installation of new septic tank and Welshpool alterations to existing access. SY 15 6 SB
Land at Hafod Y Foel P/2015/0418 29/04/2015 00 CONSENT23/09/2015 Full: Installation of 2 no . FULL wind turbines with a blade tip height of 22.5m (18m to hub Llanbrynmair height) and associated control cabinets at grid SY 19 7 AF refs: turbine 1: E292454 N301878 turbine 2: E292426 N301882
Heartsease Bungalow P/2015/0603 23/06/2015 00 LAWFUL USE23/09/2015 Certificate of Llanddewi CLA 1 Lawfulness for an existing use (Section 191): Use of bungalow Llandrindod Wells as a single dwelling LD 1 6 SN
Ynys-Newydd (Land Opposite) P/2015/0671 07/08/2015 00 REFUSE23/09/2015 Outline planning Ynys Uchaf OUT permission with some matters reserved Lock Cottages relating to access, Ystradgynlais appearance landscaping and scale SA 9 1 RQ in relation to a four bedroom detatched house
Land near Cwmadee P/2015/0712 29/07/2015 00 CONSENT23/09/2015 Section 73 application Discoed REM for Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission Presteigne P/2009/1326 to extend time limit for LD 8 2 NN commencement of development
Page 44
2 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate
P/2015/0755 03/08/2015 00 CONSENT23/09/2015 Change of Use : FULL Ground floor shop to rural estate agents 1 Berriew Street
SY 21 7 SH
Land at Cowlton P/2015/0054 15/01/2015 00 CONSENT24/09/2015 Installation of a wind Old Churchstoke FULL turbine (blade tip height of 17.98m & hub height of 15.18m) at grid ref: Montgomery E:329267/N:295618 (retrospective) SY 15 6 EL (resubmission of planning application P/2013/0641)
Keepers Cottage P/2015/0473 20/05/2015 00 CONSENT24/09/2015 Upgrading of Kerry FULL agricultural access to serve residential rural Borfa Wen workers dwelling at Newtown Keepers Cottage and formation of a new SY 16 4 PG passing bay
Glan Gwden P/2015/0545 12/06/2015 00 CONSENT24/09/2015 Erection of a free range Trefeglwys FULL egg production unit to accommodate 32,000 chickens together with associated feed bins, internal farm access SY 17 5 PX and associated works
Riverside Cottage P/2015/0697 30/07/2015 00 CONSENT24/09/2015 Householder: Extension HOUS to existing dwelling and part demolition of ruined Station Road out buildings.
LD 7 1 DT
Page 45
3 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate
75 Garth Owen P/2015/0710 31/07/2015 00 CONSENT25/09/2015 Householder: Proposed HOUS domestic extension and demolition of existing Cedewain lean to Newtown
SY 16 1 JL
Glantwymyn Health Centre P/2015/0747 11/08/2015 00 CONSENT25/09/2015 Full: Extension of Cemmaes Road FULL existing car park serving an existing Glantwymyn health centre
SY 20 8 LB
Quarry Shop Cafe P/2015/0769 10/08/2015 00 CONSENT25/09/2015 Full: change of use of FULL part of first floor area (associated with the 13 Maengwyn Street property) from class A 1 Machynlleth (retail use) to class A3 use (restaurant & cafe) SY 20 8 EB to provide additional seating area for existing cafe on ground floor
Coed Y Marchog P/2015/0566 02/07/2015 00 CONSENT27/09/2015 Full: Erection of four Ffynnon Gynydd FULL holiday chalets and a reception building, to include associated parking HR 3 5 NB
Playing Field at Ysgol Ynyscedwen P/2015/0705 03/08/2015 00 REFUSE 28/09/2015 Outline development for Ystradgynlais OUT up to 6 residential dwellings all matters James Street reserved
SA 9 1 EX
Page 46
4 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate
Jacob Cottage P/2015/0714 03/08/2015 00 REFUSE28/09/2015 Full: Change of use, Rhos-Y-Meirch FULL conversion and extension of outbuilding into holiday accomodation LD 7 1 PE
Pen Y Bont P/2015/0099 09/02/2015 00 CONSENT29/09/2015 LBC: Conversion of Cemmaes Road LBC storage space to living accommodation and internal and external Machynlleth alterations SY 20 8 JY
Unit 28 P/2015/0130 27/03/2015 00 CONSENT29/09/2015 Full: Erection of a BJ's Mid Wales Ltd Mochdre FULL storage building for electrical goods Mochdre Industrial Estate Newtown
SY 16 4 LE
Lloran House P/2015/0544 06/07/2015 00 CONSENT29/09/2015 LBC : replace and Llanrhaeadr Ym LBC upgrade current lean to structure WaterfallMochnant Street
SY 10 0 JX
Llety'r Eos Park P/2015/0718 04/08/2015 00 CONSENT29/09/2015 Full: Erection of a FULL dwelling and installation of septic tank (previously approved on Llanfyllin planning approval M10003 with different SY 22 5 HT design)
Page 47
5 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate
Land adjacent Cae Twm P/2015/0796 12/08/2015 00 CONSENT29/09/2015 Reserved Matters: Llandyssil RES Erection of a detached dwelling with garage Montgomery
SY 15 6 LQ
Cynlais County Primary School P/2015/0191 20/02/2015 00 CONSENT30/09/2015 Full: Conversion of FULL former school building to form a 17 bed Heol Giedd residential / nursing Ystradgynlais home together with a rear extension and SA 9 1 LQ associated works
Tyn Yr Wtra P/2015/0627 05/08/2015 00 CONSENT30/09/2015 Full: Installation of a Adfa FULL ground mounted solar pv array and associated metering cabinet
SY 16 3 BT
Gwystre Farm P/2015/0654 06/07/2015 00 APPROVE30/09/2015 Householder: Gwystre HOUS Demolition of existing single storey extension and erection of 2 storey Llandrindod Wells extension as replacement LD 1 6 RN
The Smithfield Bell P/2015/0715 06/08/2015 00 CONSENT30/09/2015 Full: Installation of FULL external booth seating (retrospective) Mill Lane Welshpool
SY 21 7 BL
Page 48
6 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate
P/2015/0750 12/08/2015 00 CONSENT30/09/2015 Section 73 application : REM Variation of condition 2 of planning approval Land off Brecon Road P/2012/0801 to extend Ystradgynlais the period of time for the submission of reserved matters
Cwrt Y Gaer P/2015/0773 05/08/2015 00 CONSENT30/09/2015 Householder: Extension Llanwern HOUS into an existing building to create additional residential Brecon accommodation LD 3 0 RP
