A Meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL Will Be Held In

A meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL will be held in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, PATHFINDER HOUSE, ST MARY'S STREET, HUNTINGDON, PE29 3TN on MONDAY, 19 MAY 2008 at 7:00 PM and you are requested to attend for the transaction of the following business:-

APOLOGIES

1. MINUTES

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 14th May 2008 – to follow.

2. MEMBERS' INTERESTS

To receive Members declarations as to personal and/or prejudicial interests and the nature of those interests in relation to any agenda item. Please see Notes 1 and 2 below.

3. SOMERSHAM CONSERVATION AREA: BOUNDARY REVIEW AND CHARACTER STATEMENT CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS

To consider a report by the Planning Policy Manager.

(Consultation documents are enclosed separately with Members’ copies only).

4. DESIGN BRIEF - FORMER HEALTH AUTHORITY OFFICES, PRIMROSE LANE, HUNTINGDON

To consider a report by the Head of Planning Services.

5. DESIGN BRIEF - MAYFIELD ROAD, HUNTINGDON

To consider a report by the Head of Planning Services.

(The design brief is enclosed separately with Members’ copies only).

6. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

6.1 Other and Section 106 Applications

(a) Huntingdon Development of new college campus and access works, associated parking and sports pitches, part of Sports Ground,

Cambridgeshire Constabulary, Hinchingbrooke Park

(b) Huntingdon Residential development following demolition of college buildings and access improvements, Huntingdonshire Regional College, California Road

(c) St. Neots Development of new college campus with access and car parking, land at site of former St. Neots Open Air Swimming Pool, Huntingdon Road

(d) St. Neots Residential development following demolition of college building and construction of access from Huntingdon Street, land at and including Huntingdonshire Regional College and corner of Priory Hill Park, Huntingdon Road

(e) Folksworth & Extension to

Washingley 12 Castel Way, Folksworth

(f) Holme Erection of eight dwellings, land adjacent 25 St. Giles Close

To consider reports by the Development Control Manager.

6.2 Applications Requiring Reference to Development Control Panel

(a) Somersham Erection of replacement dwelling, Greenacres, St. Ives

(b) St. Ives Change of use of cottage into two dwellings, Maltings Cottage, Needingworth Road

(c) St. Neots Extension to form additional retail unit with flat over, Units 1-3 Bishops Road and flats 3, 5 and 7 Andrew Road, Eynesbury

(d) The Stukeleys Erection of replacement dwelling, 70 Low Road, Little Stukeley

(e) Woodhurst Erection of dwelling, Silver Birches, South Street

(f) Great Staughton Erection of two dwellings and replacement garage, land at 81 The Highway

(g) Holywell-cum Erection of

Needingworth south-west of 80 High Street

(h) Huntingdon Demolition of existing dwelling and garages and erection of twelve flats and associated parking and landscaping, Whitehills, 7 Mill Common

(i) Kimbolton & Retention of alterations to Stonely building, Units 4 & 5, Cromwell Court, High Street

To consider reports by the Development Control Manager.

7. ENFORCEMENT ACTION - UNAUTHORISED CONTINUATION OF USE OF WOODSHAVING LINE, SUNDOWN STRAW PRODUCTS, STATION ROAD, TILBROOK

To consider a report by the Development Control Manager.

8. APPEAL DECISIONS

To consider a report by the Development Control Manager.

9. PERFORMANCE MONITORING - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PROGRESS REPORT: 1ST JANUARY - 31ST MARCH 2008

10. CAMBRIDGESHIRE AND PETERBOROUGH MINERALS AND WASTE PLAN

Members are invited to attend a presentation by the County Council on the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Plan in

Meeting Room 1, Pathfinder House at 5.45 on Monday 16th June 2008 ie. prior to the meeting of the Panel that evening. A buffet tea will be provided for Members of the Panel.

Dated this 9 day of May 2008

Chief Executive

Notes

1. A personal interest exists where a decision on a matter would affect to a greater extent than other people in the District –

(a) the well-being, financial position, employment or business of the Councillor, their family or any person with whom they had a close association;

(b) a body employing those persons, any firm in which they are a partner and any company of which they are directors;

(c) any corporate body in which those persons have a beneficial interest in a class of securities exceeding the nominal value of £25,000; or

(d) the Councillor’s registerable financial and other interests.

2. A personal interest becomes a prejudicial interest where a member of the public (who has knowledge of the circumstances) would reasonably regard the Member’s personal interest as being so significant that it is likely to prejudice the Councillor’s judgement of the public interest.

Please contact Ms C Deller, Democratic Services Manager, Tel No. 01480 388007/e-mail: [email protected]. if you have a general query on any Agenda Item, wish to tender your apologies for absence from the meeting, or would like information on any decision taken by the Panel. However if you wish to speak at the Panel’s meeting regarding a particular Agenda Item please contact Jackie Holland, Tel No. 01480 388418 before 4.30pm on the Friday preceding this meeting. Specific enquiries with regard to items on the Agenda should be directed towards the Contact Officer. Members of the public are welcome to attend this meeting as observers except during consideration of confidential or exempt items of business.

Agenda and enclosures can be viewed on the District Council’s website – www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk (under Councils and Democracy).

If you would like a translation of Agenda/Minutes/Reports or would like a large text version or an audio version please contact the Democratic Services Manager and we will try to accommodate your needs.

Emergency Procedure

In the event of the fire alarm being sounded and on the instruction of the Meeting Administrator, all attendees are requested to vacate the building via the closest emergency exit and to make their way to the car park adjacent to the Methodist Church on the High Street (opposite Prima's Italian Restaurant).

Agenda Item 3

AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2008

SOMERSHAM CONSERVATION AREA: BOUNDARY REVIEW AND CHARACTER STATEMENT CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS (Report by Planning Policy Manager)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Development Control Panel’s comments on the above document.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The District Council is committed to the production of Conservation Area Character Statements to provide an analysis of the special interest of all the district’s 60 Conservation Areas. These documents will be used to guide decisions on planning matters and other changes to the fabric of Conservation Areas to ensure that the character and appearance of Conservation Areas is not diminished. It is also hoped that the publication of these documents will help to increase the general public’s awareness of the special qualities that make the District’s Conservation Areas unique.

2.2 Section 69 of the Planning (listed buildings and conservation areas) Act 1990 imposes a duty on local planning authorities to designate as Conservation Areas any “areas of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance”. Planning Policy Guidance 15 (4.2) makes it clear that it is the quality and interest of areas, rather than that of individual buildings, which should be the prime consideration in identifying Conservation Areas.

2.3 Guidance issued by English Heritage in March 2006 gives further advice on the proper management of Conservation Areas by Local Planning Authorities.

2.4 Best Value Performance Indicators 219a and b relate directly to a Local Planning Authority’s performance in respect of Conservation Areas and expect Council’s to carry out reviews on a 5 year rolling programme to ensure that the advice being offered is relevant and up-to-date.

2.5 In this context, and on the basis of the methodology contained within the Huntingdonshire Conservation Area Boundary Review Guidance Document adopted by Cabinet in January 2003, the Council has set out a programme for the review and updating of its Conservation Areas and associated documentation.

1 3. THE BOUNDARY REVIEW

Somersham Conservation Area was designated in 1974. The boundary of the area was very tightly drawn around building groups and does not reflect a thorough or justified examination of the area’s historic merit or development. Best and current practice expects Conservation Area boundaries to be drawn on the basis of thorough research and analysis.

Following the methodology for Boundary Review adopted in 2003, it is proposed that the existing area is expanded. The enlarged area better reflects the historic interest of the settlement, as well as reflecting the wider setting of the villages and significant views and vistas. The proposed boundary also includes some of the earlier urban extensions within the villages.

The rationale for the proposed boundary changes is explained and illustrated in the attached document: Somersham Conservation Area Boundary Review.

4. THE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT

The Character Assessment examines the area included within the new proposed Conservation Area boundary. Section 71 of the 1990 Act places a duty on local planning authorities to formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of its Conservation Areas. This document fulfils this requirement and links policy for Somersham to other existing Local Planning Guidance for Huntingdonshire, notably the Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPG (2007) and the Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment SPG (2007).

The format for the Assessment adopts current best practice, delivering a clear, well-illustrated analysis of the settlement’s character.

The contents of the Character Assessment follows a previously-agreed pattern, which conveys the special architectural and historical interest of the Conservation Area through maps, photographic illustrations and written text. Specific references are made to:-

• The essential characteristics of the Conservation Area including important views, focal points and landmark buildings • The green open spaces, trees and gardens in the Conservation Area • The architectural styles within the villages • The distribution of construction materials • Examples of traditional local detailing

This approach conforms with English Heritage’s publication Guidance on conservation area appraisals 2006.

2 5. CONCLUSION

5.1 Production of the Character Assessment and Boundary Review for Somersham contributes to the legal obligations of Huntingdonshire District Council as the local planning authority, and reflects the Authority’s support for the local community.

5.2 The draft documents are currently subject to public consultation.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 That the Development Control Panel endorses the contents of the document and recommends to Cabinet that it is adopted as Council policy.

Background papers

1. Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPG 2007 2. Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment SPG 2007 3. Conservation Area Boundary Review Policy Document, Huntingdonshire District Council, January 2003.

Contact Officer: Susan Smith Assistant Conservation Officer ( 01480 388416

3 This page is intentionally left blank

4 Agenda Item 4

AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2006

DESIGN BRIEF FORMER HEALTH AUTHORITY OFFICES PRIMROSE LANE, HUNTINGDON (Report by Head of Planning Services)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Design Brief examines the redevelopment opportunities on the former health authority office site to the south of Primrose Lane, Huntingdon. It presents the planning policy context for the redevelopment of this site.

1.2 The Planning Portfolio Holder has approved the document for consultation purposes. Once representations have been considered and reported to Cabinet, it is intended to adopt the document as Interim Planning Guidance.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The site has been recently vacated by the local Primary Care Trust after having been used first as an isolation hospital, and then for other medical uses since the late 19 th century.

2.2 The current owners, the NHS, are in the process of marketing the site for residential development.

2.3 The site is now within the Huntingdon Conservation Area, enlarged late last year.

2.4 A Tree Preservation Order was confirmed last year protecting all the trees within the site.

3.0 THE DESIGN BRIEF

3.1 The purpose of this document is to ensure that a well planned and appropriate development can take place on site, something which contributes to improving the built environment of the town.

3.2 The Design Brief sets design parameters for the successful development of the site, ensuring that future proposals achieve imaginative and distinctive solutions. Indicative layouts are shown that illustrate what could be achieved.

3.3 A period of public consultation is currently being undertaken, and will expire in mid May. This has included consultation with neighbours, a public exhibition held in All Saints Church last month, a presentation to the Town Council, and discussion with relevant bodies such as the Civic Society. All of those who have commented would like to see the

5 3.4 The major issue that needed to be addressed is which buildings on the site should be retained. The options were to keep both the Primrose Centre (also known as the North building) and the South Building, to keep just the Primrose Centre, or to keep neither. Both these buildings are attractive late Victorian / Edwardian, but the South Building had been altered and amended more over the decades. It is also considered that the Primrose Building contributes the most to the character of the conservation area, and also provides an attractive backdrop to the cemetery.

3.5 Most of those that attended the public exhibition want to keep at least one of the buildings, to keep some of the historic fabric of the town. The CPRE want to keep both buildings, and the Huntingdon and Godmanchester Civic Society would like to keep the Primrose Centre building.

3.6 The agent for the landowner has provided a report stating the case why the buildings should not be retained. (copy attached)

4. CONCLUSION

4.1 Production of a Design Brief is best practice and will help to secure the most appropriate form of development over this site. There is currently a period of consultation with the local and statutory bodies. Any comments or changes will be brought back to Cabinet before it is adopted.

5. RECOMMENDATION

5.1 That the Development Control Panel recommends that at least one of the existing buildings (The Primrose Centre) is retained.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPG October 2007 Huntingdonshire Landscape & Townscape Assessment SPG October 2007

CONTACT OFFICER - enquiries about this Report to Mike Huntington 01480 388404.

2 6 Agenda Item 5

AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2008

DESIGN BRIEF – MAYFIELD ROAD, HUNTINGDON (Report by Head of Planning Services)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Design Brief examines the development opportunities on the area of open space along Mayfield Road, Huntingdon. It presents the design context for the development of this site.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 In light of the recent Government confirmed mandatory rating against the Code for Sustainable Homes, for new homes from 1 May 2008, the Council has considered that we should set an example of sustainable development by delivering an exemplar high quality eco- friendly affordable development on a site in District Council ownership.

2.2 The site is an area of open space currently designated as ‘open spaces and gaps for protection’ in the 1995 Local Plan. The site is in a very sustainable location in close proximity to the town centre and to other social facilities such as schools and leisure facilities.

2.3 The site is 0.75 hectares and falls gently from west to east. The site is bounded to the north by 2 storey and bungalow development, to the east by further bungalow development and to the south east by a nursing home currently under construction. A public right of way known as American Lane is located on the south western boundary. A mature hedge line provides a backdrop behind American Lane.

2.4 The current owners, the District Council, are in the process of liaising with Registered Social Landlords in developing the site for sustainable eco-friendly residential development.

3.0 THE DESIGN BRIEF

3.1 The purpose of this document is to ensure that a well planned and appropriate development can take place on site, something which contributes to improving the built environment of the town.

3.2 The Design Brief sets design parameters for the successful development of the site, ensuring that future proposals achieve imaginative and distinctive solutions. Potential areas for development and green spaces are illustrated.

4. CONCLUSION

5. RECOMMENDATION

5.1 That the Development Control Panel endorses the contents of the Design Brief and recommends to Cabinet that it is adopted as Interim Planning Guidance.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPG October 2007 Huntingdonshire Landscape & Townscape Assessment SPG October 2007

CONTACT OFFICER - enquiries about this Report to Alison Wood, Urban Design Officer ( 01480 388476.

2 8 Agenda Item 6

AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2008

OTHER AND SECTION 106 APPLICATIONS (Reports by Development Control Manager)

Case No: 0703432OUT (OUTLINE APPLICATION)

Proposal: DEVELOPMENT OF NEW COLLEGE CAMPUS AND ACCESS WORKS, ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SPORTS PITCHES

Location: PART OF SPORTS GROUND CAMBRIDGESHIRE CONSTABULARY HINCHINGBROOKE PARK HINCHINGBROOKE PARK ROAD

Applicant: HUNTINGDONSHIRE REGIONAL COLLEGE

Grid Ref: 522814 271837

Date of Registration: 16.10.2007

Parish: HUNTINGDON

RECOMMENDATION - MINDED TO SUPPORT

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The application site is located within Huntingdon and is surrounded by public institution uses such as the Hospital, Police headquarters and the Hinchingbrooke Community School Campus and associated facilities. Situated west of Brampton Road and north of Hinchingbrooke Park Road, the land is currently owned by the Constabulary and was previously used as a sports pitch.

1.2 The site benefits from being approximately 1km from the Town Centre, with good pedestrian links, directly on the forthcoming guided bus route and only 500m from the railway station.

1.3 The application seeks outline consent for the erection of a new College Campus comprising approximately 9,600m2 of gross floor area, approximately 220 car parking spaces, a MUGA and 90m x 57.5m football pitch. As an outline application, the applicant is seeking consent for the principle of the use of the land and the acceptability of the proposed access. Appearance, layout and scale are to be considered at a later time following the determination of this application, as reserved matters.

1.4 In support of the application, the applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment, proposed access details from Hinchingbrooke Park Road and an indicative layout plan.

9 2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1: “Delivering Sustainable Development” (2005) contains advice on the operation of the plan-led system.

2.2 PPS9: “Biological and Geological Conservation” (2005) sets out planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system.

2.3 PPG13: Transport (2001) provides guidance in relation to transport and particularly the integration of planning and transport.

2.4 PPG15: “Planning and the Historic Environment” (1994) sets out Government policies for the identification and protection of historic buildings, conservation areas, and other elements of the historic environment. It explains the role played by the planning system in their protection.

2.5 PPG16: “Archaeology and Planning” (1990) sets out the Secretary of State's policy on archaeological remains on land, and how they should be preserved or recorded both in an urban setting and in the countryside.

For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

3. PLANNING POLICIES

Further information on the role of planning policies in deciding planning applications can also be found at the following website: http://www.communities.gov.uk then follow links Planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Information and Guidance, Planning Guidance and Advice and then Creating and Better Place to Live.

3.1 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

Policies from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 are relevant and viewable at http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk follow the links to environment, planning, planning policy and Structure Plan 2003.

• P1/3 – Sustainable Design in Built Development - a high standard of design and sustainability for all new development will be required.

• P6/1 – Development Related Provision – development will only be permitted where the additional infrastructure and community requirements generated by the proposal can be secured.

2 10 facilities; environmental improvements and provision of open space; waste management; water, flood control and drainage and other utilities and telecommunications.

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

Policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95 .

• T18: “Access requirements for new development” states development should be accessed by a highway of acceptable design and appropriate construction.

• En12: “Archaeological Implications” – permission on sites of archaeological interest may be conditional on the implementation of a scheme of archaeological recording prior to development commencing.

• En13: “Archaeological Implications” – in areas of archaeological potential planning application may be required to be accompanied by the results of an archaeological field evaluation or desk-based assessment.

• En14: “Open Spaces, Frontage and Gaps in the Built Up Framework or immediately adjacent” - development will not normally be allowed.

• En15: “Open Spaces and Gaps for Protection” – as defined on the inset map, development that impairs their open nature will not normally be allowed.

• En20: Landscaping Scheme - wherever appropriate a development will be subject to the conditions requiring the execution of a landscaping scheme.

• En25: "General Design Criteria" - expects all new development to relate sensitively to its surroundings.

• R1: “Recreation and Leisure Provision” – will directly promote district wide recreation and leisure projects and generally support leisure and recreation facilities commensurate with population levels, housing developments and identified need.

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

Policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002).

• OB1 – Nature and Scale of Obligations – will relate to the size of development and the impact on physical infrastructure, social and community facilities and services.

• OB2 – Maintenance of Open Space – contributions may be sought for the maintenance of small areas of open space,

3 11 children’s play space and recreational facilities, woodland or landscaping to benefit the development.

3.4 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

Policies from the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 are relevant and viewable at http://www.huntsdc.gov.uk click on Environment and Planning, then Planning then Planning+Policy then Informal policy statements where there is a link to Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• P1 – Sustainable Development – development proposals should contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development.

• P2 – Natural Resources – development proposals should contribute to the efficient use of natural resources by: making best use of land and existing infrastructure; minimising the use of non-renewables; minimising water consumption; no adverse impact on water resources and flood risk; curtail pollution; encourage waste reduction and recycling.

• P3 - Social and Economic Well-being - development should contribute to the social and economic well-being of the district.

• P4 - Settlement Strategy - describes the settlement strategy for the district .

• P5 – Settlement Hierarchy – Market Towns: St Neots, Huntingdon, St Ives, Ramsey and Bury.

• P11 – Infrastructure Requirements – Development proposals should provide or contribute towards the cost of providing infrastructure, and of meeting social and environmental requirements, where these are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

• G1 – Open Space and Recreational Land – development proposals should not entail the whole or partial loss of open space within the settlements, or of outdoor recreation facilities or allotments.

• G2 – Landscape Character - development proposals should respect and respond appropriately to the distinctive qualities of the surrounding landscape

• G3 – Trees, hedgerows and Other Environmental Features - development proposals should minimise risk of harm to trees, hedgerows or other environmental features of visual, historic or nature conservation value.

• B1 – Design Quality - developments should demonstrate a high quality of design in terms of layout, form and contribution to the character of the area.

4 12

• B2 – Street scene – development proposal should make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of streets and public spaces.

• B3 – Accessibility, Adaptability and Security – the location and design of new development should enable ease of access, have convenient and appropriate facilities and minimise the extent to which users feel at risk of crime.

• T1 – Transport Impacts - development proposals should be capable of being served by safe convenient access to the transport network and should not give rise to traffic volumes that exceed the capacity of the local transport network.

• T2 – Car and Cycle Parking - development proposals should limit car parking and provide cycle parking facilities to the levels set out in the Council’s parking standards.

• T3 – Rights of Way and Other Public Routes - Lists the criteria which should be considered in relation to Rights of Way.

3.5 Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPD – June 2007

3.6 Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment 2007

3.7 Huntingdon West of Area Action Plan – Issues and Options (consultation period commencing 8th May 2008 – 5th June 2008)

3.8 Huntingdonshire Housing Land Assessment

3.9 Huntingdon Town Centre Vision

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The site has been previously used as a football pitch predominately in association with the Police Headquarters. There has been no development on the site historically and there is no relevant planning history.

5. CONSULTATIONS

Initial Consultation

5.1 Huntingdon Town Council – OBJECTION , the proposed development, which has only one access is considered overdevelopment of the area and is at odds with the existing highways infrastructure, which is currently inadequate for existing traffic levels (copy attached)

Second Consultation following receipt of amended plans and supporting documentation.

5.2 Environment Agency – NO OBJECTION subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions.

5 13 5.3 Wildlife Trust – Concerned that the application has the potential to impact upon the Great Crested Newt population that is known to breed in the pond in the wildlife strip to the north-west of the application site. It is essential that the wildlife strip is retained and managed in such a way to sustain the Great Crested Newt population. As the application does not directly affect this strip, it is requested that a condition be imposed on any planning permission requiring that the newt population is protected during construction and post construction.

5.4 Highways Agency – Holding Direction issued. The application area conflicts with the favoured road layout for the road network post viaduct removal. The Transport Assessment is inadequate.

5.5 Police Architectural Liaison Officer – Whilst not objecting, there are concerns regarding the road layout into the Police Headquarters. The Campus doesn’t have a vehicular access onto its land adjacent to the main reception to provide a drop off point. The new access road from Hinchingbrooke Park Road to the bypass, will have an access off used by emergency vehicles, any obstruction of this roadway entrance could endanger life by hindering response times. Recommend consideration of an access for emergency vehicles only be considered.

5.6 CCC Archaeology – Recommend an archaeological evaluation be carried out prior to the granting of any planning permission.

5.7 HDC Transportation – The Transport Assessment is inadequate.

5.8 English Heritage – Happy to defer to the advice of the Council’s conservation team on the details of the application in relation to the impact of the setting of the proposed development on Hinchingbrooke House.

5.9 HDC Conservation Team – Given the context of this site and the nature of surrounding development it is viewed that the proposals put forward will not compromise or impinge on the setting of Hinchingbrooke House or its associated listed structures. There are no views or vistas looking from or to the house and taking the land in question. Indeed on the north side of the house just outside the 16th Century gatehouse and walls (grade I listed) there is a significant area of parking which serves the school and this area has a rear service function to it and no longer affords any key views of Hinchingbrooke House.

5.10 Cambs Fire and Rescue Service – No objection subject to the provision of fire hydrants being secured by way of a S106 Agreement or condition.

5.11 East of England Ambulance Service – Concerns that to allow construction traffic to utilise this primary route will impact on our ability to respond to our local population in a timely and potentially life saving manner. Particular times of concern will be mornings and afternoon ‘rush-hours’, especially during school term time.

5.12 Cambs PCT – The PCT have no objection to the proposed development.

6 14

5.13 Sport England – Sport England would normally oppose development that would lead to the loss of, or prejudice the use of, all or part of a playing field without meeting at least one of the specific exception criteria identified in Sport England’s policy ‘A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England’ (1997). In this instance the playing field at the California Road site will be lost, although it is proposed to provide new facilities at this site, including a replacement playing field). It is therefore essential that these applications (0703433OUT & 0703432OUT) be considered together against the criteria of E4. At present the application proposes adequate replacement external facilities, but the applicant has failed to demonstrate how adequate changing provision could be provided.

5.14 CCC Highways Authority – The Transport Assessment is inadequate.

5.15 CCC Archaeology – An archaeological evaluation has been carried out on the site, in which remains relating to prehistoric and Roman settlements were found. Later Medieval remains were also found, relating to incidental use of this land plot within a broader agricultural landscape that had developed here by this time. Whilst there is no objection to this proposed development, in light of the presence of early settlement in this land plot, the construction requires mitigation and there is no alternative than to excavate in the part of the development containing the most important archaeological remains. It is therefore recommended that a condition be imposed on any grant of planning permission.

5.16 HDC Conservation Team – No further comments to those previously made.

5.17 Natural England – No objection, subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions relating to protected species. Encourage biodiversity in accordance with the Design and Access Statement and lighting should be kept to a minimum.

5.18 CCC Highways Authority – Are now satisfied that the Transport Assessment adequately demonstrates that both the access proposed is practical and that there will be no detrimental affect on existing traffic flows. Conditions are requested.

5.19 Highways Agency – Withdrawn the holding direction. The Transport Assessment is now considered adequate and the proposed access arrangements would not prejudice the A14 development. Recommend appropriate planning conditions to safeguard the A14 buffer zone during reserved matters stage.

5.20 Sport England – Consider the provision of sports facilities on this site would adequately mitigate against any lost at California Road, they request that their requirements are conditioned to ensure provision at reserved matters stage.