Plot 2 adjacent to Ithon Lodge P/2015/0777 06/08/2015 00 CONSENT30/09/2015 Reserved matters Penybont RES application in respect of outline approval P/2014/1202 for the erection of a single dwelling LD 1 5 SW
Llethrau Farmhouse P/2015/0258 10/03/2015 00 CONSENT01/10/2015 Full: Change of use of Felindre FULL curtilage land into land for the stationing of 'shepherds huts' for Knighton holiday accommodation, LD 7 1 YT erection of a detached holiday let unit and conversion/erection of existing workshop into guests toilets and Pen-Y-Cefn TEL /2015/0017 06/08/2015 00 PP 01/10/2015 TEL: Application for CTIL Base Station TELE NOTNEEDED determination as to whether prior approval is required under part Aberangell 24 permitted development rights for SY 20 9 NJ proposed telecommunications installation upgrade and associated works (CTIL 127090)
Page 49
7 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate
Police Station P/2015/0776 06/08/2015 00 CONSENT01/10/2015 Full: Change of use of FULL first floor offices to first floor residential flat Dyffryn Road Llandrindod Wells
LD 1 6 AN
Llanbister TEL /2015/0019 13/08/2015 00 PP 01/10/2015 Proposed base station Glanrafon Farm TELE NOTNEEDED installation. Llandrindod Wells
LD 1 6 TS
Commodore Yard P/2014/1076 03/11/2014 00 CONSENT 02/10/2015 Outline: Erection of 5 OUT S106 dwellings (3 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed) and East Street associated access Rhayader works LD 6 5 EN
Royal Welsh Showground P/2015/0265 06/03/2015 00 CONSENT02/10/2015 Full: Formation of Llanelwedd FULL additional plateaued hardstanding parking areas and associated Builth Wells access roads LD 2 3 TU
Cefnllyn P/2015/0694 07/08/2015 00 REFUSE02/10/2015 Outline: Rural workers Nantmel OUT dwelling and detatched garage - all matters reserved
LD 1 6 EW
Page 50
8 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate
Lower Trederwen Farm P/2015/0706 13/08/2015 00 CONSENT02/10/2015 Full: Erection of a steel Arddleen FULL portal framed building for livestock housing Trederwen Lane and all associated Llanymynech works SY 22 6 RZ
Land Adjacent Y Bryn P/2015/0883 18/09/2015 00 RETURNED02/10/2015 Application for approval RES of reserved matters following outline permission Meifod P/2012/0515 SY 22 6 DF
New House P/2015/0606 01/07/2015 00 CONSENT05/10/2015 Full: Demolition of Fron FULL existing agricultural buildings and erection of replacement Montgomery agricultural building and alterations to access SY 15 6 RY
Recreational Field P/2015/0644 15/07/2015 00 CONSENT05/10/2015 Full: Construction of Churchstoke FULL recreational playground including installation of Cae Camlad multi play equipment and erection of galvanised bowtop SY 15 6 AA fence
Shettingau Eggs Ltd P/2015/0669 15/07/2015 00 CONSENT05/10/2015 Full: Erection of an St Harmon FULL extension to existing free range egg unit Shettingau Rhayader
LD 6 5 LG
Page 51
9 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate
The Old Vicarage P/2015/0688 10/08/2015 00 CONSENT05/10/2015 Householder: HOUS Demolition of existing leanto extension Penrhos (outhouse/store/utility) Llanymynech & erection of a single storey extension SY 22 6 QE together with erection of a new detached double garage and erection of single garage/logstore to replace existing
P/2015/0721 10/08/2015 00 CONSENT05/10/2015 Householder: Bathroom Upper Cwmtwrch HOUS extension at first floor level to side and rear 8 Heol Gwys dwelling.
SA 9 2 XG
Caerhelem P/2015/0770 10/08/2015 00 CONSENT05/10/2015 Householder: Erection HOUS of a two storey side extension and a single storey rear extension Llangammarch Wells
LD 4 4 DN
Pen Y Bont P/2015/0098 09/02/2015 00 CONSENT06/10/2015 Householder: Cemmaes Road HOUS Conversion of storage space to living accommodation and Machynlleth internal and external alterations SY 20 8 JY
Plot 3 Nant Ceiriog P/2015/0498 08/06/2015 00 CONSENT06/10/2015 Reserved matters: Y Fan RES Erection of a dwelling at Plot 3 Llanidloes
Page 52
10 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate
Bethel Church P/2015/0720 20/08/2015 00 CONSENT06/10/2015 Demolition of existing HOUS and erection of replacement garage Mount Street and alterations to Welshpool vehicular access SY 21 7 LJ
Pendeintir P/2015/0742 11/08/2015 00 CONSENT06/10/2015 Householder: Erection HOUS of detached garage to replace existing garden Pandy Road shed (to be demolished ) Llanbrynmair to provide secure accommodation for SY 19 7 DY vehicle and secure storage and workbench space
Land to the South of A458 P/2015/0780 07/08/2015 00 CONSENT06/10/2015 Full: Retrospective FULL application to provide a new vehicular access track to the land to the Foel South of the A458, Foel.
Godor Fach P/2015/0708 12/08/2015 00 CONSENT07/10/2015 Full: Erection of an FULL agricultural building and garage/workshop Meifod Road Llansantffraid
SY 22 6 XS
P/2015/0716 17/08/2015 00 REFUSE07/10/2015 Householder: Drop kirb HOUS at property 3 Green gardens Rhayader
LD 6 5 DR
Page 53
11 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate
Lower Maen P/2015/0727 13/08/2015 00 CONSENT07/10/2015 Full: Erection of steel FULL portal framed extension to an existing agricultural building Meifod
SY 22 6 BN
Land at Clos Bryn Y Ddol P/2015/0763 07/08/2015 00 CONSENT07/10/2015 Full: Erection of a pair Gungrog Hill FULL of semi-detached dwellings, formation of vehicular Welshpool access/parking and associated works SY 21 7 UP
P/2015/0788 12/08/2015 00 REFUSE07/10/2015 Full: Change of use of The Bear's Head FULL land to the rear of The Bear to form a site for 8 East Street camping pods. Erection Rhayader of single storey extension to The Bear LD 6 5 DN to form a small lounge/kitchen and toilet/shower block for the camping pods
Ddole P/2015/0794 28/08/2015 00 CONSENT07/10/2015 Full: Erection of a roof Llanbadarn Fynydd FULL over existing cattle yard. Llandrindod Wells
LD 1 6 YF
Glanyrafon P/2015/0797 13/08/2015 00 CONSENT07/10/2015 Householder: The Abermule HOUS erection of a traditionally built detched garage.
SY 15 6 NT
Page 54
12 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate
Neuadd Llwyd TEL /2015/0023 14/08/2015 00 PP 07/10/2015 Proposed Llanfair Caereinion TEL NOTNEEDED telecommunications installation upgrade and associated works Welshpool
SY 21 0 HP
Pound Farm P/2015/0672 17/07/2015 00 CONSENT08/10/2015 Full: Erection of an Dutlas FULL extension to the existing free range egg unit and extension to soil bund Knighton
LD 7 1 YA
Lymore P/2015/0744 28/07/2015 00 CONSENT08/10/2015 Full : Change of use of FULL first floor from hair salon (class A1 use) to Station Road residential use - 2 Caersws bedroom flat (class C3 use) SY 17 5 HY
Old Rectory P/2015/0756 05/08/2015 00 CONSENT08/10/2015 Householder: removal Cregina HOUS of the existing perspex lean to roof over the rear yard and construction of a traditional single storey LD 1 5 SF extension to provide a dining room and laundry. Removal of the existing profile sheet lean to roof over the Upper Dolley P/2015/0758 03/08/2015 00 REFCADW08/10/2015 Listed Building Consent LBC for various internal and external alterations / refurbishment works to Presteigne dwelling including 3 new windows, 2 new LD 8 2 EE dormers, new rooflights and new glazing to replace rooflights and reroofing of part of adjoining domestic cow
Page 55
13 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate
Upper Dolley P/2015/0759 03/08/2015 00 CONSENT08/10/2015 Householder: Various HOUS internal and external alterations / refurbishment works to Presteigne dwelling including 3 new windows, 2 new LD 8 2 EE dormers, new rooflights and new glazing to replace rooflights and reroofing of part of adjoining domestic cow Dol Y Maen TEL /2015/0020 14/08/2015 00 PP 08/10/2015 Proposed base station Foel TELE NOTNEEDED installation at CTIL 125357, VF 10779
SY 21 0 PA
Upper Scafell TEL /2015/0021 14/08/2015 00 PP 08/10/2015 Proposed Aberhafesp TEL NOTNEEDED telecommunications installation upgrade and Beehive Lane associated works
SY 16 3 NA
Mwyars TEL /2015/0022 14/08/2015 00 PP 08/10/2015 Proposed base station Tafolwern TELE NOTNEEDED installation at CTIL 127087, VF 30820
SY 19 7 DS
2 Myrtle Cottage P/2015/0808 17/08/2015 00 CONSENT08/10/2015 Construction of a HOUS carport Harpers Lane Presteigne
LD 8 2 AN
Page 56
14 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate
P/2015/0828 18/08/2015 00 CONSENT08/10/2015 Proposed side Harley Meadows HOUS extension and rear conservatory extention Warden Road
LD 8 2 NL
1 & 2 Beacon View P/2015/0109 30/01/2015 00 CONSENT12/10/2015 LBC: Amendments to Battle LBC the dwarf front boundary wall and reduction to ground Brecon level LD 3 9 RN
Providence House P/2015/0813 18/08/2015 00 CONSENT12/10/2015 Erection of garage with Hope Road, Hope HOUS storage above (including demolition of existing garage) Welshpool
SY 21 8 HF
P/2015/0764 19/08/2015 00 LAWFUL USE13/10/2015 Cerificate of lawful CLA 2 development for a proposed use or 38 Brickfield Street development Section 192 - Single storey extension for a modern SY 20 8 BS kitchen
D Sidoli & Sons Ltd P/2015/0818 18/08/2015 00 CONSENT13/10/2015 Erection of extension to FULL existing factory Henfaes Lane Welshpool
SY 21 7 BE
Page 57
15 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate
The Alders P/2015/0081 26/01/2015 00 CONSENT14/10/2015 Householder : Pool Quay HOUS Demolition of conservatory, porch and part of the garage, Welshpool erection of extensions to existing dwelling. SY 21 9 LG
The Automobile Palace P/2015/0722 23/07/2015 00 REFCADW14/10/2015 LBC: Retention of LBC works to secure stability of the building; Temple Street replacement of timber roof, glazing and lead flashing LD 1 5 HU
Little Bryn P/2015/0838 21/08/2015 00 LAWFUL USE14/10/2015 Section 191: Certificate Churchstoke CLA 1 for an existing use of annex as stand alone dwelling for more than Montgomery 10 years SY 15 6 DU
Page 58
16 PTLRW101 - 2015
Penderfyniad ar Apêl Appeal Decision
Ymchwiliad a gynhaliwyd ar 09-11/09/15 Inquiry held on 09-11/09/15 Ymweliad safle a wnaed ar 11/09/15 Site visit made on 11/09/15 gan Emyr Jones BSc(Hons) CEng by Emyr Jones BSc(Hons) CEng MICE MICE MCMI MCMI Arolygydd a benodir gan Weinidogion Cymru an Inspector appointed by the Welsh Ministers Dyddiad: 05 Hydref 2015 Date: 05 October 2015
Appeal Ref: APP/T6850/A/14/2213106 Site address: Upper Heath Farm, Presteigne, Powys, LD8 2HG The Welsh Ministers have transferred the authority to decide this appeal to me as the appointed Inspector. The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by D L Rogers & Sons against the decision of Powys County Council. The application Ref P/2013/0671, dated 26 June 2013, was refused by notice dated 30 January 2014. The development proposed is the erection of 2 No poultry buildings and associated control room, 4 feed bins, access and hardstanding.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of 2 No poultry buildings and associated control room, 4 feed bins, access and hardstanding at Upper Heath Farm, Presteigne in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P/2013/0671, dated 26 June 2013, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than five years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing Nos. IP/DR/01 dated June 2013, IP/DR/02 dated February 2013, and IP/DR/03 dated June 2013, received by the local planning authority on 3 July 2013, unless otherwise required by any subsequent condition on this planning permission. 3) Notwithstanding the details submitted, a detailed landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development. The submitted landscaping scheme shall include a scaled drawing and a written specification clearly describing the species, sizes, densities and planting numbers proposed. Drawings must include accurate details of all existing trees and hedgerows to be retained with their location, species, size and condition.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 59
Appeal Decision : APP/T6850/A/14/2213106
4) A landscape phasing scheme (implementation scheme) for the landscaping scheme as approved (condition 3) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development. The landscaping scheme shall thereafter be fully implemented in accordance with the phasing scheme (implementation scheme) so approved. 5) The approved landscaping scheme as implemented by the landscape phasing scheme (condition 4) shall thereafter be maintained for a period of five years. Such maintenance to include the replacement of any plant/tree/shrub/hedge that is removed, significantly damaged, diseased or dying, with plants/trees/shrubs/hedges of the same species and size within the next planting season, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 6) Prior to the commencement of building works full details of the colour and reflectivity of the external materials proposed in the construction of the buildings and feed bins hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 7) No development shall commence until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The statement shall provide for: i) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; ii) Loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding; v) Wheel washing facilities; vi) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; and, vii) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from construction works. 8) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no extensions or alterations to the unit, including the fixing of solar panels, shall be erected or made without the written consent of the local planning authority. 9) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended or in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting those Orders with or without modification, the development hereby approved shall only be used as a broiler unit. 10) No development shall begin until a Manure Management Scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted scheme shall include transportation arrangements including the sheeting of loads. The development shall not be operated other than in compliance with the approved scheme.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 602
Appeal Decision : APP/T6850/A/14/2213106
11) A suitably qualified archaeological contractor shall be present to conduct an archaeological watching brief whilst any ground works are taking place. The archaeological watching brief shall be undertaken to the standards laid down by the Institute of Archaeologists. The local planning authority shall be informed, in writing, at least two weeks prior to the commencement of the development, of the name of the archaeological contractor. A copy of the watching brief report shall be submitted to the local planning authority and Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust within two months of the fieldwork being completed. 12) The poultry units hereby permitted shall be limited to occupation by a maximum of 80,000 broilers. 13) No development shall take place until a scheme for separate foul and surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall not be brought into beneficial use until the approved drainage works have been completed. 14) No external lighting shall be provided other than in accordance with a scheme previously submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Applications for costs
2. At the Inquiry applications for costs were made by D L Rogers & Sons and a Rule 6 party of four local households against Powys County Council. These applications are the subject of separate Decisions.