5.21 Any additional comments will be reported to Members.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

7 15 6.1 Hinchingbrooke School – Fully supportive of the rejuvenation of the College but cannot support its relocation to the planned site. Objection on the following grounds: • Concerns regarding the level of traffic surrounding the school at peak times and the difficulties faced by students walking and cycling towards the town centre. Increased traffic will only make matters worse. • Concerned regarding the construction traffic and conflict with students coming to and from school. Even post construction the use of this right turn will increase congestion. • Concerned regarding the assertions in the Transport Assessment with regards to the quality of pedestrian and cycle access. We regard current provision as inadequate and planned improvements will only marginally improve the situation. • College relocation will increase car journeys into the area of Brampton Road and will further impinge upon access into and out of the school grounds by car. • The school currently suffers from an increasing number of cars being parked on the school site to avoid station parking fees. It is clear there is an insufficient amount of parking at the college site and will add to the parking problems at the school site. Creating barriers at the school will only divert funds from children’s education. • Grave concern regarding the impact on Hinchingbrooke House. • Any road layout may be in place for several years prior to the future A14 re-development and it is noted that the Highways Agency have expressed concerned about development in the area in advance of A14 alterations in its response to the West Huntingdon Area Action Plan in August 2007.

6.2 20A Post Street – OBJECTION

• Grave concern to the traffic levels in this area. The Transport Assessment is flawed. • Insufficient consultation with all parties concerned. In particular the school with concerns a) the safety of pupils, b) impact on Hinchingbrooke House. • The proposed site is smaller than the existing site and parking is already a problem at the existing site.

6.3 39 Sallowbush Road – OBJECTION

• The removal of the college sends out a clear signal that the residents on the Oxmoor do not deserve a college fostering vocational and further educational skills. The demographics of the Estate make the College on its present site more important. • The present site allows for cohesion between the College, local school and Special Needs Pupils at Spring Common School, which will not be met by this new site. • The arrangements for transport are inadequate and will add to congestion on Brampton Road. Will lead to Brampton Road being congested for much of the working day.

8 16 • Hinchingbrooke is one of the few open spaces on the fringe of Huntingdon. The loss of the playing field and its replacement will only harm the visual environment and impact on Hinchingbrooke House and its historic setting.

6.4 5 Laurel Court – OBJECTION

• How will all the staff and students be getting to and from the proposed site? Traffic is already a problem. • There is nothing wrong with where it is. • The main reason for this move is that the land the College currently occupies is worth more money as housing. There is nothing wrong with this but chose a better location closer to where many students need it around the Oxmoor not Hinchingbrooke. • All this town seems to do at the moment is waste money moving things to new premises.

6.5 134 Hartford Road – OBJECTION

• Whilst recognising the College’s need to improve its existing facilties, mostly 60’s build are now not fit for purpose, it should remain on its existing site. As it will benefit the local community and lead to a greater long term integration for them and the education facilties. • Removing the College and replacing it will further housing attached to the ‘Old’Town could re-awake the Oxmoor Isolation and reduce the facilities so essential for continued integration. • Moving the College will also mean that many disadvantaged young people will find it difficult to access the courses by increasing the distance to travel with no convenient bus service available. • The access is likely to conflict with emergency vehicles, the hospital traffic and school traffic, careful regard must be given to the access arrangements.

6.6 38 South Road – OBJECTION

• Increasing an already congested through route. • Increased road traffic hazards to pedestrians and cyclists especially young people. • Restricting emergency vehicle access from Hinchingbrooke Hospital. • Not taking account of the non-cash costs. • Not having a fully funded A14 development scheme.

6.7 11 Budge Close – OBJECTION

• The road congestion we have to contend with is already appalling, I can only see foresee matters deteriorating if the College relocates to this site. • The changes to the A14 are many years away. • Moving the college from an area devoid of much needed services is ill-planned and unfair. Any new building could be re-built on the existing location.

9 17 • The relocation will increase the need to travel to the College • Consultation for this major work is inadequate.

6.8 Friends of Hinchingbrooke House – OBJECTION

• The vistas to and from the house will be seriously disrupted. • The proposal is not in keeping with the ambience of the land surrounding this important building and will have an effect on the house as a major tourist attraction. • The impact on the traffic flows will be detrimental to the area.

6.9 20 Post Street, Godmanchester – OBJECTION

• The roads are already busy to add the Huntingdon College with its many students is madness.

6.10 25 Snowdonia Way – OBJECTION

• Traffic congestion at rush hour is already a problem. • How can concentrating so many facilities in one location be a good idea? • Surely the current site makes more sense. • Hinchingbrooke Park Road is a dead end, its not as though traffic can filter through.

6.11 66 Christie Drive – OBJECTION

• College Traffic will only make the existing traffic congestion worse. • The existing green belt and parks are slowly being eroded. • If parking is going to be charged this will result in more parking on the access to the park and Christie Drive. • Christie Drive is supposed to be two way but due to parking it is only a single track. • Why can’t the College stay where it is, it seems to work fine. • Also there are no facilities or amenities on Hinchingbrooke Park Road and the College will be very isolated.

6.12 36 Dartmoor Drive – OBJECTION

• Congestion in Hinchingbrooke Park Road is already a major problem. Traffic is gridlocked at peak times. • Whenever there is an accident or incident on either the A14 or in Huntingdon itself, Brampton Road reaches a standstill. • The current location of the college is ideal why move it.

6.13 7 Dartmoor Drive – OBJECTION

• Traffic gridlock is already obvious and will get worse. • How are the ambulances going to get through? • Access too close to large secondary school and cutting across a street where children as young as 11yrs are walking and cycling past. • Emergency helicopter has been using the field for landing and taking off.

10 18 • Surface water pooling regularly on Brampton Road and Hinchingbrooke Park Road. Building on this field will only make it worse. • This small green field should be left untouched and is a delight to walk past. • The present site is surely adequate to re-build on. • Do we really need another institution spilling out cars at peak times?

6.14 15 Brecon Way – OBJECTION

• The hospital should have good access at all times. • Traffic is already an issue. • Car parking in the area is becoming a problem. • We must retain green areas. • Walking is good for children, do they need to be near to the station?

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues for consideration are the acceptability of the relocation of the existing college, the principle of the use of this application site as a location for a new Regional College; whether the Design and Access Statement is sufficiently detailed; the effect on residential amenity; the impact on the character and appearance of the area, including the impact on adjacent listed buildings; and the impact on highway safety and drainage.

The acceptability of the relocation of the existing college

7.2 The corresponding application for the development of the California Road site (the existing college site) is also being considered at this Development Control Panel meeting, and whilst this application must be determined on its own merits, it does highlight Central Government advice, which advises that the first choice of location for facilities such as the College should be within Town Centres or in sustainable locations. Whilst the existing College site is accessible by a number of means of transport, it is located approximately 800m from the town centre and a greater distance from the railway station. When having regard to the College’s catchment area, it is not considered that the existing site is necessarily the most appropriate location for such a use.

7.3 It is therefore considered that the principle relating to the proposed relocation of the college is acceptable subject to an appropriate alternative site being found and the new premises including a replacement playing field.

Principle of use of this site for a Regional College

7.4 The application site is designated by the 1995 Local Plan as an ‘Open Space and Gap for Protection’. The associated Local Plan policies En14 and 15 normally resist development on such areas which have intrinsic environmental qualities in themselves or by virtue of longer distance views which they allow, or developments that would impair their open nature. Accordingly, should Members be minded to grant planning permission, they should be aware that it would be a 11 19 departure from the Local Plan and, if they were minded to support it, would be required to be referred to full Council and then, if Council was minded to support it, onto Go East.

7.5 The question is therefore are there any material considerations which indicate that the application should be supported as a departure from the development plan? Whilst full consideration must be given to the development plan policies, Members must also have regard to the emerging Huntingdonshire Sustainable Community and Core Strategy and the emerging Huntingdon West Area Action Plan.

7.6 The emerging area action plan includes this application site within an area defined as being the ‘Hinchingbrooke Community Campus Area’, following the initial consultation period, the Council has now identified three development options for this area, which include the potential development of new, enhanced, education facilities on this site.

7.7 In addition to this, the Huntingdon Town Centre Vision was undertaken by the Civic Trust Regeneration Unit on behalf of the District Council in 2000 and an update published in September 2006. This Vision document considered the constabulary land as a potential development site and observes that the site will be affected by the removal of the A14 viaduct and that a link from Hinchingbrooke Park Road to the severed part of the A14 will be needed. It advised that this site was unsuitable for residential development and that it was better suited to development that respected the parkland setting and accordingly does not allocate this entire site for new development. However, it emphasises the need to strengthen the appeal of the area for arts, sports, educational and recreational uses, as well as those existing uses.

7.8 Whilst existing policy indicates that this site should be preserved in its current form, it is clear that recent assessments of the site have indicated that at least part of the land would be suitable for development of an institutional nature.

7.9 Many residents have raised concerns regarding the movement of the College from its existing location and the disadvantage that this will have on existing students from the Oxmoor area. However, the applicant has provided data from the 2006/07 intake, which demonstrates that the larger proportion of students travel to the existing site from outside of the Oxmoor Estate, thereby emphasising the need for a more sustainable location.

7.10 It is clear that this application site is well served by sustainable links, it is within approximately 500m of the railway station, has good pedestrian and cycle links to the town centre, and will benefit from the forthcoming guided bus route, which will pass directly past the site, thus making this site far more sustainable than the existing College site. Whilst the existing site has the benefit of a reasonable bus service, it is clearly not as sustainable as the proposed site.

7.11 The site has been identified as the location for the new through road following the demolition of the A14 viaduct, therefore the existing character of the site would be substantially lost. On this basis, the

12 20 introduction of a focal institutional building would create a focus for any new junction created and meet the potential future aspirations for the site. Additionally, the development of a college building in this location would be clearly read in association with the constabulary buildings and hospital.

7.12 Setting aside the issues of impact on the character and appearance of the area, listed building, local residents and highway safety which will be considered below, it is considered that this proposed site would be an appropriate site for the relocated college, being in a far more accessible location than its existing location.

Acceptability of the Design and Access Statement

7.13 The Design and Access Statement is comprehensive and should help to ensure a high quality scheme at reserved matters stage, that incorporates a well designed, contemporary building of a mix of two and three storey elevations, with an opportunity to promote active and animated elevations that clearly address the public vantage points of the site.

7.14 Should Members be minded to resolve to grant planning permission it is recommended that certain elements of the Design and Access Statement be conditioned. These would include the indicative layout plan, proposed scale, biodiversity proposals and public art strategy. This will ensure that any subsequent reserved matters schemes achieve an appropriate scale of development, sustainable development and enhance biodiversity, whilst encouraging the use of public art.

Impact on Residential Amenity

7.15 The proposed development site is a substantial distance from any residential development, it is not therefore likely to result in any detrimental loss of amenity to any neighbouring properties.

Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area, including the listed building

7.16 The existing site is currently laid to grass and benefits from a wildlife belt to the north-west and a dense tree belt to the south fronting Hinchingbrooke Park Road. Additionally, the exiting constabulary buildings and associated car parking is to the west and to the north lies the remainder of the existing grassed field owned by the constabulary.

7.17 As a result of the dense established tree belts, the views of the site from Hinchingbrooke Park Road are limited. Whilst the application proposes an amended access arrangements, the applicant proposes minimal works to these tree belts. The main view of the site from Hinchingbrooke Park Road would be at the newly formed junction, allowing a view of the main college building. It is important to note that to date the Highways Agency have not finalised the potential routing of the A14 link section that will run adjacent to this site. Accordingly, there is a potential risk of the loss of part of the existing landscape belt fronting Hinchingbrooke Park Road, therefore increasing the views of the proposed buildings and its presence within

13 21 the street scene, emphasising the need to ensure good design and integration into its setting.

7.18 From the north the site is much more open, however, as a consequence of this being private land, there are only minimal public views of this perspective and these are primarily from the public footpath located within the ‘wildlife belt’ to the north-west. Upon completion of the new link road, the views of the site from this angle will significantly increase, as a new right of way is formed, it is accepted that the proposed development will be seen from this new link road, but careful regard must be given to the nature of the road link, the extent of works necessary to construct it and the impact that will also have on the character of this area.

7.19 The site at present is a pleasant open space, but as private land is not available for public use. The future of the openness of the site is already limited, as mentioned above. Following the A14 redevelopment, it is highly likely that a link road from Brampton Road to the remaining A14 stub. Following the removal of the viaduct, will pass through a substantial part of this site, severing it from the constabulary buildings and potentially introducing a large roundabout and 7-9m wide roadway, the exact details of which are currently being worked on by the Highways Agency and will be subject to a Public Inquiry in approximately late 2009/10. As such a substantial amount of the tranquility of this site will be lost and the character and appearance eroded.

7.20 Additionally, the proposed development will clearly be read in association with the Hospital and constabulary buildings which are large dated institutional building fit for purpose. The proposed indicative innovative contemporary design proposed for the college would be an attractive addition to the locality and add a landmark feature to what is likely to become a major junction.

7.21 Overall, it is considered that the protection previously afforded to this site via Policies En14 and 15 has already been prejudiced by the Highway Agency’s aspirations and as such the proposed development would ensure the retention of some open space to the north, whilst introducing a development that is aesthetically in keeping with surrounding development.

7.22 Turning to the impact on the listed building, Hinchingbrooke House, whilst local residents have raised concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development on the vistas to and from the House, the Council’s Conservation Team have comprehensively assessed the proposal and its impact on the listed building. In their professional opinion, when having regard to the context of the site and the nature of the surrounding development, the proposal would not compromise or impinge upon the setting of Hinchingbrooke House or its associated listed structures. Of particular note is the lack of views or vistas looking to or from the house. Having regard to this professional advice it is not considered that the proposed development would be detrimental to the listed building, its associated structures or its setting.

7.23 Whether or not this development goes ahead, the character and appearance of the area will change in the future. The proposed

14 22 College development looks to retain a large area of open space to the north and accords with the emerging policy for the development of this area. The benefits of the scheme, namely a substantially improved, state of the art Regional College, in a highly sustainable location, providing modern, efficient and inspired learning for the District’s young adults are also considered to outweigh any further loss of the openness of this area.

Highway Safety

7.24 Because the precise alignment of the changes to the road network in the immediate locality following the realignment of the A14 has not been finalised, the application as originally submitted could have prejudiced the future of the A14 development proposal. The applicant subsequently amended the scheme to ensure these proposals were no longer prejudiced. To safeguard this position, the Highway’s Agency has requested that any permission includes a condition to ensure that there is no essentially required development within a designated buffer zone alongside the indicative new lines of Hinchingbrooke Park Road and the new link road.

7.25 Additionally, the applicant has now submitted a revised Transport Assessment that has regard for both the existing traffic flows, the proposed flows and the implications of the A14 development.

7.26 Whilst local residents have raised concerns regarding the existing traffic situation on Brampton Road and the detrimental impact such a development would have on an already problematic situation, both the Highways Authority and the Highways Agency are advising that the traffic generated by the proposed development would be easily accommodated on the new access road and junction and that the impact on the existing road network would be acceptable. In coming to its recommendation, the Highway Authority has considered the impact of the development on access for emergency vehicles. They have advised that a condition should be attached to any permission requiring a travel plan to be submitted, incorporating methods of encouraging sustainable travel, enforcement and monitoring, as all new development should seek to encourage sustainable modes of transport.

Other Matters

7.27 Some residents have raised concerns regarding water pooling on the existing road network in times of heavy rainfall. The site does not fall within an indicative flood plain but following consultation with the Environment Agency, it is recommended that appropriate planning conditions be attached to any grant of planning permission requiring methods of surface and foul water drainage to be submitted and approved to prevent an increased risk of flooding in the locality.

7.28 As stated above the site is located adjacent to a ‘wildlife belt’ known to contain protected species habitats. Following consultation with Natural England, the Wildlife Trust and the Environment Agency, it is not considered that the proposed development would be detrimental to these protected species subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions and informatives.

15 23

7.29 In addition to this, in accordance with PPS9, it is essential that the development has minimal impact on biodiversity and enhances it wherever possible. This development offers a good opportunity to improve the biodiversity of the site, if measures to enhance habitats and increase habitat variability are incorporated at the design stage. This can be conditioned accordingly.

7.30 In conclusion, the proposed development, whilst a departure from the Local Plan, accords with the emerging spatial vision for this area, would be well sited amongst other similar uses, and would present an opportunity for a vastly improved, more accessible state of the art College development that would benefit the wider community. Accordingly, it is recommended that, subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions, Members recommend that planning permission be granted as a departure from the adopted Development Plan, and allow the application to be referred to Full Council.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.

8. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Panel indicates that it is minded to SUPPORT the scheme; the application is referred to Council and then, if supported by Council, is referred to Go-East. Should the Secretary of State decide not to call-in the application, then outline planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions to include the following:

01 017 Details reserved minus access

01 003 Reserved matters within three years

01 004 Dates for submission of details

Nonstand Design and Access Statement

Nonstand Travel Plan

Nonstand A14 Buffer Zone

Nonstand Access details and Implementation

Nonstand Sport England requirements

Nonstand Protective Fencing during Development

Nonstand Foul and Surface Water Drainage

Nonstand Archaeology

Nonstand Fire Hydrants

Nonstand Wheel Cleaning

Nonstand Construction Vehicle Compound

16 24

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application File Reference: 0703432OUT Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPD, June 2007 Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment (2007) Huntingdon West of Area Action Plan Huntingdonshire Housing Land Assessment Huntingdon Town Centre Vision

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Ms Elizabeth Fitzgerald Development Control Team Leader 01480 388490

17 25 This page is intentionally left blank

26 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2008

Case No: 0703433OUT (OUTLINE APPLICATION)

Proposal: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF COLLEGE BUILDINGS AND ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS

Location: HUNTINGDONSHIRE REGIONAL COLLEGE CALIFORNIA ROAD

Applicant: HUNTINGDONSHIRE REGIONAL COLLEGE

Grid Ref: 524224 272713

Date of Registration: 16.10.2007

Parish: HUNTINGDON

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The application site is located within the Oxmoor Estate. It is currently the existing site of the Huntingdon Regional College, which in itself comprises a variety of single storey and two storey buildings that sprawl across much of the 5.8 hectare site. In addition to the built form, the site benefits from a full sized football pitch and tennis court and some on site parking.

1.2 Located between California Road and Coxons Close, the site is situated amidst an area of relatively dense housing development and adjacent to an infant and primary school.

1.3 The site is bounded by built development to the east and south, and is enclosed by California Road to the west. The north of the site is open space which is also currently the subject of a planning application for residential development.

1.4 The application seeks consent for the residential development of the site following the demolition of the existing college buildings. As an outline application, the applicant is seeking consent for the principle of the change of use and the acceptability of the access. Appearance, layout, landscaping and scale are to be considered at a later time following the determination of this application, as reserved matters.

1.5 In support of the application, the applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment, Flood Risk Assessment, proposed improved access details from California Road and Indicative layout plan.

27 2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1: “Delivering Sustainable Development” (2005) contains advice on the operation of the plan-led system.

2.2 PPS3: Housing (2006) sets out how the planning system supports the growth in housing completions needed in England.

2.3 PPG13 – Transport (2001) provides guidance in relation to transport and particularly the integration of planning and transport.

2.4 PPS25: “Development and Flood Risk” (2006) sets out Government policy on development and flood risk. It's aims are to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas of highest risk. Where new development is, exceptionally, necessary in such areas, policy aims to make it safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, reducing flood risk overall.

For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

3. PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• P1/3 – Sustainable Design in Built Development - a high standard of design and sustainability for all new development will be required.

• P6/1 – Development Related Provision – development will only be permitted where the additional infrastructure and community requirements generated by the proposal can be secured.

• P9/8 – Infrastructure Provision – a comprehensive approach towards securing infrastructure needs to support the development strategy for the Cambridge Sub-Region. The programme will encompass: transport; affordable and key worker housing; education; health care; other community facilities; environmental improvements and provision of open space; waste management; water, flood control and drainage and other utilities and telecommunications.

2 28

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

Policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95 .

• H37 - “Environmental Pollution” – housing development will not be permitted in locations where there is a known source of environmental pollution which would be detrimental to residential amenity.

• T18 - “Access requirements for new development” states development should be accessed by a highway of acceptable design and appropriate construction.

• T19 - “Pedestrian Routes and Footpath” – new developments are required to provide safe and convenient pedestrian routes having due regard to existing and planned footpath routes in the area.

• En20 - “Landscaping Scheme” - Wherever appropriate a development will be subject to the conditions requiring the execution of a landscaping scheme.

• En25 - "General Design Criteria" Indicates that the District Council will expect new development to respect the scale, form, materials and design of established buildings in the locality and make adequate provision for landscaping and amenity areas.

• R1 - “Recreation and Leisure Provision” – will directly promote district wide recreation and leisure projects and generally support leisure and recreation facilities commensurate with population levels, housing developments and identified need.

• R3 - sets out standards for the provision of open space- in settlements of more than 1000 this is based on the standard of 2.43 ha(6 acres) per 1000 population.

• R7 – Open playspace provision standards in new housing schemes.

• R17 - indicates that the District Council will have regard to policy R1 and the standards set out in policy R3 and other policies of the local plan in determining whether alternative developments should be permitted on existing or proposed recreation or amenity areas including school playing fields.

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

Policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002).

3 29 • STR1 - Outlines the settlement hierarchy

• STR3 - Selects Huntingdon as a market town

• HL5 - Indicates that good design and layout will be required for all new housing development

• HL6 - Indicates that housing densities will be between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare

• OB1 – Nature and Scale of Obligations – will relate to the size of development and the impact on physical infrastructure, social and community facilities and services.

• OB2 – Maintenance of Open Space – contributions may be sought for the maintenance of small areas of open space, children’s play space and recreational facilities, woodland or landscaping to benefit the development.

3.4 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• P1 – Sustainable Development – development proposals should contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development.

• P3 - Social and Economic Well-being - development should contribute to the social and economic well-being of the district.

• P4 - Settlement Strategy - describes the settlement strategy for the district.

• P5 – Settlement Hierarchy – Market Towns: St Neots, Huntingdon, St Ives, Ramsey and Bury.

• G1 – Open Space and Recreational Land – development proposals should not entail the whole or partial loss of open

4 30 space within the settlements, or of outdoor recreation facilities or allotments.

• G2 – Landscape Character - development proposals should respect and respond appropriately to the distinctive qualities of the surrounding landscape

• B1 – Design Quality - developments should demonstrate a high quality of design in terms of layout, form and contribution to the character of the area.

• B2 – Street scene – development proposal should make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of streets and public spaces.

• B4 – Amenity - developments should not have an unacceptable impact upon amenity of existing or future occupiers.

• H1 – Location of Housing Development - lists the limitations on the location of future housing development.

• H2 – Housing Density - lists the minimum density standards housing developments should achieve. Within or adjacent to market towns: 40-75 dwellings per hectare.

• H3 – Mix of Dwelling Sizes – major housing development should incorporate accommodation suitable for a range of household sizes and types, which meets the local community’s needs.

• H6 – Affordable Housing – is considered to be that available at a significant discount below market levels so as to be affordable to households who cannot either rent or purchase property that meets their need on the open market.

• H7 – Affordable Housing Targets and Thresholds – A proposal for housing development should provide up to 40% of the total number of dwellings as affordable housing. On 0.5ha or more and all developments containing 15 dwellings or more, subject to the provision on the financial viability of any proposal.

• T1 – Transport Impacts - development proposals should be capable of being served by safe convenient access to the

5 31 transport network and should not give rise to traffic volumes that exceed the capacity of the local transport network.

• T2 – Car and Cycle Parking - development proposals should limit car parking and provide cycle parking facilities to the levels set out in the Council’s parking standards.

• T3 – Rights of Way and Other Public Routes - Lists the criteria which should be considered in relation to Rights of Way.

3.5 Developer Contributions Towards Affordable Housing SPD – November 2007

3.6 Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPD - June 2007

3.7 Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment 2007

3.8 The Oxmoor Action Plan:

This plan has been adopted by the Council as Interim Policy Guidance. The Action Plan deals with the land use and spatial aspects of the wider programme to regenerate the area through the government's Single Regeneration Budget programme and the Government's Sustainable Communities Programme. The Plan identifies that new development supporting the community in Oxmoor is key to the generation of necessary funding to allow improvements to come forward.

3.9 Huntingdon West Area Action Plan – Issues and Options (consultation period commencing 8th May 2008 – 5th June 2008)

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 Planning history for the site is extensive but it mainly relates to the existing college use and peripheral uses on site.

4.2 The most relevant planning application is the proposed residential development to the north of the site application ref: 0500836OUT, again an outline application which proposes a development at a density of 37 dwellings per hectare, with associated Section 106 Agreement seeking contributions towards or provision of, open space and play space, Market Town Transport Strategy, Education, in addition to the provision of footpath links into this application site. This application was considered by Members on the 20th June 2005 and is still pending the resolution of an associated legal agreement. (A copy of the report and site location plan is attached.)

4.3 0703432OUT – another application on this agenda for the construction of a new college campus with associated playing facilities at Hinchingbrooke Park Road is also relevant in that that proposal deals with the planned relocation of the Regional College.

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Huntingdon Town Council – OBJECTION . The housing proposals are considered to be an overdevelopment of the site, which would put

6 32 a strain on local resources for health, education and highways. Any Section 106 contributions generated by this scheme, should it be permitted, should be invested in the existing infrastructure, particularly the roads, footpaths and lighting. ( copy is attached) The Town Council are yet to comment on the amended scheme and any additional comments will be reported to Members.

5.2 CCC Policy – Should the application be recommended for approval a contribution towards both primary and secondary education within Huntingdon should be sought.