Procedural and background matters
3. At its meeting of 20 February 2014 the Council’s Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee resolved to withdraw its objections to the appeal proposal and it did not call any witnesses to give evidence at the Inquiry. However, it did agree a Statement of Common Ground with the appellants which records that it has no objections on landscape and visual impact, impact on cultural and heritage assets, and potential for impact on the tourism industry in the locality grounds. A resubmitted application (Ref: P/2014/0202) was approved but that decision was quashed following a Judicial Review where the Council conceded to judgement on the basis of a failure to take account of cumulative effects.
4. Four local households co-ordinated by Mr S Jude were given Rule 6 status and representatives of those households were present at the Inquiry. Nevertheless, their case relies on written evidence and the authors thereof were not called to give evidence.
5. The appellants submitted two Addendum Rebuttal/Response Statements on the opening day. I requested that they be e-mailed to the Rule 6 party’s agent who did not attend the Inquiry and indicated that I would accept responses thereto before the close of the Inquiry. The Rule 6 party subsequently requested that it be given until Thursday 17 September to prepare further rebuttal evidence and I ruled against this request. Whilst one rebuttal was e-mailed on the 10th September 2015 it was not submitted to the Inquiry and not seen by those present at the Inquiry until after it had closed.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 361
Appeal Decision : APP/T6850/A/14/2213106
Main Issues
6. I consider the main issues in this case to be: (a) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area; (b) The effect of the proposal on the setting of cultural and heritage assets located within the surrounding area; and, (c) The effect of the proposal on the local tourism industry.
Reasons
Preliminary matters
7. The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) and along with the other environmental information I have taken it into account in coming to my decision.
8. In order to come to a conclusion in respect of the second and third main issues, I will need to consider the noise, dust and odour emissions to the environment likely to be generated by the proposal and to avoid duplication I do this at the start of my Reasons.
9. A Plant Noise Assessment has established that the dominant noise sources affecting the nearest dwellings to the site are currently road traffic on the B4362 and farm related activity. The assessment shows that the operation of extractor fans with attenuators would result in noise levels at or below the rating level limits agreed with
the Council’s Environmental Health Officer. These are 35 LA90 dB (day & evening) and 34 LA90 dB (night) for dwellings associated with the farming business and 32 LA90 dB (24 hours) for other dwellings. Although the fans to be used may differ from those modelled, there would be a requirement to adhere to these limits (via Environmental Permitting, see paragraphs 18 & 19 below).
10. I acknowledge that vehicular movements associated with the development would also generate noise and disturbance, including at night when the birds would be collected, but that would not be likely to exceed levels generated in the past when the farm included a potato growing enterprise which appears not to have resulted in any complaints from neighbouring occupiers.
11. Available research suggests that dust levels are close to background levels at distances greater than 200m from poultry farms, many of which are much larger than proposed here and in some cases have inferior ventilation systems. Furthermore, Defra guidance is that dust should only be considered further where the number of birds housed exceeds 400,000 and there are residences within 100m of the site. In this case, the maximum number of birds would only be 80,000 and no dwelling would be within 100m.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 624
Appeal Decision : APP/T6850/A/14/2213106
12. Dispersion modelling predicts how odour emissions of a known magnitude will be dispersed taking account of various factors including local terrain and land usage, the parameters of the odour release, and weather conditions. Such modelling has been validated against known complaint records and generally gives a good indication of likely impacts. Furthermore, The Environment Agency’s (EA) H4 Odour Management guidance, which is used by Natural Resources Wales (NRW), accepts such modelling as a means of assessing odour impact. The statistic generally used in the UK for odour exposure is the annual 98th percentile hourly mean concentration which is the odour concentration equalled or exceeded for 2% of the hours in the meteorological record.
13. The EA’s H4 Odour Management guidance provides benchmark exposure levels with that for moderately offensive odours, which includes those from intensive livestock 3 th rearing, set at 3.0 OUE/m . In this case, modelling predicts maximum annual 98 3 percentile hourly mean concentrations from the proposal of 3.90 OUE/m at Upper 3 3 Broad Heath Farm, 3.30 OUE/m at Little Heath, 2.23 OUE/m at The Heath, 2.32 3 3 OUE/m at Upper Heath Cottage and 1.81 OUE/m at The Bramleys with values at all 3 other dwellings being below 1.5 OUE/m . 14. Interested parties queried the parameters used in the modelling, but I am satisfied that the results are a realistic estimate of the likely exposure levels at these properties and the use of maximum annual rather than average annual represents a precautionary approach. Whilst the exposure levels at Upper Broad Heath Farm and Little Heath would be slightly in excess of the benchmark, these dwellings are both associated with the farm business, and the exposure levels at all other receptors would be well below the benchmark.
15. An interested person reported odour problems at roughly 0.5km in respect of a 305,000 bird unit. Nevertheless, that unit uses older technology including side extraction ventilation which appears to result in odour levels 3 or 4 times greater than the high velocity ridge extraction, which is currently the Best Available Technology, proposed in this case.
16. Transport and disposal of the manure also has the potential to generate odour although this does not constitute development. Nonetheless, such operations already take place at Upper Broad Heath Farm, and other farms in the vicinity, such that there would be little or no difference as compared to the existing situation. Additionally, this would be done in accordance with a Manure Management Plan, Nitrate Vulnerable Zone requirements, and the Code of Good Agricultural Practice for Air, Soil and Water and the relatively short periods involved would be unlikely to affect an annual 98th percentile hourly mean.
17. On the basis of the evidence submitted, I am also satisfied that there are no other major sources of noise, dust and odour sufficiently close to result in cumulative impacts with the appeal proposal.
18. It should also be remembered that the proposal requires an Environmental Permit from NRW. Environmental Permitting controls certain activities that could harm the environment and human health and penalties for breaches can include prosecution and revocation. Planning Policy Wales (PPW) states that the planning system should not normally be used to secure objectives achievable under other legislation. It also notes that planning authorities should operate on the basis that the relevant pollution control regimes will be properly applied and enforced.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 563
Appeal Decision : APP/T6850/A/14/2213106
19. In respect of a resubmission of this application, NRW reminded the Council that it should focus on land use issues rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves when determining the planning application and that NRW is taking the necessary steps to ensure the applicant has satisfactorily assessed the impact of emissions (including odour) on sensitive receptors. These comments are also equally relevant to the appeal proposal. NRW has issued a draft permit, indicating that it has no fundamental objection, and any permit issued would include controls on noise, dust and odour from the installation.
Character and appearance
20. The site lies within the East Lugg Floor LANDMAP Visual and Sensory aspect area which comprises flat open land, with a broad scale and arable & pastoral land, with mainly large, regular fields, enclosed by managed hedges, scattered and waterside trees.
21. The appellants suggest a low landscape character sensitivity, but I am of the view that medium would be more appropriate overall given the degree of enclosure, presence of some man-made elements, and some noise and noticeable movement emanating from the B4362. Insofar as the magnitude of landscape impacts are concerned, given that there are taller existing modern agricultural buildings in the landscape although of a smaller footprint than proposed, I am of the view that the proposal would not be substantially uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape resulting in a medium impact. Adopting the appellants’ matrix, a medium sensitivity and a medium magnitude of impact results in a moderate/minor effect which would not be significant.
22. Insofar as visual impact is concerned, I consider that the most important public receptors are users of the byway to the north of the site and the public footpath that terminates at the farmyard, passengers in vehicles traveling on the B4362, and visitors to the Wapley Camp hill fort.
23. The appellants’ viewpoints 1 and 5 are from the byway. Insofar as viewpoint 1 is concerned, I agree that there would be a barely perceptible change of minor significance. This is because the hedgerow adjoining the route forms an incomplete visual barrier that only allows partial views beyond and the proposal would be set against existing taller agricultural buildings and would not break the skyline. From viewpoint 5, there would be a perceptible change to the existing view of moderate significance with the buildings set against existing taller agricultural buildings but not breaking the skyline.
24. The appellants’ viewpoints 7 and 8 are from the public footpath. From viewpoint 8 there would be a perceptible change, but a hedgerow and trees in the foreground form an incomplete visual barrier that allows partial views of the landscape beyond with the proposal being set against partial views of existing taller agricultural buildings and not breaking the skyline. As a result, the effect would be of moderate significance. From viewpoint 7, further away, the significance of the effect would reduce to minor.
25. The appellants’ viewpoint 9 is from the start of the byway on the B4362. From here there would be no more than glimpsed views due to interceding vegetation and dwellings such that any change would be barely perceptible and of minor significance.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 646
Appeal Decision : APP/T6850/A/14/2213106
26. The appellants have not submitted a viewpoint from the hill fort. Whilst it is at the edge of the zone of theoretical visibility, I do not accept that visitors to the fort would be focused only on the fort and they would also wish to experience the views available from certain locations within it. From such elevated locations, the development would be obvious, albeit sitting within a larger framework of modern agricultural buildings. Given the distance involved, the effect would be of moderate significance (high receptor sensitivity and small magnitude of change).
27. No viewpoints in respect of residential receptors have been submitted, but I visited Broad Heath House and viewed the relationship between other dwellings not associated with the farm and the site. I am satisfied that orientation, separation, relative height as compared to existing agricultural buildings, and the presence of hedges and trees would ensure that any impact in that respect would be minor (high receptor sensitivity and very small magnitude of change) at worst.
28. No other intensive livestock units would be sufficiently close to result in cumulative landscape and visual effects with the appeal proposal.
29. Powys Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policy EC10 on Intensive Livestock Units requires compliance with relevant criteria of Policy EC1 on Business, Industrial and Commercial Developments. This includes no unacceptable impact on the environment and the siting and design to be sympathetic to the character and appearance of its surroundings. Policies ENV2 on Safeguarding the Landscape and EC9 on Agricultural Development are also relevant as is paragraph 6.12.6 which states that proposals will only be permitted where they can be accommodated without significant adverse visual impact on the landscape.
30. The proposal would be located adjacent to existing taller modern agricultural buildings, albeit of a smaller footprint, in a settled agricultural landscape that includes other dispersed farmsteads which also feature modern agricultural buildings. Colour and reflectivity could be controlled by condition. Existing hedgerows and trees would be retained and additional landscaping measures could also be secured by condition.
31. For the above reasons, I am satisfied that there would be no unacceptable or significant adverse effects on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area and there is no conflict with the UDP insofar as this main issue is concerned.
Setting of cultural and heritage assets
32. The second reason for refusal does not refer to any specific cultural and heritage assets. No such assets would be directly affected but there is a potential to affect the setting of the Registered Park and Garden at Broad Heath House, the Grade II buildings at Broad Heath House, Upper Broad Heath, and the Cat and Fiddle, and the Scheduled Ancient Monument at Wapley Camp hill fort. In this regard, I take setting to mean the surroundings in which the asset is experienced.
33. PPW notes that the desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration and that parks and gardens included in the Register of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales and their settings should be protected. UDP policies ENV16 and ENV17, amongst other matters, seek to prevent unacceptable adverse effects on the settings of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest and Ancient Monuments, respectively.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 765
Appeal Decision : APP/T6850/A/14/2213106
34. Policy ENV14 imposes a similar requirement in respect of the setting of listed buildings. However, for listed buildings, as stated in PPW, the primary material consideration is the statutory requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses as imposed by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
35. Cadw considers that there would be likely to be an adverse impact on the setting of the registered historic garden due to visual, odour and noise effects but this would not be significant. It also refers to the potential for dust containing high levels of nitrates and phosphates to pose a threat to planting in the registered historic garden. However, this is largely influenced by information submitted by the Rule 6 party which Cadw acknowledges is outside its remit to advise upon the accuracy thereof.
36. The significance of the garden derives from it being an early private commission of Sir Clough Williams-Ellis. The listing plan shows a significant view to the south of south east towards Wapley Camp and there are also designed views to the east. Other than where these specific views have been incorporated, one experiences a sense of enclosure when walking through the gardens.