5.3 Sport England – Sport England would normally oppose development that would lead to the loss of , or prejudice the use of, all or part of a playing field, without meeting at least one of the specific exception criteria identified in Sport England’s policy ‘A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England’ (1997). In this instance the playing field at the site will be lost, although it is proposed to provide new facilities (including replacement playing fields) at the new site at Hinchingbrooke. It is therefore essential that these applications (0703433OUT & 0703432OUT) are considered together against the criteria of policy E4. Further comments are awaited.

5.4 Environment Agency – NO OBJECTION subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions.

5.5 Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service – NO OBJECTION subject to the provision of adequate provision being made for fire hydrants either via condition or Section 106 Agreement.

5.6 Police Liaison Officer – NO OBJECTION but concerned regarding the little reference to how the scheme will minimise crime risk and fear of crime. Additionally careful consideration should be given to the size and location of car courts and car parking and landscaping.

5.7 Highways Agency – NO OBJECTION as the submitted Transport Assessment is considered to be acceptable. The Highways Agency recommends the creation of a Residential Green Travel Plan to mitigate the impact of this development on the strategic road network.

5.8 Highways Authority – MTTS contribution of £2000 per dwelling. It is noted that the access has now changed from a ghost island right hand turn lane to a simple T junction, there are no objections to this approach or the Transport Assessment figures for this proposal. The speed survey undertaken indicates that vehicles approaching from the West will be travelling below 30mph after just traversing a signal controlled junction and a sharp bend, so in this case the reduced visibility splay distance of 77m is acceptable.

5.9 Cambridgeshire PCT – It is considered that the proposed redevelopment of the Huntingdon regional college site is likely to generate a significant increase in the number of residents registering with GP’s in Huntingdon, which could equate to an additional 600 patients. The PCT therefore requests a financial contribution to aid in the provision of better facilities within Huntingdon.

7 33 6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 Two letters of objection have been received; they have raised the following concerns:

* There are no layout plans proposed. *Horsecommon Close is a quiet area and do not want privacy invaded with noise.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues for consideration are the acceptability of the proposed relocation of the existing college; whether the principle of housing on this site is acceptable; whether the Design and Access Statement is sufficiently detailed; the effect on residential amenity; the impact on highway safety; drainage and the benefit that the proposed development could have in terms of the regeneration of the area.

Acceptability of the relocation of the existing college

7.2 The potential re-development of this site accords with the wider planning strategy for the Oxmoor area. In considering this proposal the environmental, economic and social objectives being promoted for the regeneration of Oxmoor should be positively considered. The Oxmoor Action Plan whilst not part of the Development Plan is a material consideration which should be afforded weight in the decision making process especially as it has emerged from extensive consultation and involvement with the community and parties including the Primary Care Trust, County Council, Town Council and with resident groups.

7.3 As a fundamental part of the Oxmoor Action Plan measures are being put in place to improve the area’s existing infrastructure. A new medical centre has been construction, which includes a doctor’s surgery and other related health care provision. Sapley Square shops have been redeveloped. Environmental improvements are being carried out and Coneygear Park has been improved.

7.4 Central government advice is that the first choice of location for facilities such as the Regional College should be within town centres or in other highly sustainable locations. Whilst the existing college site is accessible by a number of means of transport, it is located approximately 800m from the town centre and a much greater distance from the train station. When having regard to the college’s catchment area, it is not considered that the existing site is necessarily the appropriate location for such a use, as it is likely to generate a greater level of traffic movements by virtue of the more isolated nature.

7.5 It is therefore considered that the principle of the relocation of the college is acceptable subject to an appropriate alternative site being found and the new premises including a new playing field, being provided to compensate for the one lost as part of this development, being available for use prior to the closure of the existing building and the commencement of any future development at California Road. This approach could be secured by means of a Section 106 Agreement.

8 34

Principle of housing

7.6 The site is located within the built up area of Huntingdon and, if the relocation of the College is considered to be acceptable, then the principle of re-developing the site for housing is similarly acceptable. Policy HL5 in the Alteration to the Huntingdonshire Local Plan requires the best use to be made of land and Policy HL6 require that the density of development be at least 30 dwellings per hectare and more for sites well served by public transport. Policy H2 of the Interim Policy Statement requires a minimum net density of 30 dwellings per hectare and for sites within or adjacent to market towns states that a density of between 40-75 dwellings per hectare should be achieved. The exact density of a development site must be subject to the character of the site and its surroundings. The Planning, Design and Access Statement indicates that the site should be developed at an average density of approximately 42 dwellings per hectare and the site would therefore accommodate approximately 194 dwellings.

7.7 When assessing PPS3 requirements of net and gross developable area, in order to retain adequate open space provision, it is considered that a maximum of 194 dwellings is considered appropriate in this location and would accord with these policies and guidance documents. It is therefore recommended that should Members be minded to grant planning permission a condition restricting the development to this quantity would be appropriate.

7.8 The applicant has also proposed an indicative layout plan, which should Members be minded to grant planning permission should be conditioned to ensure that the reserved matters schemes provides adequate open space and that the density of the development accords with the general character of the area.

Acceptability of the Design and Access Statement

7.9 The submitted Design and Access Statement is comprehensive and should help to ensure the submission of a high quality scheme at reserved matters stage. If a scheme is well designed it can reduce crime problems and social issues, whilst at this stage exact details of the potential for the reduction of crime and fear of crime is limited within this document, the Police Liaison Officer is willing to negotiate and interact with the developer prior to the submission of any reserved matters application, to ensure these issues are fully addressed.

7.10 Should Members resolve to grant planning permission it is recommended that certain elements of the Design and Access Statement be conditioned, these include the indicative layout plan, proposed design and scale. This will ensure that any subsequent reserved matters schemes, achieve acceptable residential densities and a built scale that is considered to adequately relate to the surrounding properties, namely a combination of single storey to four storey, designed in a manner that relates to massing and scale of surrounding development and key focus points within the site.

9 35 Impact on Residential Amenity

7.11 As this is an outline planning application no details of the proposed dwellings are available, however, the indicative layout plan indicates the broad scale of development and siting, and it is considered that these details enable it to be concluded that it is possible for the site to be developed without prejudicing residential amenity.

Parking

7.12 Whilst the issue of appropriate parking levels will be considered fully at the reserved matters stage, the applicant has clearly demonstrated that a reasonable level of parking, i.e.: meeting either the maximum requirement as set out in the Council’s policies or just below the maximum, can be achieved on this site.

Impact on Highway Safety and Access

7.13 The applicant has proposed some amendments to the existing access arrangements to ensure that adequate visibility is achieved to meet the Highway Authority requirements and the Highways Agency have confirmed that they do not consider that the traffic flows out of the site would prejudice traffic movements onto and off the A14.

7.14 There are some concerns regarding the proposed indicative routes within the site, as there are a number of areas that incorporate long stretches of straight road, which encourage higher speeds than are appropriate for residential areas. As this is only an outline application this can be dealt with at reserved matters stage.

7.15 The application does demonstrate that both a vehicular link and pedestrian link to the site to the north and a cycle/pedestrian link to Coxons Close are achievable and would not therefore result in a large isolated cul-de-sac.

Flooding and Drainage

7.16 The submitted Flood Risk Assessment has been considered by the Environment Agency and they are satisfied that it satisfactorily demonstrates that the principle of residential development is acceptable in this location.

7.17 On the matter of drainage, the Environment Agency have requested that an appropriate planning condition requiring a scheme for the provision and implementation of surface and foul water drainage be attached to any planning approval.

Planning Obligations

7.18 The proposal is of a size which would generate the need for appropriate developer contributions in respect of:

1. Affordable housing 2. Open space 3. Education 4. Market town transport strategy 5. Primary care trust

10 36

7.19 The Parks Manager has advised that the following provision/commuted sums would normally be required for a site of this size:

One Multi Use Games Area (MUGA)

Capital Cost £80,000 Maintenance £15,000

Two LAPS

Capital Cost £15,450 each Maintenance £6,180 each

Open Space

Open Space(formal) £41,375 per ha Sports Pitch £100,400 per ha Woodland(new buffer/copse) £26,523 per ha Formal Shrubbery £46.35 per square metre Tarmac footpaths £20 per square metre (to be adopted by HDC)

7.20 Both the public open space and children’s play areas to meet the requirements of Policy R7 are to be provided onsite.

7.21 The County Council have also requested a contribution for the purpose of improving primary and secondary education in Huntingdon, of £1,600 per dwelling.

7.22 The Highway Authority has requested the usual contribution of £2,000 per dwelling, towards the Huntingdon Market Town Transport Strategy.

7.23 The Primary Care Trust have requested a contribution of £485 per dwelling, to be able to mitigate against the increase in pressure on the current Doctors Surgery’s and other health care facilities within the locality.

7.24 40% of the units should be affordable housing.

7.25 In addition, the applicant should enter into an agreement to provide a new operational college building, prior to the commencement of this development.

Conclusions

7.26 In conclusion, subject to an appropriate, sustainable location being found for the planned relocation of the existing college, it is considered that this site could reasonably and appropriately be redeveloped for residential purposes.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.

11 37 8. RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE, subject to the prior completion of a S.106 Legal Agreement relating to affordable housing, open space, education, market town transport strategy, the primary care trust and the delivery of the new college campus prior to the development of this site and to conditions to include the following:

Nonstand Reserved Matters

01 003 Reserved matters within three years

01 002 Plans and particulars in writing

01 006 Dates for commencement

Nonstand Design and Access Statement

Nonstand Access Provision

03 024 Temp. parking etc.during construction

03 040 Mud on road

Nonstand Material Samples

06 007 Tree retent.mainten.protect.(insert)

09 003 Lighting scheme before dev. (delete)

Nonstand Surface Water Drainage

Nonstand Foul Water Drainage

Nonstand Green Travel Plan

Nonstand Fire Hydrants

Nonstand Pedestrian/Cycleway Links

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application File Reference: 0703433OUT Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 Developer Contributions Towards Affordable Housing SPD – November 2007 Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPD, June 2007 Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment (2007) The Oxmoor Action Plan Huntingdonshire West Area Action Plan

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Ms Elizabeth Fitzgerald Development Control Team Leader 01480 388490

12 38 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2008

Case No: 0703435OUT (OUTLINE APPLICATION)

Proposal: DEVELOPMENT OF NEW COLLEGE CAMPUS WITH ACCESS AND CAR PARKING

Location: LAND AT SITE OF FORMER ST NEOTS OPEN AIR SWIMMING POOL, HUNTINGDON ROAD

Applicant: HUNTINGDONSHIRE REGIONAL COLLEGE

Grid Ref: 518834 260959

Date of Registration: 16.10.2007

Parish: ST NEOTS

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The site is immediately to the south of Priory Park on the eastern side of Huntingdon Road on the former outdoor swimming pool site. The site is currently vacant having been grassed over following the closure of the outdoor swimming pool. The actual site area excluding land needed for access road is 0.59ha. The application site extends to include part of Priory Park. There are a number of mature trees either side of the access point and in Priory Park. To the south is the Indoor Bowling centre and to the west the open space associated with Longsands College and the existing Regional College building and grounds.

1.2 This outline application proposes the development of a new college campus and seeks the approval solely for the means of access. Since the application was originally submitted the plans have been amended and instead of a mini-roundabout a T junction is now proposed. The application has been accompanied with a Design and Access Statement, a Planning Statement, a Flood Risk Assessment, Tree Condition Survey and Transport Assessment. The Design and Access Statement indicates a modern ‘L’ shaped building with an area of hard landscaped space between the building and Huntingdon Road. Behind the building would be parking spaces for the college. The ‘L’ shape of the building would enclose a yard area to be used for those courses such construction and building courses.

1.3 The site is within the Conservation Area.

1.4 There is a separate outline application for the redevelopment of the existing Regional College site for residential development to be served off the same access (0703505OUT)

39 2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1: ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (2005) – sets out policies on different aspects of land use planning in England

2.2 PPG13 - 'Transport' (2001) aims to promote more sustainable forms of development.

2.3 PPG15 – ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’ (1992) - gives advice on applications affecting the setting of Conservation Areas.

For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

3. PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• P1/3 - A high standard of design and sustainability will be required for new development

• P9/4 – Concentrate growth in the market towns in the Cambridge Sub-Region

• P9/8 – Infrastructure such as education provision to be put in place to support new housing development

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

Policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95

• En5 - explains development will be required to preserve or enhance conservation areas.

• En6 - requires high standards of design and consideration of scale and form and use of materials required in or affecting Conservation Areas.

• En25 - expects new development to relate to its surroundings.

• En18 - indicates that important site features such as trees and hedges should be protected.

2 40 • En20 – explains development proposals will be made the subject of landscaping conditions where appropriate

• En25 – new development to respect the scale, form, materials and design of buildings in the locality

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

Policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002)

• No relevant policies.

3.4 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• B1 - Design Quality: a development proposal should demonstrate a high quality of design in terms of layout, form and contribution to the character of the area.

• B2 - Street Scene: requires development to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of streets and public spaces.

• B4 – Amenity: a development proposal should not have an unacceptable impact on amenity.

• B8 – development within the Conservation Area to preserve and enhance the character and appearance.

• P1 - Sustainable Development: a development proposal should contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development. A major development should show how it complies with the criteria in policies P2 and P3.

• P2 - The Efficient use of Natural Resources: a development proposal should contribute to the efficient use of natural resources.

• P3 – Sets out how a development should contribute to the social and economic well being of the district

• P5 - Defines St Neots as a market town.

• T1 – Ensure safe and convenient access to the highway network.

• T2 – limits levels of parking.

3 41 3.5 Supplementary Planning Guidance and Documents

• Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment 2007

• Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2007

• Other Planning Guidance

• Longsands Quarter Urban Design Framework – adopted January 2006.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 0503115FUL – Erection of Football Pavilion to provide changing facilities – approved.

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 St Neots Town Council – NO COMMENT (copy attached).

5.2 CCC Highway Authority – NO OBJECTIONS subject to conditions.

5.3 Environment Agency – recommend conditions are attached to any consent granted relating to minimum floor levels and foul and surface water drainage.

5.4 Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue – requires details of fire hydrants

5.5 CCC Footpaths Officer – public footpaths 10 and 11A would be affected by the proposal. Recommend that details are discussed at an early stage before the submission of a reserved matters application.

5.6 Cambridgeshire Constabulary Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments at this stage.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 TWO letters have been received which make the following points:

• Additional traffic; • Loss of trees; • Devaluation of property; • Three or four storey building not in keeping; • Difficulty in getting out of access at present; • Existing parking problems on Huntingdon Road at evenings and weekends; and, • Existing car park not big enough.

6.2 No comments have been received on the amended plans.

4 42 7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues to be considered here are the principle of the proposed use, the details of the access, traffic and parking, and effect upon trees.

Principle of Proposed Use

7.2 Until recently the site was used for leisure use in the form of the open air swimming pool. The closure of the pool has made this land available and the Longsands Quarter Urban Design Framework adopted by the Council in January 2006 identified the development of a new college on the application site as one of the design options. Other policies within the Structure Plan, Local Plan and Interim Planning Policy Statement support the provision of education facilities in appropriate locations. Whilst this site is on the northern edge of St Neots, it is nevertheless in a sustainable location being on a public transport route into the town, and easily accessible by walking and cycling being adjacent to the existing Regional College site. It is therefore considered that this is an appropriate site for the provision of a new college campus building.

7.3 As this is an outline application seeking approval for the means of access all matters relating to the siting and design of the building will be reserved for consideration at a later date. The submitted Design and Access Statement shows a contemporary style of building and the details of this would be controlled through a later reserved matters application.

Acceptability of the Design and Access Statement

7.4 The Design and Access Statement puts forward the vision and concept for the building and also explains the consultation process. The statement then analyses the context of the site and looks at design principles. Sustainability features of the proposal are also considered. A site layout with indicative architectural drawings showing a part two-storey and part three-storey building is then submitted. Conditions should be imposed to ensure that the reserved natters application is broadly in accordance with the Design and Access Statement.

Traffic and Parking

7.5 The transport assessment identifies that the access and new road must be capable of serving both the new college and the new residential which is the subject of a separate application. It also identifies the site as being very sustainable for considerable numbers of walking and cycling journeys as well as being well served by public transport.

7.6 The proposed access would be 5.5 metres wide. Pedestrian access would be via a footpath on the southern side adjacent to the proposed Campus building. On the north side there would be a verge where the trees are and the development connecting to an existing path which is to the north of the verge. The proposed access will result in the loss of 7 existing parking spaces in the car park which is currently owned and managed by the Council and serves Priory Park. The car park

5 43 will therefore have a total of 45 spaces. As part of this planning application supporting information shows the provision of 59 car parking spaces behind the new college building. This will comply with the standards set out in PPG13 for colleges. In addition 60 cycle spaces are being provided. It is anticipated that this level of provision will be sufficient for the proposed use. The applicants have also offered to make available to the public the 59 college parking spaces when they are not used at weekends and to enter into an agreement to secure this. This will compensate for the loss of the 7 existing spaces at Priory Park and also provide more parking when it is needed at weekends in connection with the use of the sporting facilities in Priory Park.

Effect upon Trees

7.7 The access has been carefully designed to minimise the impact upon existing trees. The Council’s Arboricultural officer originally commented that additional information providing a tree retention/removal plan, tree protection details, and an Arboricultural Method Statement be provided. At the time of writing this report this information is still awaited from the applicant’s agent. An update on this will be provided to the Development Control Panel meeting.

Conclusions

7.8 The principle of the use on this site will provide a much needed improved higher educational facility in a sustainable, well located part of St Neots. This application will provide a contemporary design which, subject to appropriate details, will result in a visual improvement to the site which will preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.

8. RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE, subject to conditions to include the following:

01 017 - Details reserved minus access

01 002 - Plans and particulars in writing

01 003 - Reserved matters within three years

01 006 - Dates for commencement

05 001 - Buildings

Nonstand - Sample panel

Nonstand - Minimum floor levels

Nonstand - Surface water drainage

Nonstand - Foul water drainage

6 44

06 010 - Landscape design

06 011 - Soft landscape

06 012 - Hard and soft landscape implementation

06 015 - Boundary treatment

09 001 - Lighting scheme before installation

Nonstand - Cycle parking

Nonstand - Accord with Design and Access Statement

Nonstand - Layout of site

Nonstand - Minimum width access and footpaths

Nonstand - 10.5 radius kerbs

Nonstand - Detailed parking and turning

Nonstand - No building occupied until roads laid

Nonstand - Visibility splays

Nonstand - Fire Hydrants

Background Papers:

Planning Application File Reference: 0703435OUT Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995

CONTACT OFFICER - enquiries about this Report to Jennie Parsons, Development Control Team Leader ( 01480 388409.

7 45 This page is intentionally left blank

46 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2008

Case No: 0703505OUT (OUTLINE APPLICATION)

Proposal: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF COLLEGE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESS FROM HUNTINGDON STREET

Location: LAND AT AND INCLUDING HUNTINGDONSHIRE REGIONAL COLLEGE AND CORNER OF PRIORY HILL PARK, HUNTINGDON ROAD

Applicant: HUNTINGDONSHIRE REGIONAL COLLEGE

Grid Ref: 518898 260887

Date of Registration: 16.10.2007

Parish: ST NEOTS

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The site is defined as the existing Regional College site, land to the north and the existing access to the car park for Priory Park. There are a number of mature trees either side of the access point and in Priory Park. To the west is the Indoor Bowling centre, and Almond Road Surgery and to the south Priory Road Infants School. To the east is the open space associated with Longsands College.

1.2 This outline application proposes residential development of the existing Regional college buildings and open land to the north which has a site area of 1.51 hectares, and seeks the approval for the means of access. The new access proposed will use the existing access into Priory Park car park with a new ‘T’ junction on Huntingdon Road. (The application originally proposed a roundabout but has since been amended). The application has been accompanied with a Design and Access Statement, a Planning Statement, a Flood Risk Assessment, Tree Condition Survey and Transport Assessment.

1.3 The site is within the Conservation Area.

1.4 There is a separate outline application for the development of a new Regional College campus to be served off the same access (0703435OUT) and a Conservation Area Consent application for the demolition of the existing college building (0703434CAC).

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1: ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (2005) – sets out policies on different aspects of land use planning in England

2.2 PPS3 - 'Housing' (2006) contains advice on development density and parking.

2.3 PPG13 - 'Transport' (2001) aims to promote more sustainable forms of development.

2.4 PPG15 – ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’ (1992) - gives advice on applications affecting the setting of Conservation Areas.

2.5 PPG16 - Archaeology

For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

3. PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• P1/3 - A high standard of design and sustainability will be required for new development.

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

Policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95

• H31 – new housing only permitted where appropriate standards of privacy and amenity can be maintained.

• En5 - explains development will be required to preserve or enhance Conservation Areas.

• En6 - requires high standards of design and consideration of scale and form and use of materials required in or affecting Conservation Areas.

• En25 - expects new development to relate to its surroundings.

• En18 - indicates that important site features such as trees and hedges should be protected.

• En20 – explains development proposals will be made the subject of landscaping conditions where appropriate

2 48

• En25 - reflects the advice re quality contained in Structure Plan Policy P1/3.

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

Policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002)

• STR1 – Settlement hierarchy.

• STR2 – defines housing estate development as being more than 9 dwellings.

• STR3 – St Neots selected as a market town.

• HL5 – Good design and layout required in all new housing development.

• HL7 – seek to maximise the re-use of previously developed land including the conversion of underused dwellings or office or other buildings into housing use.

• AH1 – defines affordable housing.

• AH4 – seek to achieve 29% affordable housing on sites where more than 25 dwellings are proposed or more than 1 hectare.

• OB1 – scale and nature of contributions sought from development will be related to the size of the development and the impact upon the physical infrastructure.

• OB2 – Financial contributions may be sought for the maintenance of small areas of open space.

3.4 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• B1 - Design Quality: a development proposal should demonstrate a high quality of design in terms of layout, form and contribution to the character of the area.

• B2 - Street Scene: requires development to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of streets and public spaces.

• B4 – Amenity: a development proposal should not have an unacceptable impact on amenity.

3 49 • B8 – development within the Conservation Area to preserve and enhance the character and appearance

• P2 - The Efficient use of Natural Resources: a development proposal should contribute to the efficient use of natural resources.

• P3 – Sets out how a development should contribute to the social and economic well being of the district

• P5 - Defines St Neots as a market town.

• P11 – Infrastructure requirements.

• T1 – Ensure safe and convenient access to the highway network.

• T2 – limits levels of parking.

• H1 – Housing development on unallocated sites should be limited to market towns and Key centres.

• H2 – Housing Density to be a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare.

• H3 – Range and mix of dwelling sizes.

• H6 – Defines affordable housing.

• H7 – Housing development to provide up to 40% Affordable Housing.

3.5 Supplementary Planning Guidance and Documents.

3.6 Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment 2007.

3.7 Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2007.

3.8 Developer Contributions Towards Affordable Housing SPD – November 2007.

3.9 Other Planning Guidance.

3.10 Longsands Quarter Urban Design Framework – adopted January 2006.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 0101443OUT – Residential development – resolution to approve.

4 50 4.2 0503115FUL – Erection of Football Pavilion to provide changing facilities – approved.

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 St Neots Town Council – NO COMMENT (copy attached).

5.2 CCC Highway Authority – NO OBJECTION subject to conditions and MTTS contribution.

5.3 Environment Agency – recommend conditions are attached to any consent granted relating to minimum floor levels and foul and surface water drainage.

5.4 Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue – requires details of fire hydrants.

5.6 Cambridgeshire Constabulary Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments at this stage.

5.7 Cambridgeshire County Education – requests contributions to Secondary and pre-school education.

5.8 Cambridgeshire County Archaeological Officer – the site should be the subject of an archaeological investigation which can be covered by a negative condition imposed upon the planning consent.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 THREE letters have been received on the originally submitted plans, one of which was from the Governing Body of Priory Infants School, which make the following points:

• Inaccuracies in plan concerning ownership; • Higher density than shown in original planning application dating back to 1995; • Safety issues for parents walking children to school; • No mention of increased demand or contributions to school; • No information about safe access during construction; • Effect upon school not properly addressed; • More detail is needed; • Effect upon Shady walk footpath; • Apartment block not in keeping; • Noise disruption; • Air pollution; and, • Increase in construction traffic.

6.2 No letters have been received concerning the amended plans.

5 51 7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues to be considered here are the principle of residential use, the details of the access, effect upon trees, traffic and parking and planning obligations

Principle of Use

7.2 The Longsands Quarter Urban Design Framework and Masterplan adopted by the Council in January 2006 identifies a number of options for the development of the site. Option 3 identifies a new Regional college to the south of the Priory Park car park and residential development on land to the east. Other options had explored the possibility of providing a health centre. The principle of residential development therefore complies with the objectives of this Urban Design Framework and Masterplan.

7.3 The site is well located in a sustainable location for the provision of new residential development. It is adjacent to public transport routes and there are good walking and cycle links to the centre of St Neots. In addition, it is well located for services and facilities. The land in question does not comprise playing fields and Sport England has previously advised that they would not object to the development of the land. The principle of residential development is therefore acceptable provided an appropriate alternative site is found for the college.