37. There are views towards the site from the north western corner of the area listed, but this lies outside the main part of the garden and encompasses the access drive such that it contributes little to the significance of the garden. The views are filtered by vegetation and the proposed buildings would be lower than the existing agricultural buildings.
38. Whilst it is suggested that a raised walkway providing access to the upper floor of a former carriage house is a viewing platform, it would appear that this predates Williams-Ellis’ involvement. In any event, any views towards the appeal site from this location are only obtained whilst standing and the walkway’s limited width and proximity to staff accommodation are indicative that it was not designed as a location where one would spend any appreciable time.
39. The appeal site lies outside the essential setting of the garden and the wider setting contributes to the significance of the garden mainly through the views towards the hill fort and to a lesser extent through the view to the east, both of which would be unaffected.
40. The specific concern regarding nitrates and phosphates is not supported by any substantive evidence and I accept the view of the appellants modelling witness that deposition rates would be insignificant.
41. Cadw also refers to clear views between Broad Heath House and the appeal site but is more concerned regarding the effect of noise and odour on the setting of the listed building. Again, this is largely influenced by information submitted by the Rule 6 party which Cadw acknowledges is outside its remit to advise upon the accuracy thereof. On the other hand, the Council’s Built Heritage Conservation Officer notes in respect of the resubmitted application that the wider setting is a rural agricultural landscape with dispersed farms and other widely dispersed buildings such that the addition of a modern agricultural unit to an established farmyard would not affect this wider setting.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 668
Appeal Decision : APP/T6850/A/14/2213106
42. In this case the significance of the asset arises from its C18 origins with later alterations and additions of about 1925 by Sir Clough Williams-Ellis. The contribution of the wider setting to this significance results from the property originally being a farmhouse located within a rural agricultural landscape. Any views of the appeal site from Broad Heath House are only obtained from first floor bedrooms with orientation, separation, relative height as compared to existing agricultural buildings, and the presence of hedges and trees ensuring that any impact in that respect would be minor. In such circumstances, I agree that the addition of a modern agricultural unit to an established farmyard some distance away would not affect this wider setting.
43. For the above reasons and my earlier reasoning in respect of noise, dust and odour, with Broad Heath House being bounded to the north by the B4362 and its associated traffic noise, I am satisfied that the settings of the historic garden and listed building would be preserved.
44. Insofar as Upper Broad Heath Farmhouse is concerned, Cadw is of the view that there would inevitably be some further cumulative impact on setting, despite the presence of a group of modern agricultural buildings, particularly on the approach from the B4362. This is at odds with the view of the Council’s Built Heritage Conservation Officer on the resubmitted application that there would be no further harm to setting.
45. The contribution of the wider setting to the significance of the building relates to it being a farmhouse associated with a working farm located within a rural agricultural landscape. Given the presence of modern agricultural buildings of a greater height than the proposed development between the farmhouse and the appeal site, I am of the view that there would be no further harm to setting which would, therefore, be preserved.
46. Cadw notes that for the Cat and Fiddle intervening features, including a track with high hedges and a group of modern bungalows, provide a degree of screening and a sense of separation. The Council’s Built Heritage Conservation Officer’s comments made on the resubmitted application in respect of the wider setting are as for Broad Heath House. In this case, there is no expert opinion to suggest that setting would not be preserved and I have no reason to conclude otherwise.
47. Cadw makes no comment on Wapley Camp and given that it lies in England that is not surprising. In that respect, I note that English Heritage did not object to the resubmitted application. The significance of the asset results from its iron age origins and well preserved nature. Its wider setting makes a major contribution to this significance as it was located to provide panoramic views over the surrounding area including the valley floor. The valley floor has changed considerably since the iron- age and now comprises a settled agricultural landscape that includes dispersed farmsteads which feature modern agricultural buildings. The addition of a modern agricultural unit to an established farmyard would not affect this wider setting which would, therefore, be preserved.
48. The second reason for refusal also refers to UDP Policy ENV18 on Development Proposals Affecting Archaeological Sites, but the Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust is content for the development to proceed subject to an archaeological watching brief. I agree that this would be an appropriate course of action in the circumstances of this case and there is no substantive evidence to the contrary.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 967
Appeal Decision : APP/T6850/A/14/2213106
49. For the above reasons, the statutory duty would be complied with as the setting of all three listed buildings would be preserved and there would be no conflict with the UDP in respect of this main issue. It is also of significance that the Council’s Built Heritage Conservation Officer is of the view that the second reason for refusal is not easily defensible.
Tourism
50. The third reason for refusal states that the landscape, visual and heritage impact, when associated with the impact from pollution during the operation of the poultry enterprise will give rise to a detrimental impact on the tourism industry in the locality.
51. I have already concluded that there would be no unacceptable or significant adverse effects on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area, that the setting of listed buildings would be preserved, that there would be no unacceptable adverse effects on the settings of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest and Ancient Monuments, and there is no conflict with the UDP insofar as these matters are concerned. Notwithstanding the importance of the tourism industry to Powys in general and the Presteigne area in particular, there is, therefore, no basis to suggest that there would be any effect whatsoever on the tourism industry in the locality from the landscape, visual and heritage impacts.
52. The Rule 6 party suggests that smell from the poultry unit would be ongoing and cover a wide area, people may find they need to remain indoors, and festivals and events would be severely impacted etc. The odour evidence, as considered under the Preliminary matters sub-heading shows such fears to be unfounded.
53. For the above reasons, I conclude that there would be no impact on the local tourist industry. It is also of significance that the Council’s Tourism Marketing Manager is of the view that the third reason for refusal is very difficult to defend.
Other considerations
54. Concerns are raised in respect of possible flooding, but the site is within Zone A (considered to be at little or no risk of flooding) of the Development Advice Maps referred to in Technical Advice Note 15: Development and Flood Risk, not within NRW’s flood zone, and photographic evidence shows that it was not flooded during the extreme event of February 2014. Mr Rogers’ evidence is that the adjoining cattle sheds, which have a floor level some 1.2m lower than proposed for the poultry buildings, have never flooded. A Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA) was prepared for the resubmission of the application (Ref: P/2014/0202). NRW accepted that the risk of flood waters inundating the two units is extremely unlikely over the lifetime of the development and advised that there is no attendant risk that contaminants within the unit could mobilise and impact on water quality within the area.
55. Interested parties suggest that an assessment of the likely significant effect on the River Wye Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994 may be required. However, pre application screening by NRW (in respect of the Environmental Permit application) assessed the potential impacts of emissions including ammonia, nitrogen and acid deposition on statutory sites within the criteria distances. This included “in combination” effects for other permitted installations within the respective distance criteria. The proposed installation was screened out as not requiring detailed modelling.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 6810
Appeal Decision : APP/T6850/A/14/2213106
56. Whilst screening did not consider phosphates, this is itself indicative of a lack of significant effect given that Environmental Permitting is concerned with all discharges to the environment. Furthermore, the evidence of the appellants permitting witness is that there will be a requirement to analyse the manure every 6 months, comply with a Manure Management Plan and undertake regular soil analysis, even though land spreading would take place outside the permitted installation.
57. Additionally, the Powys Poultry Pilot Study: Assessment of cumulative atmospheric releases shows that the smaller, non-regulated, poultry units have a greater impact on the local ammonia concentrations than regulated intensive units which have to meet higher specifications and pollution control requirements (e.g. Best Available Techniques). I am, therefore, satisfied that the proposal would be unlikely to significantly affect the River Wye SAC either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.
58. Concern is raised regarding the implication of the traffic generated on highway safety on the B4362. However, I am of the opinion that the highway can accommodate this level of traffic, which would probably be less than that generated when the farm was producing potatoes, with no adverse impact on highway safety. I also note that there is no objection from the highway authority in that respect.
59. The proposal would contribute to the viability of the farming business and contribute to the local economy through an investment of around £900,000 that would provide work for local contractors and suppliers during the construction phase and in respect of future maintenance. These are considerations which weigh in favour of allowing the appeal.
Conditions
60. Possible conditions to be imposed in the event of the appeal being allowed were discussed at the Inquiry. A condition requiring compliance with the approved plans should be imposed to facilitate any future non-material changes and ensure that the development would be built as submitted, including the height of the feed bins. Conditions relating to external finishes, landscaping and lighting are required to ensure an acceptable visual appearance. A Construction Management Plan is necessary to protect local amenities during the construction period. An archaeological watching brief would ensure that any finds are recorded. Foul and surface water drainage should be subject to prior approval to protect the water environment.
61. The proposal is EIA development and the ES assesses it on the basis of buildings of the size proposed housing up to 80,000 broilers. Any exceedances in that respect could result in different environmental impacts to those considered. There is, therefore, a need to remove permitted development rights for extensions and alterations, limit the development to use as a broiler unit and restrict the maximum number of birds to 80,000. Given the potential reflectivity of solar panels as viewed from Wapley Camp, permitted development rights in that respect should also be removed.
62. My initial reaction was that a condition in respect of a Manure Management Plan is unnecessary because such operations do not constitute development and there would be no such control on manure from other sources spread on the farm. I am also mindful of the need to avoid duplication of controls, particularly in the light of paragraph 56 above, and NRW has been advising the appellants on the Manure Management Plan to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page11 69
Appeal Decision : APP/T6850/A/14/2213106
63. Nevertheless, NRW in its consultation response on the resubmitted application has specifically suggested that the Manure Management Plan is secured by planning condition. Given this very clear advice, I am persuaded that such a condition can be justified to safeguard local amenities. The fact that it would be limited to manure generated by the broiler unit would mean that it would be relevant to the development to be permitted.
64. UDP Policy ENV3 only relates to safeguarding biodiversity and natural habitats not their enhancement, as a result I see no policy justification for requiring a Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme and will not do so.
Overall conclusion
65. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. E Jones
Inspector
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 7012
Appeal Decision : APP/T6850/A/14/2213106
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Ms C Parry, of Counsel
FOR THE APPELLANTS:
Mrs D Sharples Hewitsons Solicitors
She called
Mr P Rogers Appellants
Mr S Raasch Sustainable Energy Environment Ltd.
Mr S Smith AS Modelling & Data Ltd.
Mr I Pick BSc(Hons) Ian Pick Associates MRICS
Mr S Priestley MA Border Archaeology
Mr S Dale DipLA CMLI ACD Ltd.
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Mr J Jones Director, Radnorshire Wildlife Trust
Mr J Reeves Chairman, Welsh Historic Gardens Trust
Mr A Loveridge
Ms L Boyd
DOCUMENTS
Document 1 Notification of Inquiry
Document 2 Listed Building Listings
Document 3 Council’s Suggested Conditions
Document 4 Council’s Response to Rule 6 party’s costs application
Document 5 Council’s Response to appellants costs application
Document 6 Statement of Common Ground
Document 7 Mr Smith’s response on odour and dust
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page13 71
Appeal Decision : APP/T6850/A/14/2213106
Document 8 Addendum to Mr Priestley’s Rebuttal statement
Document 9 Extract from Definitive Map
Document 10 Extract from Register of Historic Parks and Gardens
Document 11 Version 7 of Environmental Permit application Layout/drainage plan
Document 12 Letter from M E Vaughan, originally submitted in support of application P/2014/0202
Document 13 Letter from P A Davidson, originally submitted in support of application P/2014/0202
Document 14 South Lakeland District Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment 2 AC 141, referred to in closing
Document 15 West Midlands Probation Committee v. Secretary of State for the Environment (1998) 76 P. & C.R. 589, referred to in closing
Document 16 Trevett v. The secretary of state for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2002] EWHC 2696 (Admin), referred to in closing
Document 17 Appellants Costs Application
Document 18 Rule 6 party’s Costs Application submitted electronically
Document 19 Rule 6 party’s e-mail regarding procedural matters
Document 20 Rule 6 party’s further e-mail regarding procedural matters
Document 21a-c Mr Jones statement and enclosures
Document 22 Mr Reeves statement
Document 23 Photographs of flooding submitted by Mr Reeves
Document 24 Mr Loveridge’s statement
Document 25 Photographs of poultry unit near Evenjobb submitted by Ms Boyd
Documents 1 – 5 were submitted by the Council (Document 2 at my request) and the appellants submitted Documents 6 -17. Documents 18 – 20 were printed off by the Council.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 7214
Penderfyniad Costau Costs Decision
Ymchwiliad a gynhaliwyd ar 09-11/09/15 Inquiry held on 09-11/09/15 Ymweliad safle a wnaed ar 11/09/15 Site visit made on 11/09/15 gan Emyr Jones BSc(Hons) CEng by Emyr Jones BSc(Hons) CEng MICE MICE MCMI MCMI Arolygydd a benodir gan Weinidogion Cymru an Inspector appointed by the Welsh Ministers Dyddiad: 05 Hydref 2015 Date: 05 October 2015
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/T6850/A/14/2213106 Site address: Upper Heath Farm, Presteigne, Powys, LD8 2HG The Welsh Ministers have transferred the authority to decide this application for costs to me as the appointed Inspector. The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 320 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). The application is made by D L Rogers & Sons for a full award of costs against Powys County Council. The inquiry was in connection with an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of 2 No poultry buildings and associated control room, 4 feed bins, access and hardstanding.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below.