7.4 The submitted Design and Access Statement shows the access road leading into the site from the north and serving the southern part of the site in a loop. It also shows a mixture of houses and flats fronting onto the road. The applicant envisages that the site would ensure a density in excess of 40 dwellings per hectare and the indicative plan illustrates a scheme of 55 units. This shows some incidental open space within the development and it is considered that an acceptable layout in line with that illustrated can be achieved. Amendments have been achieved to secure a greater amount of landscape space on the southern and western boundaries of the site. The final design and layout would be considered at reserved matters stage. The applicant has also proposed an indicative layout plan, which should Members be minded to grant planning permission should be conditioned to ensure that the reserved matters schemes provides adequate open space and that the density of the development accords with the general character of the area and with the principles of the Design and Access Statement. The demolition of the existing building would benefit the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Traffic and Parking

6 52 7.6 The proposed access would be 5.5 metres wide. Pedestrian access would be via a footpath on the southern side adjacent to the proposed Campus building. On the north side there would be a verge where the trees are and the development connecting to an existing path which is to the north of the verge. It will cross two public footpaths and where necessary raised tables will be provided at the points where the access crosses the footpaths. The proposed access will result in the loss of 7 existing parking spaces in the car park which is currently owned and managed by the Council and serves Priory Park. The car park will therefore have a total of 45 spaces. In addition there will be an area of campus car parking which will be available for public use when the college is closed.

Effect upon Trees

7.7 The access has been carefully designed to minimise the impact upon existing trees. The Council’s Arboricultural officer originally commented that additional information providing a tree retention/removal plan, tree protection details, and an Arboricultural Method Statement be provided. At the time of writing this report this information is still awaited from the Applicant’s Agent. An update on this will be provided to the Development Control Panel meeting.

8. SECTION 106 CONSIDERATIONS

Open Space

8.1 Following consultations with the Council’s Operations Division it is appropriate to request:

• An off site LAP with a contribution value of £15,450; • Maintenance sum for the LAP of £6,180; • Off site open space provision of £300 per dwelling; • Off site open space maintenance of £240.60 per dwelling; and, • Any on site open space which requires maintenance by HDC will require a financial contribution.

Transport Infrastructure

8.2 In order to mitigate against the impact of the development on transport infrastructure the County Council Highway have requested a financial contribution of £2000 per dwelling towards the St Neots Market Town Strategy.

Education

8.3 In order to mitigate against the impact of the development on education the County, as Education Authority, have requested a financial contribution of £2,500 per dwelling for secondary education and £840 per dwelling for nursery education.

Affordable Housing

8.4 As the site is over 0.5 hectare in size and is within the Cambridgeshire Sub-Region it is appropriate to request 40% affordable housing.

7 53 Primary Care

8.5 Following a letter from the PCT it is appropriate to request £485 per dwelling.

Delivery of New College Campus

8.6 To be required prior to development of this site.

9. CONCLUSION

9.1 In conclusion, subject to an appropriate, sustainable location being found for the planned relocation of the existing college, it is considered that this site could reasonably and appropriately be redeveloped for residential purposes.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.

10. RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE subject to the prior completion of a Section106 Legal Agreement relating to education, public open space, market town transport strategy, affordable housing, the primary care trust and the delivery of the new college campus prior to the development of this site and to conditions to include the following:

01 017 - Details reserved minus access

01 002 - Plans and particulars in writing

01 003 - Reserved matters within three years

01 006 - Dates for commencement

05 001 - Buildings

11 003 - Investigation archaeology programme

Nonstand - Foul water drainage

Nonstand - Surface water drainage

Nonstand - Finished floor levels

Nonstand - Scheme for safe access and egress

Nonstand - Fire hydrants

Nonstand - Green Travel Plan

Nonstand - Layout of site

Nonstand - Minimum width and footpaths

Nonstand - 10.5 radius kerbs

Nonstand - Enable cars to park

8 54

Nonstand - No dwelling to be occupied until access roads are laid out

Nonstand - Visibility splays

Nonstand - Design and Access Statement

Nonstand - Landscaping Details and Implementation

Background Papers:

Planning Application File Reference: 0703505OUT Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995

CONTACT OFFICER - enquiries about this Report to Jennie Parsons, Development Control Team Leader ( 01480 388409.

9 55 This page is intentionally left blank

56 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2008

Case No: 0801047FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: EXTENSION TO DWELLING

Location: 12 CASTEL WAY FOLKSWORTH

Applicant: MRS M BANERJEE

Grid Ref: 514645 289667

Date of Registration: 01.04.2008

Parish: FOLKSWORTH & WASHINGLEY

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

This application is being put before the Panel because the applicant is a Councillor.

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The site is a detached two storey dwelling that is set within a row of similar detached properties and sited on a staggered building line. The dwelling is rectangular in form with a pitched roof and gables at both ends. It has a larger dormer loft extension on the rear facing roof slope. Materials consist of light red facing brick with brown concrete tiles. The northern boundary abutting the adjacent dwelling (no. 14) is defined by a close boarded timber fence approx. 2m in height, some panels of which have been removed.

1.2 This application is for the erection of a single storey extension that would project approx. 2.4m from the north facing gable end of the dwelling and would extend across its full depth. It would be rectangular in form with a lean-to roof over that would link into an existing front lean-to roof over the garage and porch. Materials would match the existing.

1.3 It should be noted that the position of the neighbouring dwelling (no.14) and the boundary between the application site and no. 14 have been inaccurately plotted onto the submitted drawings. A visit by the Case Officer revealed the distance between the existing dwelling and the boundary is approx. 100mm narrower than shown on the submitted drawings at approx. 2.4m. This means that the extension which has an overall width of 2.5m (including guttering) would not be contained within the site and would encroach onto the neighbouring property.

1.4 Amended plans have been requested with a view to reducing the width of the extension to ensure that it is contained within the site.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

57 2.1 PPS1 - ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (2005)

For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

3. PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

Saved policies from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 are relevant and viewable at http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk follow the links to environment, planning, planning policy and Structure Plan 2003.

• P1/3 – A high standard of design and sustainability for all new development.

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95

• En25 – development should respect the scale, form, materials and design of buildings in the area.

• H34 – Extensions to dwellings should have regard to amenity and privacy of adjoining properties.

• CS8 – District Council will require satisfactory arrangements for the availability of water supply, sewerage and surface water run off facilities and provision for land drainage when considering applications for development.

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

Saved policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002)

• none relevant

3.4 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• P1 – Sustainable Development

• B1 – Design

2 58 • B4 – Amenity

• P10 – Flood Risk

3.5 The Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPD (2007) is also relevant.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 None relevant

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Folksworth Parish Council – NO OBJECTION

5.2 Middle Level Commissioners NO OBJECTION Restriction of Surface water run-off to the greenfield run-off rate will be required.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 Occupier of No14 has no objection but comments that the extension should not cross the boundary.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues to consider are the design of the proposal and its impact on the visual amenities of the street scene, impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties and surface water drainage.

Design and visual amenities.

7.2 The extension is a modest addition to the existing dwelling that would be subservient in scale. Its narrow rectangular form and lean-to roof would be in keeping with the architectural style of the dwelling and those within the locality.

7.3 When viewed from the street the narrow profile of the extension would not represent an unduly prominent feature, neither would it enclose the open space between the dwellings to the extent that it would detrimentally affect the street scene. For these reasons the proposal would be consistent with policy En25 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 and policy B1 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007.

Neighbour amenities

7.4 The only neighbouring property likely to be affected by the proposal is no. 14 beyond the northern boundary. Despite the position of the extension along the common boundary with and forward of no. 14, it would not be overbearing or result in a loss of light through overshadowing.

7.5 The extension is single storey so there would be no overlooking. For these reasons the proposal would not be harmful to the amenities of the neighbouring property and is consistent with policy H34 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 and policy B4 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007.

3 59 Surface water drainage

7.6 The Middle Level Commissioners have identified that the watercourse (Yards End Dyke) which receives surface water drainage from Folksworth is close to capacity during high rainfall events. They have advised that surface water run-off from the site is restricted to the greenfield (existing) rate to prevent an increase in flood risk from the Yards End Dyke. A suitable drainage scheme will be secured by condition.

7.7 Having regard to applicable national and local planning policies, and having taken all relevant material considerations into account, it is recommended that planning permission should be approved in this instance following the receipt of amended plans showing the entire development contained within the site.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.

8. RECOMMENDATION – That authority to determine the application be delegated to the Head of Planning Services, on completion of the consultation period on the revised plans and subject to the following conditions.

02003 Time Limit (3yrs)

05003 Extension to match

Nonstand Surface water drainage

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations 2002 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 Huntingdon Design Guide 2007 Planning application 0801047FUL

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Mr Gavin Sylvester Assistant Development Control Officer 01480 387070

4 60 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2008

Case No: 0801163FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: ERECTION OF EIGHT DWELLINGS

Location: LAND ADJACENT 25 ST GILES CLOSE

Applicant: MR COLLETT

Grid Ref: 519025 287754

Date of Registration: 02.04.2008

Parish: HOLME

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The proposal is to erect 8 dwellings on a site in a residential area which is allocated for development, together with a narrow strip of the garden of an adjoining house to the south-east (1 Station Road).

1.2 The proposal is for 7 x 2 bed units and 1 x 3 bed unit with 14 car spaces. Two units are to be affordable and would be secured by S106 obligation. The density would be approximately 29 dwellings/ha.

1.3 The proposed buildings are a maximum of 2-storeys but plot 6 is designed with the first floor accommodation in the roof-space. The buildings are to be gault brick or render with a mix of small plain tiles and slate. The gables are to be narrow and the roofs steeply pitched.

1.4 The 0.68ac/0.27ha site is a grass field which formed part of a larger allocated site, the remainder of which has been developed for housing. The site is slightly lower than the land to the west/north.

1.5 There are hedges around parts of the site: there is a deciduous hedge to the south along Station Road (B660), a tall leylandii hedge to part of the southern boundary with 1 Station Road and a further tall hedge outside the eastern boundary, in the neighbour’s garden. The rear garden of one of the adjoining properties to the south (5 Station Road) is exposed. The other rear gardens are screened by taller fencing.

1.6 The newer existing dwellings in the vicinity are predominantly of 2 storeys. The buildings tend to be bulky and simple in style with gables and reasonably spacious plots. The older properties fronting onto Station Road are a variety of styles; 1 Station Road is 2-storeys and has a hipped roof, 5 is a bungalow in an open plot, 7/9 are more traditional semi-detached houses with gables.

61 2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1 - ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (2005) provides advice on the plan-led system

2.2 PPS3 - ‘Housing’ (2006) provides advice on provision of new housing

2.3 PPG13 - ‘Transport’ (2001) provides guidance on highway matters

2.4 PPG16 - ‘Archaeology and Planning’ (1990)

2.5 PPS25 - ‘Development and Flood Risk’ (2007) provides advice on handling flood risk

2.6 Circular 5/2005 Planning obligations

For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

3. PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• P1/3 Sustainable design in building

• P9/8 Infrastructure provision

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95

• H31 privacy amenity car parking

• En12 Archaeological recording

• En18 Protection of countryside features

• En20 Landscaping schemes for new development

• En25 General design criteria

• CS8 Water supply, sewerage, sewage disposal and surface water drainage requirements

2 62 • The plan allocates the site for development.

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

Saved policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002)

• STR1 Settlement hierarchy

• STR2 up to 8 dwellings, exceptionally 15

• STR5 Holme is allocated as a Group village

• HL2 The application site is allocated for development

• HL5 seek mix/attractive schemes

• HL6 Density 30-50 dwellings/ha

• HL8 Scale of development appropriate in group villages

• HL10 Meeting the range of housing needs

• AH4 Seeks 29% affordable housing as village is below 3000 threshold.

• OB1 Nature and scale of obligations sought

3.4 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• P1 Sustainable Development

• P2 Best use of land

• P3 Diversity and distinctiveness

• P4 Settlement Strategy

• P7 Settlement Hierarchy – Smaller Settlements

• P10 Flood Risk

• P11 Infrastructure requirements

• G3 Trees, hedgerows and other environmental features

• B1 Requires development to respond to quality of site and surroundings including position, scale and massing

• B2 street scene

3 63 • B3 Accessibility, adaptability and security

• B4 Development should not have an unacceptable impact on existing or future occupiers or neighbours

• B9 Sites of archaeological interest

• H1 Location of housing development

• H2 Housing density

• H3 Mix of dwelling sizes

• H6 Affordable housing

• H7 Affordable housing targets and thresholds

• T1 Transport impacts

• T2 Car and cycle parking

3.5 Huntingdonshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2007).

3.6 Developer Contributions Towards Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document- (2007): the following policies are relevant:

• SAH/1 : seeks 29% affordable housing

• SAH/3 : seeks free serviced plots.

3.7 Market Housing Mix SPG (2004): for 8 dwellings: seek: 3 x no more than 2 Bed, 5 x no more than 3 bed: and 3 unrestricted no. of beds.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 Permission was granted for 4 dwellings in 2000 (outline permission and reserved matters consent): copy layout attached.

4.2 An appeal was dismissed for 9 dwellings in 2004 (copy decision and layout attached). The Inspector concluded that the layout was unduly cramped with inadequate space around or between the buildings compared to the relatively spacious village setting. The scheme entailed unacceptable overlooking and overbearing effects.

4.3 The inspector concluded that the arrangements for the transfer of affordable housing were unacceptable because the appellant did not agree the transfer fee for the land. The appeal was also dismissed for reasons of lack of suitable housing mix including smaller units. The Inspector noted Parish concerns about flooding but concluded that surface water attenuation could address the concern.

4.4 Two applications are undetermined and are expected to be withdrawn if this application is approved. One application is to vary the time limit on the 4 dwelling permission and the other is for 8 units: (5 x 2 bed, 1 x 3/4 bed roof and 2x 3 bed).

4 64

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Holme Parish Council: OBJECTION (COPY ATTACHED)

5.2 CCC Highways : NO OBJECTION in principle

5.3 CCC Finance : NO OBJECTION subject to sum of £20,000 for secondary education.

5.4 CCC Archaeology: NO OBJECTION subject to archaeological study.

5.5 Middle Level Commissioners (MLC ): Any response will be reported to panel.

5.6 Housing Policy: NO OBJECTION subject to satisfactory s106 including suitable land transfer fee/arrangement for 2 affordable units.

5.7 Service Development Officer Operations Division : Any response regarding refuse collection will be reported to panel.

5.8 Police Architectural Liaison Officer: NO OBJECTION subject to retaining low-height enclosure to northern part of western boundary of plot 8 to supervise part of path, condition on enclosures of rear amenity space and external lighting.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 8 objections from 7 parties: objecting to more than the previously approved 4 houses: concern about inadequate parking and consequent highway safety, incongruous design and cramped layout, lack of school capacity, lack of village facilities/recreation space, village is poorly served by public transport therefore motor journeys required, concern about water supply/surface water drainage, strain on village facilities, flooding, lack of turning space/access for larger vehicles, 14 car spaces inadequate, some garages too small, lack of site supervision of south-western side footpath, overlooking by plots 1,2, 8, location of speed bump, effect on neighbouring values with social housing, incremental estate development has avoided amenity space, no precedent for this density, semis out of keeping.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 There is no objection to the principle of housing at this density, subject to satisfactory details, on this allocated site. The site has the benefit of permission for 4 large houses and the residential allocation has been brought forward in the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration (2002).

7.2 The main issues to consider are the effects on street scene, effects on neighbour amenities, amenities of future occupiers, highway safety, and planning obligation considerations.

THE DENSITY AND EFFECTS ON THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA:

5 65 7.3 The erection of more than the approved 4 dwellings would be in accordance with the guidance in PPS3, the Development Plan and Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 as it would make a better use of the land. The scheme would achieve a mix in accordance with the Mix SPG.

7.4 The proposed density would still be relatively low at approximately 29 dwellings/ha but acceptable in principle, because the scheme is considered to relate satisfactorily to the relatively low density surrounding development.

7.5 Some of the plots would be smaller than the surrounding plots. This is not considered to be harmful to the character of the area. Unlike the previous proposal which was the subject of the appeal, the current scheme is not considered to be cramped and adequate space has generally been retained around the buildings and for parking.

7.6 The design of the houses is based on a simplified version of the ‘Gothic’ style of some older houses in Church Street and Station Road. The design is considered acceptable. The elevations include some vertical emphasis, which the Inspector in the previous appeal had concerns about. However, as the layout is now more spacious layout, the designs are considered appropriate.

EFFECTS ON NEIGHBOURS/AMENITIES OF FUTURE OCCUPIERS:

7.7 The scheme results in some overlooking /loss of privacy for 18 St Giles Close (to the rear of plots 1 and 2) and 5 Station Road (with secondary first floor southern side windows in plot 5), overlooking of plot 6’s private amenity space by plot 7’s adjacent landing window and overlooking of part of 1 Station Road by the first floor rear right- hand-side window.

7.8 The extant scheme for 4 dwellings would result in some overlooking of 18 St Giles Close and the applicant has agreed to submit amended plans to ensure this scheme has no greater impact. Appropriate conditions can also reduce overlooking. Subject to the receipt of these amended plans and any necessary neighbour re-consultations, the scheme can be approved.

7.9 The proposed scheme is not considered to be unduly overbearing to any neighbours.

7.10 Details of boundary treatment, for example to secure the privacy of an existing property (5 Station Road) and to secure the privacy and security of the rear gardens of the proposed properties can be controlled by condition.

7.11 It is understood that the applicant owns the adjoining property at 1 Station Road in which case it is feasible to secure satisfactory parking for the occupiers in order to replace the area given over to plot 7.

HIGHWAY SAFETY:

7.12 The access to the site is acceptable and has been negotiated with District Council transportation officers. Any advice in connection with refuse collection will be reported to Panel.

6 66

7.13 The parking standards are expressed as a maximum and therefore the proposed provision of 2 car spaces for each of the market houses and 1 each for the affordable units is to standard. Space could be provided for additional parking spaces in front of plots 7/8 but on balance it is considered that the provision is satisfactory and that the proposed landscaped space is preferred. Although third parties are concerned about on-street parking, the highways officer has no objection to on-street parking in this cul-de-sac location.

7.14 The garages of plots 1-4 are too short and the correct side elevations have not been supplied. The correct elevations are awaited and the garages will need to be amended to open-fronted car ports to permit a satisfactory parking arrangement.

7.15 External lighting and the access details can be controlled by condition.

PLANNING OBLIGATIONS:

7.16 The proposal for 25% affordable housing is acceptable on this scheme, being just below the 29% threshold. More than two dwellings would have exceeded the 29% threshold significantly.

7.17 The applicant is willing to enter into a S106 obligation to provide the education sum and the two affordable housing units. Confirmation of the detail of the affordable land transfer arrangements is awaited in view of the applicant previously declining to specify a reasonable arrangement at the time of the last appeal.

OTHER MATTERS:

7.18 It is acknowledged that Holme is poorly served by public transport and other facilities and that the new residents are likely to travel by car, which is why the status of the village has been amended from a group village in the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration to a smaller settlement in the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007. However, the site is allocated for development and the site makes the best use of the land, even though the density is relatively low. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable.

7.19 The Local Planning Authority has no evidence to support the contention that there is a problem with a water supply.

7.20 The advice of the MLC is awaited on surface water drainage/flooding. However, at the last appeal, the Inspector concluded that surface water attenuation could address the concern. A previous Flood Risk Assessment which was submitted on behalf of the applicants for another scheme for 8 dwellings was acceptable to the MLC. However, a revised scheme is required to relate to the current proposal. A condition can resolve surface water drainage details.

7.21 It is unfortunate that the layout of plot 8 does not permit the supervision of the existing south-western side footpath, due to the provision of a tall enclosure to create a private amenity area east of the path. However, as the position of the proposed dwelling is similar to the approved dwelling, it would be unreasonable to refuse the

7 67 application on this basis. The proposed dwelling would, however, be slightly further back than the approved dwelling and therefore there appears to be scope to ensure that the western side boundary of the front garden is marked by a low enclosure, thus enhancing the degree of supervision of the path by the dwelling compared to the approved scheme.

7.22 The location of the speed bump has been accepted by the highways authority.

7.23 The effect on neighbouring property values with social housing is not a planning matter.

7.24 The site is below the threshold for provision of recreation and therefore a recreation facility cannot be sought.

7.25 Semi-detached houses are not a feature of the existing estate but semis and a terrace do exist in the vicinity. The design and bulk of the semi-detached houses buildings is considered to be in keeping.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs

8. RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE, subject to the completion of a S106 Obligation relating to affordable housing and education and subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans, re-consultations, advice of consultees and conditions to include the following:.

02003 Time Limit (3yrs)

Nonstand - corrected plans

Nonstand - levels

Nonstand - materials

Nonstand - surface water drainage

Nonstand - design details

Nonstand - road details

Nonstand - park and turn

Nonstand - landscaping

Nonstand - landscaping timing

Nonstand - plot 8 enclosure

Nonstand - 5 station road

Nonstand - hedge protection

Nonstand - remove pd rights

8 68 Nonstand - parking 3 Station Road

Nonstand - obscure glaze plots 2 and 7

Nonstand - relocate rear bed plot7

11003 - Investigation archaeology programme

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application file references 0801163FUL, 0300955FUL, 00/00528REM Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 as altered by the Local Plan Alteration 2002 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 Huntingdonshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2007) Market Housing Mix SPG (2004) Developer Contributions Towards Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document(2007).

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Sheila Lindsay Development Control Officer 01480 388407

9 69 This page is intentionally left blank

70 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2008

APPLICATIONS REQUIRING REFERENCE TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL (Reports by Development Control Manager)

Case No: 0801073FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT DWELLING

Location: GREENACRES ST IVES ROAD

Applicant: MR AND MRS P CURSLEY

Grid Ref: 535088 277884

Date of Registration: 31.03.2008

Parish: SOMERSHAM

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The proposal is for the demolition of the existing detached bungalow (footprint of approx 134m²) and for the erection of a replacement dwelling, of a larger footprint than the existing (188m²), with a first floor element (56.3m²).

1.2 The property comprises a modest bungalow and detached out buildings within a large site, outside the built framework of Somersham in the open countryside. The dwelling is constructed of brick with concrete tiles to the roof. The site is in a fairly prominent location at the junction of B1086 and B1089. It is partially screened from the road by mature hedges, shrubs and trees. The majority of the land is orchard. There are sporadic residential properties within the vicinity of the site.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1 - ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (2005) contains advice on the operation of the plan-led system

2.2 PPS3 - ‘Housing’ (2006)

2.3 PPS7 - ‘Sustainable development in Rural Areas’ (2004)

For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

3. PLANNING POLICIES

71 Further information on the role of planning policies in deciding planning applications can also be found at the following website: http://www.communities.gov.uk then follow links Planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Information and Guidance, Planning Guidance and Advice and then Creating and Better Place to Live

3.1 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• P1/3 – a high standard of design and sustainability for all new development

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95

• H27 – replacement dwellings in the countryside acceptable provided they involve modest changes in building size and are well related to their setting

• En17 - resists non essential development in the countryside unless essential to the efficient operation of local agriculture and other rural activities

• En25 – development should respect the scale, form, materials and design of buildings in the area

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

Saved policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002)

• HL5 – good design and layout of all new housing development

3.4 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• P8 – development in the countryside

• B1 – Design quality; a development proposal should demonstrate a high quality of design in terms of its layout, form and contribution to the character of the area

• B2 – Street Scene; a development proposal should make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of streets and public spaces

2 72 • H4 – alteration or replacement of existing dwellings in the countryside acceptable provided they do not result in a significant increase in height or massing and do not materially increase the impact of the dwelling in the surrounding countryside

3.5 SPD – Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2007

3.6 SPD - Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment 2007

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 9800148 - outline permission granted for a replacement dwelling

4.2 0001093REM – permission granted for a replacement dwelling (floor area 167m²)

4.3 0603773FUL – permission granted for a garage and store

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Somersham Parish Council – NO OBJECTION (copy attached).

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 To date there have been no third party representations received regarding this proposal.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues to consider in this instance are: the principle of building a replacement dwelling in the open countryside; the suitability of the design, scale and proportions of the proposal(s) for this site; and impact of the proposal(s) on the amenities of neighbouring properties.

7.2 This is an existing property located in the open countryside for the purpose of policies in the Development Plan. The dwelling is a modest bungalow situated on a large plot. Policies within the Development Plan allow for replacement dwellings in the open countryside provided that they do not result in a significant increase in height or massing of the existing dwelling, and that they do not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding countryside. Therefore the principle of a replacement dwelling is acceptable.

7.3 The design, scale and proportions of the proposal in relation to the site also need consideration. A modest increase in footprint of the proposed dwelling would be acceptable in principle. An increase in the height for part of the proposed dwelling to have a first floor element is not considered to comply with policies in the Development Plan and in any event is uncharacteristic of the area that is predominantly defined by single-storey buildings along this ribbon of development. Therefore it is considered that the proposals would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area because they would materially increase impact of the dwelling

3 73

7.4 The proposed dwelling is not close to the site boundaries and will not adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring properties.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.

8. RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE, for the following reason:

8.1 The proposed replacement dwelling, due to it’s design, scale form and prominent location would have a materially greater impact on the countryside than the existing dwelling to the detriment of the character and visual amenity of the area, contrary to policies P1/3 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003, H27 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, H4 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations 2002 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 SPD – Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2007 SPD - Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment 2007

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Dallas Owen Development Control Officer 01480 388468

4 74 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2008

Case No: 0800767FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: CHANGE OF USE OF COTTAGE INTO TWO DWELLINGS

Location: MALTINGS COTTAGE NEEDINGWORTH ROAD

Applicant: MS W JEWITT

Grid Ref: 532120 272095

Date of Registration: 04.03.2008

Parish: ST IVES

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The proposal is a change of use from one dwelling to two three- bedroom houses. The property was originally two dwellings in a terrace of three. It was converted into a single dwelling with an internal link on the ground floor only.