The submissions for D L Rogers & Sons 2. The costs application was submitted in writing. The following additional points were made orally. 3. The second and third reasons for refusal are imprecise in that one does not know which assets would be harmed, how tourism would be harmed, or what is meant by locality. This has led to wider issues having to be addressed than if there had been greater precision. 4. It is accepted that the reasons for refusal were withdrawn at an early stage and the appellants notified. However, the existence of the appeal flows entirely from the wrongly made decision to refuse planning permission. The availability of more evidence does not help the Council’s argument as no more evidence is available now than at the time it chose to withdraw; it simply changed its mind. 5. Whilst the appellants are aware of the paragraph cited from the Costs Circular, it does not assist. It would if some, but not all, of the reasons for refusal were withdrawn thereby saving costs. Here all reasons have been withdrawn but the appellants have been left with a refusal in place. This resulted in a risk they could do nothing about once third parties decided to participate. The appellants submitted the second application and this was allowed such that both the appellants and the Council did their best to avoid the Inquiry but at the end of the day it couldn’t.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 73
Costs Decision : APP/T6850/A/14/2213106
The response by Powys County Council
6. The response was made in writing. The following additional points were made orally. Any imprecision could not have resulted in unnecessary expense as the reasons for refusal were withdrawn before any work was done. Insofar as the other grounds are concerned, the scope of the evidence was dictated by the third party objections.
Reasons
7. Circular 23/93 advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
8. The Circular states that a planning authority should not prevent, inhibit or delay development which could reasonably be permitted, in the light of the development plan, so far as it is material to the application, and of any other material considerations.
9. Given its position, the Council has not adduced any evidence to substantiate its reasons for refusal or to show clearly why the development cannot be permitted. The evidence presented by the appellants, which was also subject to some cross- examination by interested parties other than the Rule 6 party, has convinced me to allow the appeal. Whilst much of this was not available to the committee when it determined the application, it could equally be said that there was little or no substantive evidence to support the refusal.
10. I accept that assessing impact on an area’s character and appearance will involve a degree of subjectivity and the Circular notes that where planning issues are clearly shown to be finely balanced, an award of costs relating to substantive matters is unlikely to be made. However, there is no evidence in the minutes to suggest that the committee’s conclusion in respect of any of the three reasons was finely balanced.
11. I do not accept the contention that there is no incentive for local planning authorities to review their decisions or concede that a reason for refusal is not supportable. Generally such actions can save Inquiry/Hearing time and preparation costs, although I acknowledge that they did not do so in this case because the appellants had to respond to interested parties raising the same and other issues. Paragraph 15 of Annex 2 refers to minimising, not eliminating, the risk of an award and the above does not make the paragraph otiose.
12. The Council cannot hide behind the decision of interested parties to become involved and lead substantive evidence. It is the Council’s actions that have resulted in the matter having to be determined at appeal, despite it ultimately not having any objection to the proposal. This amounts to unreasonable behaviour because it has prevented, inhibited or delayed development which could reasonably be permitted. Furthermore, this unreasonable behaviour has resulted in the appellants’ unnecessarily incurring or wasting expense in respect of the appeal proceedings.
13. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in Circular 23/93, has been demonstrated and that a full award of costs is justified.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 742
Costs Decision : APP/T6850/A/14/2213106
Costs Order
14. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Powys County Council shall pay to D L Rogers & Sons, the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision.
15. The applicant is now invited to submit to Powys County Council, to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount. In the event that the parties cannot agree on the amount, a copy of the guidance note on how to apply for a detailed assessment by the Senior Courts Costs Office is enclosed. E Jones
Inspector
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 375
This page is intentionally left blank
Penderfyniad Costau Costs Decision
Ymchwiliad a gynhaliwyd ar 09-11/09/15 Inquiry held on 09-11/09/15 Ymweliad safle a wnaed ar 11/09/15 Site visit made on 11/09/15 gan Emyr Jones BSc(Hons) CEng by Emyr Jones BSc(Hons) CEng MICE MICE MCMI MCMI Arolygydd a benodir gan Weinidogion Cymru an Inspector appointed by the Welsh Ministers Dyddiad: 05 Hydref 2015 Date: 05 October 2015
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/T6850/A/14/2213106 Site address: Upper Heath Farm, Presteigne, Powys, LD8 2HG The Welsh Ministers have transferred the authority to decide this application for costs to me as the appointed Inspector. The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 320 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). The application is made by a Rule 6 party of four local households for a full award of costs against Powys County Council. The inquiry was in connection with an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of 2 No poultry buildings and associated control room, 4 feed bins, access and hardstanding.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
The submissions for the Rule 6 party of four local households
2. The costs application was submitted in writing.
The response by Powys County Council
3. The response was made in writing.
Reasons
4. Circular 23/93 advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
5. I agree that members’ refusing planning applications, contrary to officer advice, is not unusual. It is also common practice to inform committees where appeals have been made.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 77
Costs Decision : APP/T6850/A/14/2213106
6. The Circular recognises that there are situations where local planning authorities conclude, on re-examination of their case, that any of its reasons for refusal cannot, in the circumstances, be supported by substantial evidence such that they will not be contesting the appeal in those respects. Whilst it is unusual to see all reasons withdrawn where there are several; if that is the conclusion of the re-examination there is nothing to prevent it.
7. In this case, the minutes demonstrate that the committee was advised that if it wanted to take forward its previous objections at this appeal, tourism, cultural heritage, planning and landscape witnesses would need to be secured, and if such witnesses could not be secured members would need to represent the Council, and Counsel would need to be engaged. A range of options was, therefore, put to it.
8. Officers requested a steer as to the appropriate way to take the appeal forward, and members voted to withdraw all objections to the development in full knowledge that the above options were also available. This indicates that, on reflection, they considered the original decision to have been the wrong one. The fact that sufficient evidence has been submitted overall to convince me to allow the appeal confirms that the original officer recommendation, which was not accepted initially, was correct.
9. Whilst the Rule 6 party complains that it had to field and manage a full suite of technical and policy witnesses to produce written evidence, this was entirely of its own volition and there was no compulsion on it to do so.
10. As indicated by the Council, the Circular states that awards of costs in favour of third parties will be made only in exceptional circumstances. In general, third parties will not have costs awarded to them where unreasonable behaviour by one of the principal parties relates to the substance of the case. This application is clearly based on the substance of the case rather than procedural matters at the Inquiry. The judicial review of the permission granted in respect of the resubmitted application related to procedural aspects and does not in any way show that the substantive decision on the acceptability of the development was wrong.
11. I do not consider that the Council behaved unreasonably in reviewing its position and there are no exceptional circumstances which would justify an award of costs. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in Circular 23/93, has not been demonstrated. E Jones
Inspector
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 782