1.2 The building is set back from the southern side of Needingworth Road, to the rear of the Manchester Arms public house. The access to the site is one of two gravel drives which run along the western side of the public house. The drive is 4.6m wide and currently about 25m long. Under the proposal, the drive would be extended to about 40m in length so that the front garden can be hard surfaced to provide two additional parking spaces and a car turning area.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1 - ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (2005)

2.2 PPS3 - ‘Housing’ (2006) provides guidance on the provision of new housing, making more efficient use of land and other related issues.

2.3 PPG13 - ‘Transport’ (2001) contains advice on the integration of planning and transport.

2.4 PPS25 - ‘Development and Flood Risk’ (2007) sets out national planning policy which aims to ensure that flood risk is taken into account in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding.

For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

75 3. PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

Saved Policies from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 are relevant and viewable at http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk follow the links to environment, planning, planning policy and Structure Plan 2003. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003

• P1/3 - a high standard of design and sustainability for all new development

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

Saved Policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95

• H31 – New dwellings or conversions of existing dwellings or buildings to provide separate units of accommodation will only be permitted where appropriate standards of privacy and amenity can be maintained and adequate parking provided

• H32 – The subdivision of large curtilages should be allowed where the dwelling will be of a size and form sympathetic to the locality.

• T28 – Parking provision

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

Saved Policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002)

• STR1 – outlines the settlement hierarchy

• STR2 – Provides definitions for different forms of development

• STR3 – Selects St Ives as a Market Town

• HL5 – Indicates that good design and layout will be required for all new housing

• HL7 – Indicates the LPA will seek to maximise the re-use of previously development land

2 76 3.4 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• P4 – Settlement Strategy

• P5 – Settlement Hierarchy – market towns

• P10 – Flood risk

• B4 – Amenity

• T1 – Transport impacts

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 07/00767 – Change of use into two cottages - withdrawn

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 St Ives Town Council – OBJECTION (copy attached)

5.2 County Highways : Need plans showing the turning circle, access splays and a 5m wide access

5.3 Environment Agency - The Council should respond on behalf of the Agency.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 No third party responses received

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues to consider are the principle of the change of use, the impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, highway safety and parking and flood risk.

Principle of the development

7.2 As the property was historically two dwellings no external changes are necessary, the only change internally is to block up a doorway. The principle of the proposal is acceptable and clearly makes better use of land in a sustainable location. The proposed properties would have substantial rear gardens and adequate parking and manoeuvring space so it is considered that the proposal would not be over-development of the site. Backland development can be acceptable where, as in this case, it does not adversely affect the character of the area, result in dwellings with inadequate access or have an adverse effect on neighbours’ amenities.

3 77 Amenities of neighbouring properties

7.3 There would be no visual impact on the attached property to the north. There would be a small but acceptable impact on the neighbouring property from the increase in the length of the drive and the additional parking and turning movements.

Access and Parking

7.4 The vehicular access is close to the busy roundabout junction with Somersham Road. In the interests of highway safety two vehicles must be able to pass clear of the carriageway, there must be adequate off-street parking spaces (two per dwelling) and there must be an adequate turning area within the site for cars. The County Highways authority has requested a 5m wide access but this cannot be achieved. The District Council’s Highway Engineer considers that 4.5m would be adequate and this can be achieved. The proposal is considered to be acceptable.

Flood risk

7.5 The nature of the proposal and the site location are such that under the advice in PPS25 it is the Council rather than the Environment Agency which will provide advice to the applicant. In this case as no new building is proposed it is considered that flood resilience and resistance measures may be appropriate.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.

8. RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE, subject to conditions to include the following:

02003 Time Limit (3yrs)

Nonstand Access turning and parking

Nonstand Flood resilience

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Susan Sharpe Assistant Development Control Officer 01480 388408

4 78 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2008

Case No: 0800315FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: EXTENSION TO FORM ADDITIONAL RETAIL UNIT WITH FLAT OVER

Location: UNITS 1 TO 3 BISHOPS ROAD AND FLATS 3, 5, AND 7 ANDREW ROAD, EYNESBURY

Applicant: NOS 2 LTD (FAO MR B HEANEY)

Grid Ref: 518780 258884

Date of Registration: 29.01.2008

Parish: ST NEOTS

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 This application relates to a parade of shops within a wider residential area to the west of Potton Road on the periphery of St. Neots. The area is not within the defined St. Neots Conservation Area and is not adjacent to any Listed Buildings.

1.2 The site sits on an elevated position on the corner between Andrews Road and Bishops Road, with a cul-de-sac-to the east. The building is ‘L’ shaped, with three retail units on the ground floor and three flats on the first floor. There are also three garages provided to the south of the site for the flats.

1.3 The applicant is proposing to demolish the garages to accommodate an additional retail unit and also provide an additional flat over. The retail unit proposed would fall into A1 of the use class order i.e. a small shop or hairdresser. Within this application the applicant is also seeking to improve the access arrangements to the flats, tidy up the delivery area and include a walled boundary along the east.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1: ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (2005) – sets out policies on different aspects of land use planning in England.

2.2 PPS3: ‘Housing’ (2006) - Advises on the efficient use of land to meet housing needs.

2.3 PPG4: ‘Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms’ (1992) - places emphasis on the importance of helping small firms through the planning process.

2.4 PPS6: ‘Planning for Town Centres’ (2005) – sets out policy guidance with regards to retail development and Town Centres.

2.5 PPG13: ‘Transport’ (2001) – sets out guidance with regards to the transport implications of development proposals.

For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

3. PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• P1/3 – A high standard of design and sustainability for all new development.

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95

• H30 - Relates to extensions to commercial uses or activities within residential areas.

• H31 - explains that new dwellings will only be permitted where appropriate standards of privacy, amenity and parking can be achieved.

• E1 – explains HDC to promote economic growth in the Huntingdonshire.

• E7 – states HDC to normally support small businesses – subject to environmental and traffic considerations.

• S1 – The District Council will normally permit new shopping development which is not likely to have an adverse effect on the established shopping centres.

• S7 – The development of local shopping facilities to serve existing housing areas will be allowed providing such development does not conflict with other local plan policies.

2 80 • En25 - Requires new development to respect the character of the locality.

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

Saved policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002)

• STR3 – The following settlements are selected as market towns: Huntingdon, Godmanchester, St. Neots, St. Ives, Ramsey & Bury.

• HL7 – promotes the re-use of previously developed land.

3.4 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• P3 - The Social and Economic Well-Being of the District- a development should contribute to the social and economic well being of the District.

• P5 - Defines St Neots as a Market Town.

• P9 - A mixed development proposal should incorporate a compatible mix of uses, where opportunities exist to foster more sustainable communities. Opportunities for securing mixed development include: the integration of appropriate community facilities and employment opportunities into settlements and neighbourhoods in Market Towns and Key Centres, the introduction of more residential accommodation into town centres (including flats over shops) and the incorporation of live/work units within residential development and other appropriate schemes.

• B1 Design Quality- a development proposal should demonstrate a high quality of design in terms of layout, form and contribution to the character of the area.

• B2 – requires developments to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of its locality.

• B3 – requires appropriate accessibility, adaptability and security to be inherent in the design of any proposal.

• B4 – Proposed developments should not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties regarding daylight, privacy and noise, and overbearing nature.

3 81 • E7 - A development proposal for minor retail or leisure developments (of less than 500m2 gross floorspace, or a site area of less than 0.5 ha) will be allowed within the defined limits of the Market Towns and Key Centres, and within the existing built-up framework of Smaller Settlements, provided that: i. the development would not have an adverse impact upon the range of shopping or leisure facilities within the settlement and, ii. the site offers potential to maximise accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport.

• T1 Transport Impacts-explains transport requirements of new development proposals.

• T2 – A development proposal should limit car parking and provide cycle parking to the levels set out in the Councils parking standards.

3.5 Supplementary Planning Document: The Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2007.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 0702825FUL – Extension to form additional retail unit with flat over – withdrawn.

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 St. Neots Town Council – OBJECTION (copy attached).

5.2 Cambridgeshire Police Architectural Liaison Officer – APPROVE

5.3 County Definitive Map Officer – No application has been received to register a route at this address.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 SIX representations, including one from the Local Councillor, have been received objecting to this proposal on the grounds of:

• Over development of the site; • Safety of build; • Already adequate retail facilities in the area; • Detrimental impact on highway safety; • Noise and pollution; • Anti-social behaviour; • Loss of privacy; • Lack of sunlight into neighbouring garden; • Boundary maintenance; • Security; • Devaluation of property; • Parking; • Increase in traffic; and, • Litter.

4 82 7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues for consideration are the principle of the development, the design of the proposal, impact on neighbours and impact on wider residential area.

The Principle

7.2 This application relates to a previously developed site within a wider residential area which dates from approximately the late 70’s. Development of this era is characterised by vast residential areas, with parades of shops dispersed throughout the area. This type of development is dominant in this part of St. Neots both east and west of Potton Road.

7.3 In terms of retail provision PPS6 advises that physical regeneration and the benefits of developing on previously-developed sites which may require remediation is a material consideration in determining planning applications. Also Policy S7 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 advocates the support of such proposals unless they conflict with other Local Plan Policies and HIPPS Policy E7 provides support for the development.

7.4 From the perspective of PPS3, Government advice encourages the re-use of brownfield land in sustainable locations to provide housing. The site in question is located well in terms of local amenities and other facilities such as the train station. The town centre is also easily accessible via a choice of transport modes making this a sustainable location for development.

7.5 As the site is currently a mixed use site providing retail and residential properties, this proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle.

Design of the Proposal

7.6 Currently the site is in a tired state. The boundary wall to the rear appears to have been demolished some time ago. Also there is a side alleyway through the site, which leads to the courtyard area to the rear which is poorly illuminated and considered a likely point for anti- social gatherings.

7.7 This applicant is proposing to erect a secure boundary wall along the eastern elevation, with both vehicular and pedestrian access. It is also proposed to include the alleyway within the development, preventing the site being used as a ‘rat-run’ from Bishops Road through to Potton Road. With the inclusion of a condition to ensure appropriate lighting, it is considered that this design will improve the immediate area in terms of security for residents and the prevention of anti-social behaviour. This application has been recommended for approval by both the Police Architectural Liaison Officer and HDC Anti-Social behaviour Team.

5 83 Impact on neighbours

7.8 The neighbours most affected would be the residents of 9 Andrew Close. Concerns have been expressed regarding the impact of the proposal on the amenity of these neighbours by way of overlooking and overshadowing.

7.9 This proposal lies north of No. 9 and it does not appear that No. 9 has any windows to habitable rooms along this northern elevation. The main issue of concern is impact of this development on the enjoyment of the amenity area of this dwelling.

7.10 It is proposed that this retail unit will front the Highway onto Andrew Road, with the residential unit immediately above. The resultant building will not be in line with the build form of No. 9 but rather will be set further forward toward Andrew Road. Also the applicant has designed the interior to ensure the most used habitable space i.e. the Kitchen/living room area is overlooking Andrew Road, away from the amenity area of No. 9. It is also noted that the garage to No. 9 increases the distance between this new flat and the amenity area to the rear of No. 9. Taking the above into consideration, along with the existing relationship between no.9 and no.11, it is considered that a refusal of this proposal based on neighbouring amenity would not be sustainable at appeal.

Impact on Wider Residential Area

7.11 The wider area is characterised by residential dwellings. It is therefore considered that this proposal, while modernising this development will improve the appearance of Bishops Road.

Other objections that have been raised by residents

7.12 Devaluation of property : This is not a material planning consideration.

7.13 Parking/Traffic : Parking is not within the control of the applicant and there is ample on-street parking within the vicinity of the site both on Bishops Road and within the cul-de-sac to the east. It is not considered that the introduction of one small retail unit in addition to the existing units will be detrimental to the safety of users of the public highway.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.

8. RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE, subject to and including the following conditions:

02003 - Time Limit (3yrs)

05 004 - Notwithstanding submitted materials details required

06 015 - Boundary treatment

03 022 - Parking

6 84 Nonstand - Lighting

Nonstand - Cycle storage

Background Papers:

Planning Application File Reference: 0800315FUL Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995

CONTACT OFFICER - enquiries about this Report to Clara Kerr, Planning Officer ( 01480 388434.

7 85 This page is intentionally left blank

AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2008

Case No: 0800848FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT DWELLING

Location: 70 LOW ROAD LITTLE STUKELEY

Applicant: G C FIELD AND SON

Grid Ref: 520626 275121

Date of Registration: 17.03.2008

Parish: THE STUKELEYS

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The site relates to an existing dwelling located on Low Road to the south of Nook Farm. The site is relatively isolated, fields separate the last dwelling associated with the village and the application site. The site is bounded by leylandii to the east and west and there are some existing outbuildings on site. To the south lies an existing agglomeration of farm buildings and beyond the site lies open countryside. The site is generally laid to grass.

1.2 The proposal seeks to replace the existing dwelling on the site whilst removing some existing outbuildings, with a detached dwelling and garaging. The replacement dwelling would provide four bedrooms and would be approx. 15.2 metes in width at the furthest point, 10 metres in depth and 8.8 metres in height to the ridge. A detached double garage is also proposed at 6.4 metres in width by 5.6 metres in depth.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1: "Delivering Sustainable Development" (2005) contains advice on the operation of the plan-led system.

2.2 PPS3: "Housing" (2006) - Advises on the efficient use of land to meet housing needs.

2.3 PPS7: "Sustainable Development in Rural Areas" (2004 ) - Concerns development proposals in the countryside with development to be strictly controlled and requiring good quality design, which respects the character of the countryside and safeguards the distinctiveness of its landscape.

87 For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

3. PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• P1/3 - requires a high standard of design and sustainability for all new development.

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

Policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95 .

• H27 - Advises that replacement dwellings may be acceptable, providing that the proposal involves modest changes in building size, are of good design, are well related to their setting, and do not create or perpetuate a traffic hazard.

• H28 - Replacement dwellings will not normally be permitted (i)when only the site of previous dwelling remains (ii)where the condition is such that it could be constructed as a new dwelling.

• En17 - Restricts development in the countryside to that required in connection with an identified land use need.

• En20 - Where appropriate planning permission will be subject to requiring a landscaping scheme.

• En25 - Expects all new development to relate sensitively to its surroundings.

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

Policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on “Local Plan Alteration (2002)”.

• STR1 -Outlines the settlement hierarchy.

2 88 • STR2 - Provides definitions for different forms of development.

• STR6 – Identifies Little Stukeley as an infill village.

• HL5 - Indicates that good design and layout will be required for all new housing development.

3.4 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• P1 - Sustainable Development – proposal should contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development.

• P2 – Natural Resources – proposal should contribute to the efficient use of natural resources by:

- Making the best use of land and infrastructure - Minimising the use of non-renewable energy sources and construction materials - Minimising water consumption, and have no adverse impact on water resources and flood risk - Curtailing greenhouse gas emissions and other forms of pollution - Encourage waste reduction and recycling

• P3 - Social and Economic Well-being – proposals should contribute to the social and economic well-being of the district by:

- Preserving the diversity and the distinctiveness of Huntingdonshire towns, villages and landscapes - Conserving buildings, sites and areas of architectural or historic importance - Maintaining and enhancing the range and vitality of characteristic habitats and species - Creating places that are attractive, appropriate to their surroundings, adaptable, and which are accessible and safe to use for all sections of the community - Contributing to social cohesion - Limiting the need to travel, and increase opportunities to make necessary journeys by foot, cycle or public transport

• P4 – Settlement Strategy – scale of development acceptable in different locations will be determined in accordance with the settlement hierarchy which will comprise Market Towns, Key Centres (Potential Growth), Key Centres (Limited Growth) and Smaller Settlements.

• P7 – Settlement Hierarchy – Smaller Settlements.

3 89

• P8 – Development in the countryside – outside the defined limits of the Market Towns and key centres and the existing built up framework of smaller settlements, development will be restricted to:

- Essential to efficient operation of agriculture, horticulture or forestry or required for the purposed of outdoor recreation, mineral extraction, waste management facilities, infrastructure provision or natural defence - Alteration, replacement or change of use of existing buildings - Limited and specific forms of housing, business and tourism development - Land allocated for particular purposes

• G2 – Landscape Character – proposal should respect and respond appropriately to the distinctive qualities of the surrounding landscape.

• B1 – Design quality – proposal should demonstrate high quality design and contribute to the character of the area

• B4 – Amenity – proposal should not have an unacceptable impact upon amenities of neighbours

• H1 – Location of Housing Development – development on unallocated sites should be limited to the following:

- Within the defined limits of Market Towns and Key Centres (Potential Growth) – major and minor housing development and residential infill - Within Key Centres (Limited Growth) minor housing development and residential infill - Within Built –up framework of smaller settlements – residential infill - Within the Countryside – limited and specific forms of housing development, as provided for elsewhere in the plan

• H4 – Alteration or replacement of existing dwellings in the countryside – proposal to alter, extend or replace an existing dwelling in the countryside should:

- Not result in a significant increase in the height or massing of the existing dwelling - Not materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding countryside - Not entail development where only the site of a previous dwelling remains or the previous development has been abandoned

3.5 Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2007)

4 90 3.6 Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment (2007)

4. PLANNING HISTORY

None relevant

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Stukeley Parish Council – NO OBJECTION (copy attached)

5.2 Alconbury and Ellington Internal Drainage Board – soakaways should be investigated and if ground conditions found to be satisfactory then they should be constructed in accordance with the latest Building Research Establishment Digest. Any direct discharge to the nearby watercourses would need consent from the Board.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

None

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues to consider are the principle of the development, the impact on the character and appearance of the area, the impact on residential amenity and the impact on highway safety.

Principle

7.2 The site is in the open countryside and relates to an existing dwelling on the site. There are no objections, in principle, to the replacement of dwellings in the countryside. However these dwellings should not result in a significant increase in the height or massing of the existing dwelling, nor materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding countryside or entail development where only the site of a previous dwelling remains or has been abandoned and in addition should be of a good design. As such the principle of replacing this dwelling is acceptable, subject to meeting all the criteria listed above.

Character and appearance

7.3 In general, and in accordance with the criteria of PPS7, replacement of dwellings should be favoured where it would result in a more acceptable and sustainable development, for example where the building would bring about an environmental improvement in terms of the impact of the development on its surroundings and landscape.

7.4 Having regard to the dwelling proposed, this has been significantly increased in terms of footprint to the existing dwelling. The existing dwelling has a footprint of approx. 63 m sq and the proposed dwelling is approximately 104 m sq. It would seem that the size of the footprints of the outbuildings have been included when calculating the size of the dwelling. The footprints of these outbuildings however should not be included when assessing the size of the dwelling, as they do not form part of the existing dwelling. Any replacement

5 91 dwelling should be commensurate with the size, scale and mass of the existing dwelling, this is clearly not the case with this proposal.

7.5 The location of the building is further away from the existing agglomeration of buildings and given the increase in size would only heighten the visual impact of this dwelling on the surrounding landscape, to its detriment.

7.6 There is a significant distance between the application site and No. 52 Low Road, which marks the edge of the existing built form of the village. This area is formed by landscaping and arable fields and as such only seeks to highlight the isolated position of this site.

7.7 It is noted that a large agricultural building exists to the north east of the site, this relates to the existing Farm which is situated towards the north of the site. This is an existing agglomeration of buildings and whilst not considered particularly attractive forms a functional part of this farm. It is not considered that the proposed dwelling would be viewed in context with these buildings, due to their location on the opposite side of Low Road. As such this would not assist in reducing the visual impact of this proposed dwelling on the landscape.

7.8 Additionally, there are concerns with the landscaping of the site, as it is unclear whether the existing soft landscaping is to be removed. If this is the case, it will only seek to create a more exposed site and result in the dwelling being more prominent within the landscape. The existing boundary provides significant screening of the site both when viewed form the access road and the fields to the rear of the site. This would not be considered acceptable and would be contrary to the requirements of PPS7.

7.9 Having regard to the design there does not appear to be a consistent design theme throughout the dwelling; the front elevation appears poorly proportioned and dominated by a large dormer window. In addition to this the roof would appear to dominate both elevations, giving the appearance of a poorly balanced dwelling. The dwelling is not of a high quality design that should be promoted in all development.

7.10 Having regard to the content of PPS7, policies En17 and H27 of the Local Plan, the applicant must demonstrate a local agriculture, horticulture, forestry, permitted mineral extraction, outdoor recreation or public utility services need for any enlargement or increased impact over that supported by the replacement dwelling policies. At this time the applicant has not provided any such statement of need or justification for this enlarged replacement property in the countryside.

Residential amenity

7.11 Given the isolated location of the site it is not considered that a replacement dwelling on the site would harm residential amenity.

Highway Safety

7.12 Given that there is an existing dwelling on site, which at present is not occupied, there are no objections to its replacement in terms of

6 92 highway safety. There are two existing access to this site and it is not considered that a replacement dwelling on this site would harm highway safety.

7.13 In conclusion, for the reasons stated above the proposal is not considered to be acceptable and is contrary to both Local and National Planning Policy and guidance.

7.14 In accordance with the national and local planning policies and other material considerations, planning permission is recommended to be refused for the proposed development.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.

8. RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE for the following reasons:

8.1 The site lies outside the village limits in the open countryside. Whilst the proposed dwelling has a lower ridge than the existing dwelling, the proposal seeks to replace the existing dwelling of approx. 63 m2 by a dwelling of approx. 104 m2. The proposed dwelling would result in an increase in the massing of the existing dwelling and the proposal would also increase the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding countryside by reason of the increased footprint and mass of the dwelling and its relocation further to the north of the existing dwelling. Furthermore, the dwelling is not considered to be of the necessary high standard of design, appearing poorly proportioned with no specific architectural style. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to PPS1, PPS3, policy P1/3 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003), policies H27 and En25 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995), policies B1 and H4 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 and the Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2007). No justification or essential need has been demonstrated to set aside these policies.

8.2 The Local Planning Authority has had regard to the provisions of the Development Plan comprising the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 and the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 as altered by the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration 2002, and the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007, so far as material to the application and to all other material considerations. Having determined the proposal on the basis of the submitted application, permission is hereby refused subject to the reasons specified above.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application File Reference: 0800848FUL Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2007) Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment (2007)

7 93 CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Michelle Nash Development Control Officer 01480 388405

8 94 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2008

Case No: 0703340FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: ERECTION OF DWELLING

Location: SILVER BIRCHES SOUTH STREET

Applicant: MR AND MRS AUGSTEIN

Grid Ref: 531784 275883

Date of Registration: 08.10.2007

Parish: WOODHURST

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 This site is located on the southern side of the village, and is a large L shaped plot, occupied by a single bungalow. The building is of no historical, architectural or street scene merit. There are a substantial number of trees on the site, both across the frontage, and in depth, although the centre is relatively clear, and is mainly grassed. The most prominent group of trees are a line of poplars, along the rear boundary of the adjacent property. The boundaries are defined by a mix of fences and hedges. There are dwellings to the north and east, but the land on the other two sides is open pasture.

1.2 The proposal is to demolish the bungalow, and to erect a larger dwelling in its place with a part two storey garage in the rear part of the site, behind the garden of the adjacent listed building

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1 - ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (2005)

2.2 PPS3 - ‘Housing’ (2006) provides guidance on the provision of new housing, making more efficient use of land, and other related issues.

2.3 PPG15 - ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’ (1994) advises on development affecting Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas.

For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

3. PLANNING POLICIES

Further information on the role of planning policies in deciding planning applications can also be found at the following website:

95 http://www.communities.gov.uk then follow links Planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Information and Guidance, Planning Guidance and Advice and then Creating and Better Place to Live.

3.1 The site is within the built form of the village, and the front part is within the village environmental limit as defined in the 1995 Local Plan. The entire site is in the Conservation Area, and the two adjoining dwellings are listed buildings.

3.2 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• P1/3 – sustainable development in built environment.

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95

• H31 – new dwellings will only be permitted where appropriate standards of privacy and amenity can be maintained.

• En2 - development affecting a listed building should have proper regard to the scale, form, design and setting of the building.

• En5 – development within or directly affecting Conservation Areas will be required to preserve or enhance their character or appearance.

• En6 – high standards of design etc will be required in Conservation Areas.

• En18 – important site features should be protected.

• En25 – new development will generally respect the scale etc of established buildings in the locality.

3.4 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

Saved policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002)

• HL5 – good design and layout will be required in all new housing development.

3.5 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• G3 – trees, hedgerows and other environmental features. 2 96 • B1 – Design Quality

• B4 – Amenity

• B7 – Listed Buildings

• B8 – Conservation Areas

3.6 The Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPD is a material consideration, as is the Woodhurst Conservation Area Character Statement.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 None relevant to this application. There is a concurrent conservation area consent application for the demolition of the building (0801194CAC).

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Woodhurst Parish Council – NO OBJECTION (copy attached).

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 Neighbours – 3 letters have been received. The following points have been raised:- There will be a loss of amenity to adjacent properties by reason of loss of privacy and light, and overbearing impact.

The location of the garage will have an adverse impact on the setting of a pond in an adjoining garden.

The position of the garage is contrary to the building lines in the locality.

The scale of the proposed development would adversely affect the character of the Conservation Area.

The proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of trees in the Conservation Area.

The scale of the garage is overlarge, and it will introduce an urban form to the rear of the existing built form. This would be exacerbated by the larger area devoted to car parking and the drive.

The proposal would have an adverse impact on the setting of the Listed Buildings.

The location of the garage and the car parking area will result in noise and fumes being concentrated close to the rear gardens of the adjacent dwellings.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The issues in this case relate to the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of Listed Buildings, the effect on the neighbouring properties, and the implications for the trees.

3 97

7.2 There are no objections to the demolition of the existing building, as its removal would not adversely affect the Conservation Area. The principle of a replacement dwelling is acceptable in settlement terms.

7.3 The application was accompanied by a pre-development tree survey, indicating the nature and extent of all the trees on the site and identifying those which should be retained, and those which could be removed. Overall, there are no objections to the applicant’s approach with regard to the trees. The majority of the better specimens are being retained, the chief losses being the line of Lombardy poplars at the rear of Chelsea Rest, and a group of fruit trees adjacent to them. The former are a significant landscape feature, but could be removed, provided suitable replacements are planted. This would be difficult, given the position of the proposed garage. Elsewhere, the retained trees would have to be protected during the construction phase.

7.4 The proposed dwelling is considerably different from the original building in terms of its scale and design. However, whilst the overall concept is acceptable, there are issues with the proposed rear wing. This is too large, and it will, when combined with its proximity to the boundary with the adjoining Listed Building, have an imposing impact on this building and will be detrimental to its overall setting. There are views into the site from the west (through the Conservation Area), and it is important to ensure that these are also not prejudiced by the scale of the development. It is considered that the overall depth of the proposed building will, be detrimental to these views, and that the bulk of the building will be excessive when viewed from this direction. At the rear of the site, the proximity to the boundary, and the scale of the large two storey garage, will also have an adverse impact on the setting of the adjacent Listed Building – an effect exacerbated by the loss of the poplar trees and the lack of space to replant.

7.5 The development will have an impact on the amenities of the adjacent properties, notably on ‘Chelsea Rest’ which has a side and rear boundary with the application site. The new dwelling will be set behind the rear building line of ‘Chelsea Rest’, as is the existing bungalow, but the new structure will be higher than the existing bungalow, and will feature a substantial rear wing. The length of the main building will be approximately 14.5m and the distance from the mutual boundary will be 1.5m. Given a minimum eaves height of 3.5m, it is considered that the proposal will have an overbearing impact on the rear part of ‘Chelsea Rest’, resulting in an unacceptable loss of amenity. It should be noted that the proposed dwelling is located to the west of ‘Chelsea Rest’, and will affect the afternoon sun in particular. The two storey barn will be close to the rear boundary of the site but its effect will not, in itself, be sufficient to justify a refusal.

7.6 Drawings showing a modest reduction in the height of the rear wing of the house and a reduction in the size of the garage have been tabled but not formally submitted. They were not considered to overcome the objections and the applicants have asked for the application to be determined on the basis of the original scheme.

7.7 The access is acceptable and there is ample parking space within the curtilage of the site.

4 98 7.8 The principle of a replacement dwelling is acceptable, but this proposal is too large, and it should be refused for the reasons stated above.

7.9 Having regard to applicable national and local planning policies, and having taken all relevant material considerations into account, it is considered that planning permission should not be granted in this instance.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.

8. RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE, for the following reasons:

8.1 The proposal would be contrary to the provisions of policy H31 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, and policy B4 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007, in that the proposed dwelling would have an overbearing impact on the rear garden of the adjacent dwelling ‘Chelsea Rest’ to the detriment of the amenities of residents of the neighbouring property.

8.2 The proposal would be contrary to the provisions of policies En2, En5 and En6 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, and policies B7 and B8 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007, in that the size and position of the rear wing in relation to the eastern boundary of the site mean that it has an imposing and detrimental impact on the setting of the adjacent listed building to the east, ‘Chelsea Rest’ and gives the overall dwelling an excessively bulky appearance in relation to the size of the front part of the plot which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

8.3 The proposal would be contrary to the provisions of policies En2, En5 and En6 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, and policies B7 and B8 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007, in that the scale of the detached garage/garden store/games room building at the rear of ‘Penny Farthing’, the loss of trees along the adjacent part of the northern boundary of the application site as a result of its siting and the constraints on planting suitable replacement trees would be detrimental to the setting of the adjacent listed buildings and to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to David Hincks Development Control Officer 01480 388406

5 99 This page is intentionally left blank

100 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2008

Case No: 0800411OUT (OUTLINE APPLICATION)

Proposal: ERECTION OF TWO DWELLINGS AND REPLACEMENT GARAGE

Location: LAND AT 81 THE HIGHWAY, GREAT STAUGHTON

Applicant: MR R DAVISON

Grid Ref: 513026 264570

Date of Registration: 25.02.2008

Parish: GREAT STAUGHTON

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 Number 81 The Highway is a two storey semi detached dwelling fronting the highway at the western end of The Highway, adjacent to the B645. The property benefits from sitting within a large plot which is currently overgrown. The trees on the site are subject to a Tree Preservation Order. Next door lies No.83 which gained planning permission for the erection of a single, sympathetically designed dwelling in 2001 in its rear garden.

1.2 The applicant is seeking to erect two detached dwellings and associated garages as well as a replacement garage to the rear of No.81. This is an outline application seeking approval of the layout and means of access although indicative drawings of the proposed dwellings have also been included. The measurements for the footprints given at the largest points are:

Plot A – approx 12m deep x 8.3wide Plot B – approx. 12m deep x 9.8m wide

1.3 From drawing DD729 it is clear that the intention is that the large units will be two storey dwellings

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

• PPS1 – ‘Delivering sustainable development’ (2005)

• PPS3 – ‘Housing’ (2006)

101 • PPG13 – ‘Transport’ (2001)

• PPG15 – ‘Planning and The Historic Environment’ (1994)

3. PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• P1/3 – A high standard of design and sustainability for all new development which responds to the local character of the built environment and pays attention to the detail of forms, massing, textures, colours and landscaping.

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95

• En18 – The district will seek to protect important site features including trees and hedges.

• En25 – All new development shall respect the scale, form, materials and design of established buildings within the locality.

• H31 – indicates that new dwellings or conversions of existing dwellings or buildings to provide separate units of accommodation will only be permitted where appropriate standards of privacy and amenity can be maintained and adequate parking provided.

• H32 - indicates that the sub-division of large curtilages will only be allowed where the resultant development is sympathetic to the locality.

• En19 – The District Council will make Tree Preservation Orders where it considers that trees which contribute to the local amenity and the landscape are at risk.

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

Saved policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002)

2 102 • HL5 - requires that new housing development be of good design.

• HL7 – promotes the re-use of previously developed land.

• HL8 - Infilling permitted on appropriate sites within group villages.

3.4 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• P3 – A development proposal should contribute to the social and economic well-being of the district by creating places that are attractive and appropriate to their surroundings.

• G2 – A development proposal should respect and respond appropriately to the distinctive qualities of the surrounding landscape.

• G3 - Trees Hedgerows and other Environmental Features – minimise the risk to natural features and wherever possible they should be incorporated into the scheme.

• B1 - Design Quality- a development proposal should demonstrate a high quality of design in terms of layout, form and contribution to the character of the area.

• B4 - Amenity – a development proposal should not have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of existing or future occupiers within, adjoining or in the vicinity of the site in terms of daylight and sunlight, privacy, noise and disturbance, air quality, safety and security or oppressive of overbearing impact.

• P7 – Defines Great Staughton as a smaller settlement. In smaller settlements limited forms of development will be permitted but this will be limited to within the built-up framework of the village.

3.5 Supplementary Planning Document: The Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2007.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 0302578FUL – Erection of 3 dwellings – permission refused and this decision was upheld at the subsequent appeal.

4.2 0702531OUT – Outline permission for 2 dwellings – permission refused on the 17th December 2007.

3 103 5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Great Staughton Parish Council – NO OBJECTION (copy attached).

5.2 CCC Highway Authority – OBJECTION

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 THREE letters were received which make the following points:

• Overlooking; • Impact on views; • Highway Safety; and, • Overshadowing.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues for consideration are Highway Safety, the layout proposed and the impact on neighbours

Highway Safety

7.2 In terms of on-site parking it is considered that the level of parking provided, along with the ability of vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear is appropriate. The main concern is with the number of vehicles to serve three dwellings in total, entering and leaving the site. The main highway is the B645 which is the main distributor road from St. Neots to Rushden. A short distance to the west of the site there is a sharp bend in the road to the north, at this point there is also a junction leading to The Town. The speed limit for this stretch of road is 30mph and this access would be the first on the eastern side of the bend. County Council Highways have recommended refusal based on the potential conflict between vehicles coming round the bend from Green Lane when a vehicle is attempting to turn out of the site in an easterly direction and also as a vehicle waiting to enter the site from the Green Lane direction could be stationary in the eastbound carriageway causing a potential conflict with vehicles coming around the bend from Green Lane. The proposed access is also only 3.5 metres wide compared to the 5 metre width required to allow two vehicles to pass. This limited width makes it more likely that vehicles could be stationary in the carriageway. In 2004, an appeal was dismissed for three additional dwellings on the site. One of the reasons for refusal was highway safety. The applicant has attempted to move the access point from the site to the highway further to the east, but this will still be 39 metres from the corner and not 49 metres as stated by the applicant. It is considered that this application has not improved on the previous application refused by the Development Control Panel in December 2007 and is therefore still unacceptable on the grounds of highway safety.

Impact on neighbours

7.3 Although this is only an outline application seeking approval for the means of access and layout only, an indicative street scene has been included within drawing DD729. This scene shows a number of windows on the front elevations of the properties. Taking into

4 104 consideration the location of the properties, this design would not be considered acceptable as it would result in overlooking that would be considered detrimental to the amenity of not only the occupiers of No.81 but also No.83. It is also considered that the relationship of the proposed western dwelling with No.83A will be unacceptable as the two storey element is indicatively shown as being virtually on the boundary with No. 83A. This will result in an oppressive overbearing impact upon the amenities of that property. Although concerns were raised with regard to the impact on views, Government advises that the planning system must operate in the public interest and is not to protect the interests of private individuals. Therefore, a right to view is not a material planning consideration. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy H31 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan and Policy B4 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement.

Design

7.4 The Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2007 advises that new development should maintain a sense of visual cohesion. The character of The Highway is of a mix of dwellings set at various depths from the main road. No. 81 is the primary frontage of this plot and therefore any dwellings erected should remain subservient to this dwelling and not detract from its rural character and appearance. Although the relationship of the dwellings with trees is considered to be acceptable, it is considered that the implied scale, mass and bulk of the two dwellings proposed will result in a cramped form of development and poor physical relationship with the existing built form. The proposal would, therefore, be contrary to Policies En25 and H32 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan; HL5 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration; and, Policies P3, G2 and B1 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement.

7.5 In light of National Guidance, Development Plan Policies and other material considerations, permission should be refused for the development as proposed.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.

8. RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE for the following reasons:

8.1 The proposed dwellings will, due to their position, height, mass and scale as represented within the illustrated street scene on drawing DD729, have a poor physical relationship with the adjacent built from. The resulting dwellings will form an overly prominent, cramped and disproportionately large form of development. The proposed development is therefore considered contrary to Policy P1/3 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003; Policies H32, and En25 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995; Policy HL5 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration 2002; Policies P3, G2 and B1 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007; PPS3 and the Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2007.

8.2 The proposed access to the site is inadequate and below the standard required by reason of the poor visibility to the west of the site, towards the bend in the B645, and its proximity to the junction at

5 105 this bend. Furthermore the manoeuvring of vehicles likely to be generated by the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the safety and free flow of traffic on the adjoining public highway. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy P1/3 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003, PPS1 and PPG13

8.3 The proposed dwellings will have an adverse effect upon the amenities of surrounding properties by reason of overlooking and an overbearing impact. The proposal would, therefore, be contrary to Policy H31 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 and Policy B4 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007.

Background Papers:

Planning Application File Reference: 0800411OUT; 0702531OUT Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995

CONTACT OFFICER - enquiries about this Report to Clara Kerr, Planning Officer ( 01480 388434.

6 106 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2008

Case No: 0801188FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: ERECTION OF DWELLING

Location: LAND SOUTH WEST OF 80 HIGH STREET NEEDINGWORTH

Applicant: MR M VELLACOTT

Grid Ref: 534438 272271

Date of Registration: 04.04.2008

Parish: HOLYWELL CUM NEEDINGWORTH

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 This is small plot of 0.013ha occupied by a detached prefabricated single garage, on land south west of 80 High Street, fronting onto ‘Ravenscourt’ a small cul-de-sac of 11 detached and semi-detached properties. The site has a frontage of 10.7m and a depth of between 10.5 and 11.5m. The rear boundary of the site widens to 12.7m. The site boundaries are defined by 1.8m high close-boarded fencing. There is a shop car park to the south of the site although the immediate area is predominantly residential.

1.2 The proposal is for the erection of a 1½-storey dwelling providing a kitchen/family room, hallway, and carport at ground floor; with living room, bedroom and shower room at first floor. The footprint of the proposed dwelling is 9.675m wide and 5.4m depth with a ridge height of 7.3m and an eaves height of 4.5m. It is proposed that the dwelling will be set back from the front boundary by 2m.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1 - ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (2005)

2.2 PPS3 - ‘Housing’ (2006)

For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

3. PLANNING POLICIES

107

3.1 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• P1/3 – Sustainable design in built environment

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95

• H31 – new dwellings will only be permitted where appropriate standards of privacy and amenity can be maintained

• H32 – the sub-division of large curtilages will only be permitted where the resultant dwelling and its curtilage are sympathetic to the locality

• En20 – landscaping schemes for new development

• En25 – new development will generally respect the scale, form, materials and design of established buildings in the locality

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

Saved policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002)

• STR1 – settlement hierarchy

• STR2 – scale of housing developments

• STR5 – Needingworth is selected as a group village

• HL5 – good design and layout will be required in all new housing development

• HL6 – housing densities

• HL7 – the District Council will seek to maximise the re-use of previously developed land and support the re-use of empty properties and conversion of underused buildings into housing use

• HL8 – in group villages, groups of dwellings and infilling will be permitted on appropriate sites within the village limits and where the development is sensitive to the scale and character of the village

3.4 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

2 108 Policies from the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 are relevant and viewable at http://www.huntsdc.gov.uk click on Environment and Planning, then Planning then Planning+Policy then Informal policy statements where there is a link to Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• P1 – sustainable development

• P7 – settlement hierarchy – Needingworth defined as a smaller settlement

• B1 – design quality

• B2 – street scene

• B3 - provides that new development ensures good access

• B4 – amenity, development proposal should not have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of an existing or future occupier

• H1 – location of housing development

• H2 – housing density

• H3 – mix of dwelling sizes

• T1 – ensures safe and convenient access to the highway network

• T2 – limits parking to levels set in the parking standards

3.5 SPD – Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2007

3.6 SPG – Market Housing Mix 2004

3.7 HDC – Minor Applications Highways Guidance 2005

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 Non relevant

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Holywell cum Needingworth Parish Council – awaiting comments

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 To date there have been no third party representations received regarding this proposal. Consultation period expires 6th May 2008

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues to consider are the principle of development in this location; design, size, scale and form of development; impact of the proposal on the street scene; and amenities of neighbouring properties. PPS1 – Encourages building housing at higher densities on previously developed land. PPS3 reflects policy in PPS1 and

3 109 states that ‘good design is fundamental to the development of high quality new housing’. It also encourages all Local Planning Authorities to provide a better mix of housing (to include smaller units); provide sufficient housing but give priority to re-using previously developed land; create more sustainable patterns of development; make effective and efficient use of land; and seek to reduce car dependency. It is important to note however that PPS3 also states ‘that there is no presumption that land that is previously developed, is necessarily suitable for housing nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed’.

7.2 Within the SPG – Market Housing Mix 2004, it is preferred that the housing mix should provide not less than 40% of all properties with one or two bedrooms.

7.3 The site is within the built framework for Needingworth and is currently unused, it was formerly garden land associated with No80 Needingworth Road. As the proposal is to re-use previously developed land; and is within a predominantly residential area it is considered therefore that the proposal is in accordance with settlement policy and will help with regard to the need to provide for smaller more affordable units in our main rural settlements.

7.4 The design, size, scale and form of the proposal is modest and it is considered that the proposal will not be harmful to the visual amenity of the area; and due to the layout of the rooms and positioning of windows on the elevations and position of small openings within the roof, in relation to the constraints of the site and adjacent properties the proposals will not be harmful to the amenities of neighbouring properties.

7.5 There is an existing dropped kerb providing access to the site; and with the removal of the unsightly 1.8m high fencing there should not be pedestrian-vehicle visibility issues, as the recommended dimensions for pedestrian to vehicle visibility splays of 2.0m from and 2.0m along the highway can be achieved. For individual accesses serving single dwellings it is the general practice of the Local Highway Authority not to require vehicle to vehicle visibility splays.

7.6 Off-street integral parking has been provided as part of the proposals, for one car and accords with policy. Sufficient area will be retained in the curtilage of No80 High Street for garden and parking.

7.7 The proposal has been assessed against the relevant policies of the Development Plan and meets the Government’s objectives of sustainable development. Any comments received from the Parish Council will be carefully considered but, based on the information available at the time of writing this report, it is considered that planning permission should be approved in this instance.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.

8. RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE, subject to conditions to include the following:

4 110 02003 time limit

05001 buildings

06010 landscape design

17001 levels building/site

13007 permitted development windows

03013 vis splay (2m by 2m)

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Dallas Owen Development Control Officer 01480 388468

5 111 This page is intentionally left blank

112 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2008

Case No: 0800967FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND GARAGES AND ERECTION OF TWELVE FLATS AND ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING

Location: WHITEHILLS, 7 MILL COMMON

Applicant: CROMWELL COUNTRY HOMES LTD

Grid Ref: 523661 271348

Date of Registration: 18.03.2008

Parish: HUNTINGDON

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The site relates to a relatively plain detached dwelling set within a large landscaped plot. The dwelling is set back within the plot. The boundary to Mill Common is formed predominantly by soft landscaping. The front amenity space is mainly laid to grass and there is an existing sweeping access to the east of the site. There are a number of TPO trees on the site, as well as additional landscaping. The site drops down to the rear, with a significant change in levels. To the rear of the site lies Alconbury Brook and beyond this Port Holme which is a SSSI. The site is accessed by a narrow unadopted private roadway.

1.2 The proposal seeks to replace an existing modest sized detached dwelling with a part 3-part 3 ½ storey building with accommodation in the roof. The overall height of the building would be approx 8.71 metre as seen from the front elevation and 11.8 metres from the terraced level of the site. The building would accommodate 12 flats and has parking, cycle parking and bin storage set to the front of the dwelling.

1.3 The building would measure approximately 23.9 metres in depth, not including the terrace area and 24 metres in width.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1: "Delivering Sustainable Development" (2005) contains advice on the operation of the plan-led system.

2.2 PPS3: "Housing" (2006) - Advises on the efficient use of land to meet housing needs.

113 2.3 PPS9: “Biodiversity and Geological Conservation” (2005) contains advice on ensuring development has minimal impacts on biodiversity and enhances it wherever possible.

2.4 PPG13: “Transport” (2001) contains advice on the integration of planning and transport.

2.5 PPG15: "Planning and the Historic Environment" (1994) contains advice on development relating to Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings.

2.6 PPG16: ‘Archaeology and planning’ (1990) contains advice on archaeological remains on land, and how they should be preserved or recorded both in an urban setting and in the countryside.

2.7 PPG24: “Planning and Noise” (1994) outlines the considerations to be taken into account for both noise-sensitive developments and for those activities which will generate noise

2.8 PPS25: “Development and Flood Risk” (2006) contains advice on development and flood risk

For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

3. PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• P1/3 Sustainable Development – proposal should contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

Policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95

• H31 - indicates that new dwellings or conversions of existing dwellings or buildings to provide separate units of accommodation will only be permitted where appropriate standards of privacy and amenity can be maintained and adequate parking provided.

2 114 • H33 - resists the sub-division of large curtilages where the qualities of a conservation area are not preserved or enhanced or the subdivision detrimentally affects trees worthy of protection.

• H38 – development sites which adjoin main highways, railways, industrial operations and other potentially damaging noise pollution sources will be required to implement adequate design solutions to produce acceptable ambient noise levels within the dwellings and their curtilages

• En5 – development within or directly affecting conservation areas will be required to preserve or enhance their character or appearance.

• En6 – in conservation areas, the District Council will require high standards of design with careful consideration being given to the scale and form of development in the area and to the use of sympathetic materials of appropriate colour and texture.

• En8 – Conservation Area Consent may be withheld until acceptable plans for redevelopment of the site have been approved; and, if approved, the timing of the demolition will be strictly controlled.

• En9 - development should not impair open spaces, trees, street scenes and views into and out of Conservation Areas.

• En12 - permission for development on sites of archaeological interest may require implementation of a scheme of archaeological recording.

• En13 – where development is proposed in areas of archaeological potential the District Council may require planning applications to be accompanied by the results of an archaeological field evaluation or desk-based assessment to help define the character and extent of archaeological remains that may exist in the area

• En18 - seeks to protect existing landscape features.

• En20 - where appropriate planning permission will be subject to a landscaping scheme.

• En22 – where relevant, the determination of applications for planning permission will take appropriate account of the interests of nature and wildlife conservation

• En23 – indicates that development within, or which adversely affects, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, national nature reserve or local nature reserve, or which has a significant adverse affect on the interests of wildlife in an area of special importance for nature conservation, will not normally be permitted

3 115 • En25 - expects all new development to relate sensitively to its surroundings.

• CS9 – the District Council will normally refuse development proposals that prejudice schemes for flood water management.

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

Policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002)

• STR1 - outlines the settlement hierarchy

• STR2 - provides definitions for different forms of development

• STR3 - selects Huntingdon as a market town

• HL5 - indicates that good design and layout will be required for all new housing development

• HL6 – indicates that housing densities will be between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare

• HL7 - indicates that the District Council will seek to maximise the re-use of previously developed land

3.4 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement

• P1 Sustainable Development – proposal should contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development

• P2 – Natural Resources – proposal should contribute to the efficient use of natural resources by:

4 116 • P3 - Social and Economic Well-being – proposals should contribute to the social and economic well-being of the district by:

• P5 – Settlement Hierarchy – Market Towns - Huntingdon

• P10 – Flood Risk – A development should:

- Not take place in areas at risk from flooding, unless suitable flood protection/mitigation measures can be agreed and implemented - Not increase the risk of flooding to properties elsewhere - Make use of sustainable drainage systems to manage surface water run-off, where technically feasible - Be informed by a FRA where appropriate

• P11 – development proposals should provide or contribute towards the cost of providing infrastructure, and of meeting social and environmental requirements, where these are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms

• G2 – Landscape Character – proposal should respect and respond appropriately to the distinctive qualities of the surrounding landscape.

• G3 – Trees, hedgerows and other environmental features – proposal should minimise the risk of harm to trees, hedgerows or other environmental features of visual, historic or nature conservation values.

• G4 – development proposals should not harm sites of national or internal importance for biodiversity or geology

• B1 – Design quality – proposal should demonstrate high quality design and contribute to the character of the area

5 117 • B2 – Street scene – development proposal should make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of streets and public spaces

• B3 - Accessibility, adaptability and security – the location and design of new development should:

- Enable ease of access - Incorporate appropriate and conveniently located facilities that address the needs of potential user groups - Minimise the extent to which users feel at risk from crime

• B4 – Amenity – proposal should not have an unacceptable impact upon amenities of neighbours

• B8 – Conservation Area – development proposal should:

- Seek to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area - Use forms, materials and details characteristic of the areas historic or architectural quality - Retain or restore traditional features - Re-use existing structures of historic or visual value - Retain or restore landscape features - Development proposal to demolish a building of historic value within a Conservation Area will be assessed against the same criteria as apply to the demolition of a listed building.

• B9 – Sites of archaeological interest – development that could affect a site or area of archaeological interest shall:

- Be accompanied by a suitable assessment of the nature and significance of any remains, so that the implications for the scheme can be considered - Not cause harm to remains or their setting which are recognised or identified as being of national importance, and allow for their preservation in situ - Make satisfactory arrangement for the physical preservation, recording or removal of other remains, as appropriate to their condition and significance, prior to development taking place.

• H1 – Location of Housing Development – development on unallocated sites should be limited to the following:

- Within the defined limits of Market Towns and Key Centres (Potential Growth) – major and minor housing development and residential infill

6 118 • H2 – Housing density – proposals for housing development should achieve:

- A minimum net density of 30 dwellings per hectare, or - The maximum density possible consistent with: - Character of the site and its surroundings - The need to accommodate other uses and residential amenities such as open space and parking areas

• H3 – Mix of dwelling sizes – proposals for minor housing development or infilling should provide for a mix of households sizes and types

• T1 – requires consideration of transport requirements of new development proposals

• T2 – Car and Cycle Parking – development proposal should limit car parking and provide cycle parking to the levels set out in the Council’s parking standards

• T3 - Lists the criteria which should be considered in relation to rights of way and public routes

3.5 Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2007)

3.6 Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment (2007)

3.7 Market Housing Mix SPG (2004)

4. PLANNING HISTORY

No relevant planning history

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Huntingdon Town Council – NO OBJECTION (copy attached)

5.2 Huntingdon and Godmanchester Civic Society – OBJECTION. Extra traffic down a narrow lane and concern that this would set a precedent that will permit others to buy similar properties in the lane and change the architecture of the lane and environment

5.3 Cambridgeshire Archaeology - Require archaeological evaluation

5.4 Cambridgeshire Countryside Services – concerns over increase in traffic, however this would appear to be low and impact on footpath should be small

5.5 Environment Agency – NO OBJECTIONS conditions to be imposed

5.6 Highways Agency – no impact on the A14, developer should be aware of the air quality, noise and traffic on the A14

5.7 CCC – pre-school contribution of £7560 required

5.8 CCC Highways – refusal due to lack of information

7 119 5.9 Natural England – NO OBJECTION

5.10 Wildlife Trust – comments awaited

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 NINE letters of OBJECTION received as follows:

11A Mill Common

• Change in character from rural to urban, set a precedent for future development • Visible from Port Holme and would be dominant, obtrusive and spoil the Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment (2007); preservation of existing landscape features may be compromised • Importance of archaeological remains - host of a roman villa • Inevitable increase in traffic • Further problem of inappropriately parked cars

Holme Hill House

• Out of keeping with the existing properties • Designated Conservation Area and proposal will impact negatively on the rural appearance of the area, impairing views into and out of CA • Screening does not appear adequate • Noise would be detrimental to the quiet ambience of the lane • Site is of historic interest • Increase in volume of vehicular traffic • Proposal to widen the lane shall have a negative impact on safety • Concern over the ability to widen the lane given that they do not own the verge • Widening would only increase speed • Insufficient parking • Impact on highway, junction acts as a turning point • Reduction to single carriageway under the bridge • Precedent this may set

Braemar House

• Not match the scale, size and design of existing properties along Mill Common, would be incongruous, addition of parking area for 15 cars • Needs to be seen in context of Mill Common • Notice should be taken of historical context and the archaeology on the site • Sewers may be damaged by construction • Difference in character of proposed development with the landscaped rural appearance of the lane • Development would be dominant from the footpath and Port Holme • Infill would not be in keeping, development would be too dominant and concern over future removal of vegetation • Traffic problems, intended lay-bys not shown on plan 8 120 • Increase in traffic and concerns over maintenance • Incorrect reference to access • No right of way from Whitehills to the station • Part of the Conservation Area • Could lead to further development, this would compromise the area • Additional photo image does not show the whole of the site

Birchmead 9 Mill Common

• Overbearing impact on the quiet cul de sac • Number of vehicles would at least double traffic problems • Wildlife within Whitehills would have their habitat destroyed • Access is adequate • Inadequate parking • Scale of development inappropriate • May cause property values to fall

Tardamente Mill Common

• Concern over the precedent being set of replacing dwelling with a development of the scale proposed • No right of way to station • Increase in traffic • Only one access to the site • Fatality caused along Mill Common due to reversing vehicle • Imposition of transport proposal would only cause chaos • Building would be quite different in appearance, be of a scale and prominence out of character with other properties • Building would detract from what is an attractive and harmonious view northwards from the footpaths

Danestaithe

• Out of keeping with the detached houses and low density and also its appearance • Similar application was turned down at Holme Hill after the applicants went to appeal • Concern over increase in traffic on the land and the junction with the ring road • Widening of the roadway and construction of passing places will increase the cost of maintenance • Would create a precedent

The Poplars

• Size of proposal out of keeping • No right of way to the station • Incorrectly states that vehicle access points would be reduced from 2 to 1 • Concerns over who would be the owner of the road and maintenance • Proposal would create a precedent • Harm to the environment would be outweighed by greater use of land

9 121 • Mill Common should not be defiled by such a vast development • Development should match the scale and size of existing properties and not compromise the quality of the area • Current garden should be retained • Similar application for Holme Hill in 1991 was rejected • Increase in traffic would create problems at busy times of the day

Willowmead

• Existing buildings provide an attractive and harmonious view northwards and Whitehills occupies a prominent position in that view • Whitehills has the dame roofline as neighbours and lower than the tree line, the proposed building would be a full storey higher, twice as wide and projecting over double the existing buildings depth into the garden • Out of proportion, would dominate the skyline and destroy any sense of a rural green area • Concern over the pressures of increasing urbanisation and need to preserve features such as Port Holme • Character of the area is single dwellings in large gardens, if development permitted and then development continued in all the gardens then it would destroy any rural atmosphere to the north of Port Holme • Concern over the covenants of the site and restriction to one dwelling • Increase in traffic, which consider could not be met on the private road, already been one fatality and feel that safety would be compromised further by increased traffic

Starkey House

• Over development of site, number and size of flats would overwhelm the present dwellings on the lane, existing policy is such that development should match the scale and size of existing properties • Increase in traffic, parking spaces proposed would appear to be underestimated • Site has historical connections with Roman remains in the garden • Conservation Area, development does not show sensitivity to the local environment • Few areas remaining that retains a semi-rural feel, consider that this development would seriously threaten this and the site has many beautiful trees which would be lost under concrete

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues to consider are the principle of the development, the design of the scheme and the impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and surrounding area, the impact on the existing trees on site, the impact on the SSSI and biodiversity, the impact on highway safety, access and parking, the impact of noise, the impact on archaeology, the issue of flood risk, the requirement of contributions and the impact on residential amenity.

10 122

Principle

7.2 The principle of the redevelopment is considered acceptable, subject to a suitable scheme. The site is located within the Market Town of Huntingdon, in a sustainable location. The development therefore accords with the Settlement Strategy.

7.3 When considering this site and application it is important to be aware of the planning history of Mill Common, particularly the appeal decision of 2007 which related to the Land adjacent Edward House and the proposed erection of a dwelling. In reviewing this appeal the Inspector concluded that the area was characterised by ‘mainly generous spacing of dwellings in the vicinity’ and that the development, subject of the appeal, would appear ‘at odds with the prevailing semi-rural appearance and character’. In addition to this the proposed frontage parking to this development would ‘appear as stark and uncharacteristic features in this semi-rural setting’ and as such detract from the character and appearance of the area. This broadly sets out the character of the area, although this application site is set further along Mill Common. The appeal decision is a material planning consideration when assessing this application.

Existing site

7.4 The site lies within an area generally predominated by the generous spacing of dwellings in a semi rural area. The existing roadway to the site is relatively narrow and in general trees and hedging form the boundary to the residential dwellings, there are however some exceptions. The existing detached dwelling is very plain in its appearance and not outstanding in terms of its architectural form. The scale and relatively simple form of the dwelling means that the dwelling does not appear prominent within the landscape. In addition to this the height of the dwelling is such that it is below the existing trees and so does not appear prominent against the back drop of these trees, when viewed from Port Holme. The dwelling is set back from the highway, relatively centrally in the site. To the front of the site the curtilage is predominantly laid to grass with additional landscape features and one single access point, which is relatively narrow with an approx. width of 3 metres, dimensions taken from applicant’s site survey. To the rear of the site the land steps down leading down to Alconbury Brook. There are a number of TPO trees on the site. Beyond the site lies a public footpath and SSSI (Port Holme).

Proposal

7.5 The proposal seeks a large detached building to accommodate 12 flats. The building would include 10 x 2 bedroom flats and 2 x 1 bedroom flats. When having regard to the SPG on Housing market mix the proposed development would seem to accord with this guidance.

7.6 The proposal is not considered to be of a high quality design that should be promoted in new development and particularly within a Conservation Area.

11 123 7.7 In terms of the building proposed this would appear to be of a pastiche Edwardian character. The building when viewed from Mill Common would be approximately 8.7 metres high at the front of the site and 11.5 metres in height from the lower level to the rear. The building would measure approx. 23.9 metres in overall width. The site would also be visible from the public footpaths to the rear and Port Holme. The building proposed would detract from the setting of Montague House, an existing Edwardian dwelling, which sits adjacent the site to the west and is a good example of a well designed building. It is not considered that the building proposed sits comfortably within the site, taking into consideration its design and surroundings.

7.8 Given the above dimensions of the building the proposed development is considered to be too large in terms of its scale and massing. Having regard to the surrounding buildings the proposal would appear to bear no resemblance in terms of its overall scale. In terms of the height of the building this is greater than both dwellings which sit adjacent the site. The roof appears as a dominant feature and the vertical emphasis of the building only adds to the impression of a tall building within the site. This can be clearly seen from the applicant’s photomontage which shows the building protruding above the height of the existing trees on site, the height of the building is further emphasised by the eaves height of the building.

7.9 The presence of the development is accentuated by the way in which the building extends out to the rear and steps down towards Port Holme. Views from Port Holme and the footpath to the rear reinforce the mass and bulk of the building, as the built form on the site would become much greater. Once again this is shown in the applicant’s photomontage, which is taken from Port Holme. The dwellings adjacent the site do not appear as prominent within the landscape. The applicant has failed to show the site in context with both neighbouring properties and has only provided views to the west. The scale of the building means that there would be less space around the dwelling when compared to the majority of the existing buildings along this specific area of Mill Common. Whilst appreciating the building would not appear cramped, there would be a significant reduction in the open space around the building. The spacious character forms part of the semi-rural setting in this area and a building of this scale would only undermine this character.

7.10 Notwithstanding the overall concerns over the scale of the proposed building there are concerns that the building has not sought to maximise the benefits of the site. The fenestration detail to the dwelling appears to be relatively poor and does not maximise the views over Port Holme. In general the more recent development along Mill Common has sought to create designs which blend into the existing landscape. These have generally appeared subservient on the northern elevation and utilising good glazing detail to the south to maximise the views over Port Holme and maximise solar gain. In addition to the glazing the proposed covered terrace and colonnades are not considered to be a sympathetic addition, to the site or the building. This proposal has not taken full advantage of the benefits that may be gained by developing the site. It is considered that should the dwelling be replaced a more innovative and distinctive

12 124 design, appropriate to its time, should be taken to ensure the development integrates into the surroundings.

Views from Mill Common

7.11 A streetscene has not been provided for views from Mill Common and as such the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not adversely affect this semi rural character. The proposal would introduce a larger built form into the site. The presence of this building would be further emphasised by the proposed removal of some of the existing trees and shrubs to the east and adjacent the existing access. In addition to this the proposal seeks to increase the width of this access and as such this would only open up the views into the site from Mill Common. The proposed parking area, cycle parking and bin storage would be more visible and prominent, to the detriment of the area. It is proposed to landscape the boundary to Mill Common, however due to the requirements of visibility this presumably shall be maintained to a relatively low height, views of the site shall be afforded by this restricted vegetation height.

Character and appearance of the area and impact on the Conservation Area

7.12 The site has recently been designated as a Conservation Area and as such there is a need to have regard to this designation when assessing the proposal. As previously stated the existing dwelling is of no significant architectural interest, however, it does not have a detrimental impact on the Conservation Area. Any new development should seek to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. In light of the above comments this application has not achieved this and it is considered that it would have a detrimental impact on the Conservation Area. With regards to the general character of the area, this too would not be enhanced by the development proposed, accordingly this is not considered to be acceptable in this location.

7.13 Although the proposal would result in a more efficient use of land, there is also a need to have regard to the local distinctiveness of the character of the area and to ensure that the design is well integrated. PPS3 highlights that whilst good design is fundamental, more intensive development is not always appropriate in all locations. The design of the dwelling is such that it would not sit comfortably on the site or within the surrounding landscape. A more efficient use of land in the form proposed is not considered acceptable in this location. Part of the character of the area, and as referred to in the Inspectors Decision, is ‘mainly generous spacing of dwellings in the vicinity’ and of a ‘semi-rural appearance and character’. The introduction of this large detached building containing 12 units does not seek to positively preserve or enhance the character of the area.

7.14 It is considered that the proposed parking area is not acceptable. Whilst the applicant may not agree that the parking would appear to be prominent, the applicant has failed to demonstrate this. Whilst additional vegetation is proposed, this is unlikely to be in leaf all year round and therefore allowing further views into the site.

13 125 Trees and landscaping

7.15 There are a number of trees, some of which are subject to a TPO, and other landscape features on the site that this proposal needs to have regard to. Whilst a tree survey plan has been provided, in light of the constraints of the site it is considered that a full tree survey and tree constraints plan would be required, to seek to demonstrate that there is no harm to the existing landscape features on the site. The information provided does not allow this assessment to be made; the applicant has therefore not demonstrated that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the existing landscape features on the site.

Biodiversity and SSSI

7.16 Having regard to the proposal submitted it is not considered that this would adversely affect the SSSI. It is recommended however that should any scheme be approved that drainage is directed away from the SSSI and only native species are considered for any landscaping. This would assist in ensuring that non-native spaces are not introduced into the meadows and also ensure that the SSSI is not polluted. It is not considered that the proposal would adversely affect biodiversity on the site, the Ecological survey did not find any significant flora or fauna. Appropriate measures should however be taken to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on existing nesting birds during the removal of vegetation.

7.17 In addition to the comments raised above, the ecological report indicates that Japanese Knotweed is present within the site and particular care would be needed when removing this species. The applicant has indicated that this is unlikely to take place should the site remain as a single dwellinghouse. Whilst this is a concern for the surrounding landscape, this alone should not be a reason to approve an application.

Parking

7.18 The proposed scheme seeks the inclusion of 15 car parking spaces to the front of the site. It is appreciated that the existing access, albeit widened, is to be utilized. However at present this area of the site is very informal and mainly laid to grass. The general character of this area is extensive front gardens, generally landscaped with informal driveways. This adds to the green and informal appearance of Mill Common. This proposal seeks to introduce hard standing for car parking, with 15 spaces to the front of the site. This would have a detrimental impact on the existing soft landscaped area and would only seek to have a harmful impact on the rural setting of Mill Common. Whilst it is appreciated that additional landscaping is proposed to the front of the site, it is not considered that this would overcome the impact of the proposed parking area on this semi-rural area, as already discussed above. It is considered that the parking area would appear too dominant within the site.

Highways

7.19 The Highways Authority have reviewed the information submitted and on this basis do not consider that the development would not harm

14 126 highway safety. The applicant has therefore failed to demonstrate, with the application submitted, that the proposed building to contain 12 flats would not harm highway safety.

Access

7.20 To accommodate the 12 units the transport details submitted indicate that passing bays would need to be constructed along the existing ‘lane’, as well as revised visibility splays. The character of the lane is relatively rural, the inclusion of passing bays would only seek to undermine this semi rural character, to its detriment. The construction of passing bays would not enhance the character and appearance of the area. The applicant has indicated that alterations to the existing roadway along Mill Common could be undertaken without planning permission. This is not disputed and should the applicant wish to undertake this work they could. However in assessing this application the alterations proposed, carried out in conjunction with this application is not considered to be acceptable for the reasons outlined above.

7.21 The appraisal indicates that the current state of the road would mean that it would be undesirable to cater for further intensification of use, in its current form. The Transport Appraisal indicated that a drawing had been submitted which included indicative drawings for these alterations to the roadway (paragraph 4.1.8). This information was not submitted with the original application details, however since this point in time the applicant has supplied this information. Having reviewed these plans it is evident that these are not to scale. By not submitting an accurate plan the applicant has failed to demonstrate that this proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area. Additionally full assessment of the potential impact of the improvements cannot be made.

7.22 It is evident that the proposed development would require some alterations to the existing roadway to ensure it would be suitable for the increased level of use. However given that there are objections to the alteration of the existing road, in terms of the impact this would have on the character of the area, it is considered that this may be a limiting factor on the level of development that can take place on this site.

Cycle Parking

7.23 The proposal allocates an area of space for cycle parking, however this only measures 3.8 metres in width. Whilst the site is located close to the Town Centre, it is not located within the Town centre and as such a minimum of 1 cycle space per dwelling is required and as such 12 cycle spaces should be provided. The applicant has indicated that the required level of cycle parking can be provided on the site. This is not disputed as there would appear to be sufficient land available, however no detail of the cycle parking has been provided. It is unclear how this cycle parking would appear and whether this would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area.

15 127 Environmental Health

7.24 Given the proximity of the site to the elevated A14 and mainline railway, the development should have regard to potential noise levels generated from the road. It is not considered that a noise assessment is required for the development. However acoustic glazing and ventilation would need to be fitted to north facing habitable rooms to mitigate against this noise. The applicant has not indicated that this would take place, however this detail could be controlled by imposing a condition on the consent, should the application be approved.

Archaeology

7.25 The location of the site is within an area of high archaeological potential. It is recommended that this is undertaken prior to the granting of planning permission. The applicant has confirmed that works are taking place in association with the County Council’s archaeologists; however it is unlikely that these results would be obtainable by the 13 week date.

Flooding

7.26 The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment and the Environment Agency have indicated that there are no objections to the development. Conditions should however be attached to any planning permission granted.

Operation comments

7.27 The location of the proposed refuse collection point would not be viewed as acceptable. The 1100 litre bins must only be moved a maximum distance of 5 metres from the bin store to the vehicle, this could not be achieved through the existing scheme and would require some alteration to the layout proposed. The layout of the site would also mean that the private access road would need to be built to adoptable standard, if this is not achieved a management company may need to be employed. The applicant has indicated that the access and parking area would be constructed to an adoptable standard and as such the site could be served by the District Council’s ‘small’ refuse vehicles. Whilst this is noted and would obviously be of benefit to Operations this is not considered acceptable in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the area. The introduction of a driveway to an adoptable standard is likely to introduce a more urban feel to the development with kerb stones etc being required. This is not considered acceptable in this semi-rural area and would appear completely out of keeping when compared to the existing access arrangements.

Contributions

7.28 Given the scale of the development this would require the provision of a LAP. The applicant has been informed of this requirement. In addition to a LAP the County Council have advised that a pre-school contribution would be required. Since there are a number of issues with the application submitted, it is not considered that these issues need to be considered further.

16 128

Residential amenity

7.29 Concerns were raised over the height of the dwelling and the potential for overlooking. The top floor accommodation has windows on all of the roof slopes and there are some concerns over the location of these windows on the eastern roof slope. When considering the plan submitted the side elevation would be approximately 6.6 metres from the common boundary. However the applicant has indicated that this distance is actually 10.3 metres. Having reconsidered the plans submitted this would still appear to measure approx. 8.3 metres. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there this a separation distance of 10.3 metres. Having given this issue further consideration it is considered that the proposal could potentially have an adverse impact on residential amenity by reason of overlooking to the east. It is noted that there are a number of existing trees along the boundary which may provide screening. It is unlikely that these trees would be in leaf all year round and given the height of the building and the fact that habitable rooms address this side elevation, there is the potential for overlooking to occur. This would not be considered acceptable.

7.30 There is also concern regarding the residential amenity of any future occupiers, particularly when considering the top floor accommodation. These windows are relatively narrow and small in their form, it is considered that this would only allow a limited amount of light into these rooms such that this would impinge on the potential occupiers amenity. This would be further compounded by the adjacent trees to the east which would cause some form of overshadowing during certain parts of the day. It is not considered that development should be permitted where an appropriate standard of amenity cannot be attained, particularly if it leads to pressure to remove trees in the future.

Sustainability

7.31 The proposal does not fully address the issue of sustainability, apart from stating that energy efficient materials and procedures shall be used during construction and during the life of the project. The statement then goes on to indicate that these matters shall be controlled through building control legislation. This would not seem appropriate, as this is also an important consideration during the planning process.

7.32 The applicant has indicated that the site lies within a sustainable location, this is not disputed. Previously no mention was given that the scheme had even thought to address issues of micro generation, the subsequent letter from the applicant has indicated that this could be considered with some guidance. This being said it is recommended that should the application be approved then a condition should be imposed with details to be submitted.

7.33 It should be noted that the applicant was advised of the Local Planning Authority’s concerns with the proposed development and a response was received from the applicant on the 28th April. The applicant has indicated that the reason for major application having an extended period of time is to allow for ‘fine tuning’. Whilst this is

17 129 not disputed, in relation to this application, as can be seen from the points raised above, it is not considered that it can be fine tuned into a proposal that the Local Planning Authority would deem acceptable.

Neighbour comments

7.34 Concern has been raised over the scale of the development, views from Port Holme and impact on the Conservation Area and surrounding area. These issues have all been addressed above. It is noted that the site is of archaeological interest and the County Council have recommended an archaeological evaluation be undertaken.

7.35 The concern over the impact on the ambience of the area is noted, however given that this is an existing residential area, additional dwellings are not considered to be unduly harmful to residential amenity in this regard.

7.36 Concern has been raised over the transport survey conducted not being accurate and the potential increase in traffic. These points are noted, however the Local Highway Authority have recommended the application for refusal as insufficient information has been supplied. In light of this no further comments can be made on these issues. Further concerns have been raised over the potential to widen the roadway that this may have a negative impact on safety. Once again whilst these concerns are noted the Highways Authority have recommended the application for refusal, more information would be required to full respond to this concern. It has also been indicated that the applicant does not own all the land adjacent the actual roadway and as such would not be able to construct passing places. This has not been clarified at this stage and would be something that the applicant would need to address.

7.37 Concern has been raised over parking; the Car Parking standards set out within the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement indicate that up to 2 spaces should be provided for each dwelling and up to 1 space for 4 units for visitors. These figures are maximum figures and the level of parking provided, given the proximity of the site to the town centre and its sustainable location, would appear reasonable.

7.38 The concern over the precedent being set is noted, whilst each application must be assessed on its own merits, any future development along the lines proposed would exacerbate the harm identified above.

7.39 A number of non planning matters have been raised by neighbours. Given the nature of these comments they have not been considered further.

7.40 Huntingdon and Godmanchester Civic Society have commented on the application and are concerned over the potential traffic increase from the development. This point has already been considered above and does not need to be addressed further. In addition there are concerns that this would set a precedent and result in a change in the nature of the lane. This point is noted and whilst such a change

18 130 would alter the character of the area, each application is assessed on its own merits.

7.41 In light of the above comments the proposal is not considered acceptable and it is recommended that the application be refused.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.

8. RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE for the following reasons:

8.1 The proposed erection of a building for 12 units, by reason of its design, scale and massing fails to respect and respond appropriately to the existing semi-rural character of Mill Common. The building would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Given the scale of the development the building would form an unduly prominent addition in the landscape, particularly when viewed from Port Holme, due to its scale and form. The extensive area of hard landscaping proposed to the front of the site would also form an incongruous element within this semi-rural area, to its detriment. The proposal is therefore contrary to PPS1, PPS3, PPG15, policy P1/3 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003), policies En5, En6, En9 and En25 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995), policy HL5 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration (2002), policies P3, G2, B1 and B8 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement (2007) and Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2007).

8.2 The proposed building due to its height and positioning of windows would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the adjacent neighbour, Penwartha to the east of the site by reason of overlooking. In addition to this the poorly proportioned windows to the top floor accommodation and proximity to the existing trees along the boundary would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of future occupiers, due to the limited and restricted amount of natural daylight that would enter these rooms. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy P1/3 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003, policy H31 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 and policy B4 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007.

8.3 Due to the insufficient information supplied with the application, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety.

8.4 The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have a harmful impact on the archaeological interest of this site. The proposal is therefore contrary to PPG16, policies En12 and En13 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995) and policy B9 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement (2007).

19 131 8.5 The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the existing trees and hedgerows on the site. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy En18 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995) and policy G3 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement (2007).

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2007) Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment (2007) Market Housing Mix SPG (2004)

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Michelle Nash Development Control Officer 01480 388405

20 132 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2008

Case No: 0800659FUL and 0800655LBC (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: RETENTION OF ALTERATIONS TO BUILDING

Location: UNITS 4 AND 5 CROMWELL COURT HIGH STREET KIMBOLTON

Applicant: MRS C BRADBURY

Grid Ref: 509962 267796

Date of Registration: 13.03.2008

Parish: KIMBOLTON & STONELY

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 These applications relate to the 19th century rear wing of a large Grade II Listed Building of 17th century origin. The property was originally a coaching inn and retains a predominantly commercial use today. The rear wing houses small commercial units, providing such services as a unisex salon. The surrounding development is a mix of residential and commercial. The property fronts Kimbolton High Street and backs onto the Telephone exchange on East Street. The rear wing of the adjacent property to the south east forms the enclosed courtyard known as Cromwell Court. The courtyard is accessed through a historic cartway entrance from High Street. The site falls within the Kimbolton Conservation Area. Rear wings extending away from frontage buildings on both sides of High Street are a prominent characteristic of the Kimbolton Conservation Area.

1.2 The proposals outlined in the planning permission seek to raise the roof of part of unit 5 to bring it level with the ridge of the remainder of the 19th century rear wing. The boundary wall that forms the rear external wall of the wing is also to be infilled with brick where the existing is translucent sheets.

1.3 The proposals outlined in the listed building consent seek approval for some internal alterations in addition to the above. Internally the opening between units 4 & 5 is to be blocked in, the floor is to be repaired to make it level and the walls are to be lined with plasterboard. A damp proof course is to be injected into all external walls and the windows and door are to be repaired.

1.4 Work has begun but has stopped pending the outcome of these applications.

133

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1: "Delivering Sustainable Development" (2005) contains advice on the operation of the plan-led system.

2.2 PPG15: "Planning and the Historic Environment" (1994) contains advice on development relating to Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings.

For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

3. PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• P1/3 - requires a high standard of design and sustainability for all new development.

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95 .

• En2 – requires that any development involving or affecting a building of special architectural or historical interest has proper regard to the scale, form, design and setting of that building.

• En5 – development within or directly affecting conservation areas will be required to preserve or enhance their character or appearance.

• En9 - development should not impair open spaces, trees, street scenes and views into and out of Conservation Areas.

2 134

3.3 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• B1 – Design quality – proposal should demonstrate high quality design and contribute to the character of the area.

• B2 – Street scene – development proposal should make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of streets and public spaces.

• B7 – Listed buildings – proposal affecting the fabric or setting of a listed building should:

- Demonstrate a clear understanding of the buildings architectural and historic importance - Not harm the overall character of the building or features contributing to its special interest - Support the long term preservation of the building and setting through sensitive restoration, adaptation and re- use

• B8 – Conservation Area – development proposal should:

4. PLANNING HISTORY

None relevant

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Parish Council – OBJECTION (copy attached)

6. REPRESENTATIONS

None received

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues to consider are the impact of the proposals upon the character and appearance of the listed building, the character and appearance of the conservation area and residential amenity

3 135 Impact on Character and Appearance of Listed Building and Conservation Area

7.2 The proposals are not considered to harm the special character of the listed building. Raising the ridge height to match the existing is not considered harmful in this instance as all the brickwork to this part of the wing appears to be of roughly the same period. Thus it is considered that this part of the rear wing is indicative of one period of construction. To this end it is not necessary to retain a visual distinction between the end unit (unit 5) and the remainder of the wing by virtue of a subservient ridge height. In addition, rear wings of unbroken ridge height are not an incongruous characteristic to the rear of the frontage buildings along High Street in the Kimbolton Conservation Area.

7.3 The proposals are considered to improve the visual quality of Cromwell Court. This is compliant with policy B2 which seeks to ensure that development proposals make a positive contribution to the quality of public spaces. It is not therefore considered that the proposals harm the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

7.4 The proposed changes to the interior of the structure are not considered to harm the special character of the listed building as the structure has undergone a process of considerable modernisation in the past and little historic fabric remains.

7.5 It is recommended that any approval be subject to some conditional requirements, these relate to sample of the paint finish to the external surfaces, details of any additional venting and details of any proposed changes to the external lighting.

Amenity

7.6 It is not considered that the proposals are to the detriment of the amenity of adjacent development by virtue of their scale, positioning or orientation.

Other Concerns

7.7 Kimbolton Parish Council has raised concerns regarding the unbroken ridge height of the proposal. These have been addressed in paragraph 2 above.

7.8 The Parish Council are also concerned that the works constitute unauthorised works to a listed building and have asked if we will be prosecuting. Whilst it remains a criminal offence to conduct unauthorised works to a listed building we would only prosecute in instances where works are considered to be to the detriment of the special character of the listed building. In light of the above assessment it is not considered expedient to prosecute in this instance.

4 136

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.

8. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE the planning and listed building application, subject to conditions to include the following:

Nonstand Details

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application File Reference: 0800659FUL and 080065LBC Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Mr M Hare Conservation Assistant 01480 388415

5 137 This page is intentionally left blank

138 Agenda Item 7 HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2008

ENFORCEMENT ACTION (Report by Development Control Manager)

Case No: 0702972S73 (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION) 0700229ENBOC

Proposal: UNAUTHORISED CONTINUATION OF USE OF WOODSHAVING LINE.

Location: SUNDOWN STRAW LTD, STATION ROAD, PE28 3PA

Owner(s): MR D CUBITT

Grid Ref: 508565 271110

Parish: TILBROOK

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 This report is to inform Members of the continued use of the woodshaving line at Sundown Straw, following the refusal of application reference 0702972S73, which sought consent for the continuation of the use and extension of time for the delivery of the proposed new access road, and to seek Members’ authority for enforcement action to be taken.

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND ITS CURRENT USE

2.1 This site is well known to Members, located within the open countryside to the south of Catworth. It lies to the west of Station Road (B660) and is adjacent to the former railway station. Access to the site is from the B660 via a shared access with The Station House. Adjacent to this access is a row of residential properties fronting the B660.

2.2 As Members are aware planning permission was granted in 1974 for a chemical straw plant, which has been extended over the years (74/00217FUL). In 1997 planning permission was granted for an additional straw processing plant (97/101368 FUL). Further permissions include the erection of a building for the storage of straw, 3 storage silos and intake canopy (98/01545FUL) and an extension to a warehouse (0200897FUL).

2.3 Between October 2005 and September 2007 a further four temporary planning permissions (including one S73 application) have been granted for two additional uses on the site, two full planning permissions, one of which was for a further additional use and one full planning permission for an additional building and a new road layout.

2.4 In January 2008, the owner of the site submitted a further planning application for an amended revised road layout and obtained full planning permission.

139 HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

2.5 At this time, the owner of the site is operating the chemical straw plant for straw processing (includes two processing plants) and the woodshaving line with extant permissions for a baling plant for the processing of straw, hay and dried grass and the manufacture of wood pellets.

2.6 The site also benefits from two extant permissions for a new access road.

3. PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 Planning permission was granted in 1974 for a chemical straw plant, which has been extended over the years (74/00217FUL). In 1997 planning permission was granted for an additional straw processing plant (97/101368 FUL). Further permissions include the erection of a building for the storage of straw, 3 storage silos and intake canopy (98/01545FUL) and an extension to a warehouse (0200897FUL).

3.2 In October 2005, a temporary, 12 month permission was granted for the installation of a wood shavings line and chimney (0502662FUL).

3.3 In January 2006, permission was granted for the erection of a dust fired burner- 0503890FUL.

3.4 In March 2006, a temporary 12 month permission was granted for the change of use and extension to warehouse to house baling plant to process straw, hay and dried grass. – 0600428FUL

3.5 In November 2006, a further 12 month temporary permission was allowed for the woodshaving line (0603089FUL).

3.6 In March 2007, Members approved the erection of building to be used as additional storage, new road layout to existing access/egress and improvements to access/egress on Station Road (0603797FUL).

3.7 In May 2007, a further 12 month temporary permission was allowed for the processing of straw, hay and dried grass – 0700930S73

3.8 In September 2007, Members approved full planning permission for the change of use to production of wood pellets. Erection of shed to store sawdust and machinery. (0701444FUL)

3.9 In October 2007, permission was sought for the variation of conditions 1 and 8 of permission 0603089FUL, allowing an extension to the earlier temporary consent and additional time to deliver the new access road. Permission was refused in November 2007 under powers delegated to the Head of Planning. (0702972S73)

3.10 Lastly, In January 2008, Members will recall that they approved a revised new access road proposal. (0704009FUL)

4. BREACH OF PLANNING CONTROL

4.1 Following the refusal of application reference 0702972S73 for the continued use of the woodshaving line in November 2007, the Council’s Enforcement Team served a Planning Contravention Notice

140 HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL (PCN) in December 2007 on the owner of Sundown Straw Products Ltd. The PCN was aimed to determine the level and type of vehicle movements to and from the site for each of the operational activities to determine the level of additional movements associated with the unauthorised woodshaving line. The following information was obtained:

• On average, two lorries bring logs every day, and two lorries take shavings away each day. Once every three weeks a lorry removes bark. Twice a week a lorry brings sawdust. Working on the principle that the lorries bring the wood and taking the shaving away are different contractors, this equates to 105 movements into the site per average month. Should the lorries bringing the wood and taking the shavings away be the same, this equates to 57 movements to the site per average month. • Lorries are active on site from 0400 to (sometimes) midnight, with the bulk of lorry movements occurring between 0400 to 1900. It is difficult to ascertain precisely which lorries relate to the woodshavings line as the content of the lorries are determined by customer orders. • It is impossible to break down HGV movements by the hour as they come and go at times to suit their own personal requirements. • Average daily lorry movements between Nov 07 – Dec 07, the busiest time, were 18. This is not broken down between the operating uses, but equates to approximately 1.2 vehicles per hour. • Sundown operate three 40ft curtain sided articulated lorries, with an unladen weight of about 20t, laden weight of about 32t. • Straw and logs are delivered on 40ft articulated lorries or drag type lorries, unladen weight about 15t, laden weight about 35-40t. Alternatively straw and logs are delivered via tractors and trailers. • Pellets are collected in standard ‘bulker’ lorries, either 4 or 6 wheelers, maximum unladen weight 15t, maximum laden weight 44t.

5. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

5.1 Members will be aware that the on going use of this site has been subject to some local contention and that the District Council has required improvements to improve the existing access arrangements to the site prior to the implementation of the extant permissions for additional operational uses.

5.2 Members will also be aware that the existing access arrangements to the site are substantially inadequate and large articulated vehicles movements into and out of the site result in oncoming traffic needing to reach a standstill as the vehicles slowly and carefully manoeuvre out of the awkward access. However, regardless of how carefully the drivers manoeuvre, those turning left onto Station Road (B660) or turning right into the site must substantially cross the highway verge, evidence of which is obvious on site.

5.3 In addition to the continuous erosion of the highway verge, in the wetter months of the year, namely the busiest operational time of this enterprise, this also results in mud being dragged across the highway.

141 HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL 5.4 It is accepted that there is a lawful use of the land for the operation of two straw processing plants, for which the movements via this substandard access must be accepted. By the owner’s own admission, the exact number of lorries associated solely with the woodshaving line is difficult to ascertain, but that there are on average two lorries delivering logs and two lorries collecting shavings everyday, which accords with the earlier statements made within the Transport Assessment submitted in support of application 0701444FUL, namely four movements a day, solely associated with the woodshaving line.

5.5 Following extensive consultation with the County Council Highway Officer and the District Council’s Transportation Officer, the Local Planning Authority has been consistently advised that any additional activity at this site requires an upgraded access arrangement. Members have approved applications subject to the imposition of a planning condition requiring the delivery of a new improved access road either within six months from the commencement of the use, or prior to the commencement of the use. The Conditions have read as follows:

• “No development shall take place, or the use hereby approved shall not commence until improvements to the access to the site have been completed in accordance with the details approved as part of planning permission 0603797FUL or any subsequent, alternative scheme approved by the Local Planning Authority.”

• “No development on the building hereby approved shall commence until the access from the existing carriageway edge has been laid out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved plan and constructed in accordance with a detailed engineering scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and such a scheme shall comprise levels, forms of construction, signing, lining and surface water drainage.”

• “Within 6 months of the date of this permission a scheme for improvements to the highway at the access junction with Station Road shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with the details to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.” (woodshavings line)

5.6 Whilst two planning permissions have been granted and remain extant for the construction of an improved access road, neither, to date, have been constructed. The owner has advised us that there is an ongoing dispute with the adjacent landowner regarding land ownership and rights of way.

5.7 This land dispute relates to historic land registry plans being less than precise between these adjacent landowners and as such has been referred to the Land Registry for resolution. In accordance with normal procedure, the Land Registry has endeavoured to reach a compromise between both parties, but this has been unsuccessful. Accordingly, the matter has been referred to the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry. Following lengthy discussions with both the Land Registry and the Adjudicator’s Office, the matter is unlikely to be heard by an Adjudicator until the end of August 2008. At the time of writing this report the matter had not been assigned a date for a hearing but any updates will be reported at the Development Control Panel.

142 HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

5.8 The latest letter from the Land Registry to the adjacent landowner is attached (green papers) and clearly sets out the landownership issues that have to date prevented any road from being installed.

5.9 It is important to note that the owner of Sundown Straw has cleared the land to enable work to commenced on the access road approved in January 2008 (0704009FUL). However, as there are necessary highways works required, including the movement of underground services, there is likely to be a further delay of between 12 – 16 weeks (as of 18 March 2008) and the road can not be constructed until such time as the services have been moved.

5.10 Accordingly, the new access way is unlikely to be completed before the outcome of the Adjudicator’s hearing and the owner of Sundown Straw continues to operate the woodshaving line without the benefit of planning permission.

5.11 An assessment must be made of the acceptability of the additional traffic flows generated by the woodshaving line using the existing access road on highway safety and secondly, the acceptability of the additional traffic flows using the approved access roads on highway safety.

Existing Access Arrangements.

5.12 As expressed above, the existing access arrangements result in significant disruption to the safe and free flow of the highway network and substantial damage to the highway verge opposite.

5.13 As advised by the Highway Authority, the existing arrangement is wholly substandard and whilst we are not able to control the flow of traffic directly associated with the straw processing plants, it considered that any traffic flows over and above that required solely of the straw processing plants will further prejudice highway safety to an extent that is deemed wholly unacceptable.

Proposed New Access (0704009FUL)

5.14 As Members were advised in January, the Highway Authority have assessed this proposed access arrangements and accepted that the proposed scheme is below the normal standards of access requirements usually sought for the consented use of the site. However, the land already benefits from planning permission and can use the land with the existing exceptionally sub-standard access arrangement to serve the use. Whilst the proposal does not conform to current highway standards, it is considered to be an improvement to the existing arrangement and will therefore be of benefit to highway safety.

5.15 Further consideration has now been given to the acceptability of the proposed new access and its capability of accommodating both the traffic associated with the permitted use and that associated with the woodshaving line. It is considered that the level of traffic associated with the woodshaving line is at a level that could be adequately accommodated on this improved access road, without prejudicing

143 HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL highway safety and continuing to provide an added benefit to the locality above the existing access arrangement.

5.16 However, the introduction of any further operations at the site would have to be carefully considered, as the improved access arrangements are still below the highway standard deemed acceptable for a use of this nature, albeit an improvement on the existing arrangements.

Proposed New Access (0603767FUL)

5.17 This access would be an improvement on both the existing arrangement and the access approved under permission 0704009FUL and is considered acceptable to accommodate the traffic generated by the consented use and the woodshaving line. However, Sundown Straw has indicated that in view of the land ownership dispute this access will not be constructed.

6. RECOMMENDATION

6.1 That an enforcement notice be issued.

6.2 Reason for serving the notice: The continuation of the woodshaving line using the existing access onto Station Road is contrary to Policy T1 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 which requires development proposals to be capable of being served by safe access to the transport network.

6.3 Steps to be taken: Cessation of the operation of the woodshaving line OR implementation of the access arrangement approved under reference 0603767FUL OR implementation of the access arrangement approved under reference 0704009FUL.

6.4 Period of compliance: 6 months

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Elizabeth Fitzgerald Development Control Team Leader 01480 388490

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.

144 Agenda Item 8

AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2008

APPEAL DECISIONS (Report by Development Control Manager)

INFORMAL HEARINGS

1. Appellant : Hunts Kart Racing Club Ltd Dismissed Agent: Simon Pugh 02.04.08

The intensification of the current permitted use as a kart racing track Kimbolton Kart Circuit near Stow Longa

Application for costs Refused 02.04.08

2. Appellant : Carey Leisure Allowed Agent: Andrew S Campbell Associates 07.04.08

Change of use from Bank to Amusement Arcade 6 Market Hill, Huntingdon

Application for costs Allowed 07.04.08

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS

3. Appellant : Mr Jenkins and Miss Noble Dismissed Agent: PDG Architects 28.03.08

Extensions to dwelling and erection of Garage/games room 49 Manor Road, Folksworth

4. Appellant : Mr S Daniels Dismissed Agent: D H Barford & Co 31.03.08

Erection of dwelling Rear of Western and Eastern Cottages, High Street, Hemingford Abbots

5. Appellant : Mrs Palmer Dismissed Agent: 3D Planning Ltd 02.04.08

Erection of bungalow and garage 26 Main Street, Yaxley

145 6. Appellant : Mr & Mrs Woodward Allowed Agent: AFA Associates 07.04.08

Erection of a dwelling Adjacent 14 St Neots Road, Abbotsley

7. Appellant : Mrs Lane Allowed Agent: Parkin Planning Services 07.04.08

Erection of conservatory 34 Tudor Road, Godmanchester

2 146

INFORMAL HEARINGS

1. 0701521FUL The intensification of the current permitted use as a kart racing track, Kimbolton Kart Circuit, Nr. Stow Longa The Hunts Kart Racing Club Ltd.

Planning permission was refused by Development Control Panel at its meeting held on 20 November 2006 in accordance with officer advice and the recommendation of Stow Longa Parish Council but contrary to the recommendation of Kimbolton Parish Council for the following reasons:

1. Notwithstanding the inadequate noise assessment submitted as part of the application, it is apparent that the proposed intensification of the use would generate an excessive level of noise and disturbance which would be harmful to residential properties within the vicinity of the site and would conflict with Policy B4 in the Local Development Core Strategy and PPG Note 24.

2. Insufficient information has been submitted to fully assess the highway implications of the proposal but, it is likely that the proposed intensification would be harmful to highway safety by virtue of inadequate access, including visibility.

3. The site is located within the countryside and is not accessible by means of transport other than by the private motor vehicle and is not therefore a sustainable location for the development of an intensified recreational use. It would therefore, conflict with Development Plan Policy.

The Inspector’s Reasons

• Although the appellants submitted a noise assessment with the planning application the Inspector was not persuaded that it demonstrated that the increase in the number of meetings would not adversely affect the amenities of the residents of nearby properties. The Inspector visited the site and the village of Stow Longa while racing was taking place. He found that despite the bunding to the north of the site that racing was clearly audible from the various parts of the village. The residents tolerate the noise at present on the basis that it only happens monthly over two days. However, the proposed intensification would amount to a substantial increase in the use. Effectively it would mean fortnightly use of the circuit at weekends during the summer months. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of adjacent residents having regard to noise and disturbance.

• The Council does not object to the amount of traffic using the road but is concerned about the access to the site. Although the access has an 11 metre wide gated opening, it has only nominal junction radii which inhibit traffic from the north turning left into the site. In the Inspector’s judgement, the substantial increase in the use of the circuit would justify the provision of a junction which would conform to modern day design principles in order to overcome its present limitations in terms of potential danger and hindrance to traffic flows. It would not be possible to deal with this matter by

3 147

way of condition due to the need to take land from the opposite side of the road to improve visibility.

• The Inspector did not consider the lack of accessibility to the site by public transport to be sufficient grounds to dismiss the appeal but considered that it adds weight to the undesirable nature of the proposal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The link to this planning application in Public Access is: http://planning.huntsdc.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_det ailview.aspx?caseno=J0WLA6IKS0000

APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF COSTS AGAINST THE COUNCIL

• The Inspector considered the application for costs in the light of Circular 8/93 and all relevant circumstances. He found that the Council sought additional information about the additional events and provided information on its reasons why it considered the noise assessment to be unacceptable. The Council was clearly of the view that the proposal, as it stood, would not be acceptable. The Officer’s Report to the Panel recommending refusal was clearly in the public domain which may have militated against the Panel deferring its decision. The information provided by the applicant was reported to Panel but did not cause any doubt about the recommendations in the Officer’s Report. It would have been open for the applicants to withdraw the application but they chose not to do this. From the appeal submissions and from what was said at the Hearing, the Council‘s concerns about the original and supplementary noise assessments and the highway matters were clearly expressed. Hence the Inspector considered that the Council has acted fairly in dealing with the planning application and subsequent appeal.

The application for an award of costs against the Council was refused.

2. 0603760FUL Change of use from Bank to Amusement Centre with associated retail use 6 Market Hill, Huntingdon Carey Leisure

Planning permission was refused by Development Control Panel at its meeting held on 21 May 2007 contrary to officer advice but in accordance with the recommendation of Town Council for the following reason:

1. The proposal arcade is sited within a visually prominent location off the historic Market Square, the proposed use will not make a positive contribution to the character of the area and would undermine the feel and character of this historic Conservation Area and its many listed buildings contrary to Development Plan Policy.

The Inspector’s Reasons

• The property is in the corner of the Market Square which is within the Conservation Area with many of its near neighbours being 4 148

listed buildings. No external alterations are proposed, the change of use would have no physical impact on the appearance of the Conservation Area or on the setting of the listed buildings. The Council’s case, which is supported by a number of other interested parties, is that the proposed use would detract from the character of the area but neither the Council nor any other organisations and individuals could explain precisely the harm caused by the proposed use. He concluded that the proposed use would not harm the character or appearance of the Conservation Area or the setting of the Listed Buildings and that it would make a positive contribution, entirely in keeping with the markets and the lively café culture, to achieving the Council’s aims set out in Huntingdon Town Centre Vision.

The appeal was allowed subject to conditions including a limitation of opening hours and a restriction on external alterations including signs.

APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF COSTS AGAINST THE COUNCIL

• The Inspector considered the application for costs in the light of Circular 8/93 and all relevant circumstances. He pointed out that whilst Council’s are not obliged to follow their officers’ advice, they must be able to give good reason for not doing so. The Council relied on the fact that the recommendation was made having weighed up the benefits and disbenefits of the proposal. The Inspector took the view that all the evidence indicates that the appeal proposal would be entirely complementary to Council’s own aims for the areas as set out in its Town Centre Vision.

The application for an award of costs against the Council was allowed

The link to this planning application in Public Access is: http://planning.huntsdc.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_det ailview.aspx?caseno=IU9IJ9IKS0000

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS

3. 0702556FUL Extensions to dwelling and erection of garage/games room 49 Manor Road, Folksworth Mr Jenkins and Miss Noble

Planning permission was refused under delegation agreement in accordance with the recommendation of the Parish Council for the following reasons:

1. The scale, design and bulk of the extension and garage would have a significant and overbearing impact on the existing dwelling contrary to Development Plan Policy.

2. The overlooking from the large balcony on the roof of the proposed swimming pool would be detrimental to the private amenities of the adjacent property, No. 45 Manor Road, contrary to Development Plan Policy.

5 149

The Inspector’s Reasons

• The side extension would increase the length of the dwelling by about three quarters, there would be a significant single storey rearward projection that would span most of the length of the side extension and be almost as deep as the two storey gable. The new garage, with games room over, would have a footprint comparable to some dwellings in the vicinity. Although the Inspector noted the modestly lower ridge height of the side extension and the flat roof over the swimming pool, given the size of the outbuilding and extension, he considered the proposed development would not be subordinate to the host dwelling and the proposal would result in an overly dominant development of excessive footprint, scale and bulk. The combination of the extended dwelling and outbuilding would form a particularly overbearing backdrop as seen from the street.

• The Inspector considered that a privacy screen along the side of the rear roof terrace could prevent undue overlooking and, as a result, there would be no unacceptable loss of privacy and the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling would not be harmed.

The appeal was dismissed.

The link to this planning application in Public Access is: http://planning.huntsdc.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_det ailview.aspx?caseno=J0DVHRIKS0000

4. 0702345FUL Erection of a dwelling rear of Eastern and Western Cottages High Street, Hemingford Abbots Mr Daniels

Planning permission was refused under delegation agreement in accordance with the recommendation of the Parish Council for the following reasons:

1. The proposal does not conform to the definition of infill development and would not be sensitive to the scale and character of the village. Development in depth would be contrary to the linear, frontage pattern in the locality and the proposal therefore, would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal would be contrary to Development Plan Policy

2. The proposal would have an adverse impact on the amenities of adjacent properties by reason of increased noise, disturbance and traffic generation.

The Inspector’s Reasons

• The appeal site is situated within a part of the village where the linear pattern of development is less well marked. The Inspector acknowledged that the neighbouring property to the west is set deeper into the plot but considered that the proposed development would be a more obvious intrusion into this area where there is no precedent for backland or tandem forms of development. He 6 150

accepted that that the design and scale of the building would be sympathetic to the style of development nearby but considered that the development of this plot in depth is unacceptable in principle given the importance of the settlement pattern to the conservation area.

• Due to the siting of the building and the screening around it, combined with the distances to neighbouring development, the Inspector considered that there would be very limited harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

The appeal was dismissed.

The link to this planning application in Public Access is: http://planning.huntsdc.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_det ailview.aspx?caseno=HIDEL7IKF1000

5. 0604045FUL Erection of a dwelling and garage and erection of garage. Land at and including 26 Main Street, Yaxley Mrs Palmer

Planning permission was refused under delegation agreement in accordance with the recommendation of the Parish Council for the following reasons:

1. The proposal would detract from the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area in Main Street which is generally characterised by a linear pattern of development close to the road with spacious rear gardens, due to the location of the proposed dwelling on elevated backland. The dwelling would intrude into the space behind Main Street and the design, bulk and position of the building and the widening of the access necessary would detract from the character and appearance of the area. The proposed landscaping of the site would not overcome these concerns. The proposal is therefore contrary to Development Plan Policy.

2. The additional activity and disturbance on the access to the dwelling would detract from the amenities of the occupiers of 24 and 26 Main Street, contrary to Development Plan Policy.

The Inspector’s Reasons

• The land along Main Street rises gradually so that the appeal site is visible from the highway. The dwellings are mainly near to the front of large plots with long spacious gardens which play an important part in separating the frontage development from the less attractive, modern development at Badger Close. The Inspector found little development other than the normal ancillary development associated with normal residential use to the rear of nearby properties. Consequently, he considered that the proposal would be inconsistent with the established pattern important in this part of the Conservation Area.

• The design of the building fails to take inspiration from the mainly Edwardian and Victorian character of the vicinity and would be unsympathetic to the character of the area. The partial screening 7 151

of the building with trees would have no material effect of the main consideration of the settlement pattern.

• The recommended widening of the access to allow vehicles to pass, without manoeuvring onto the highway and to provide for pedestrian visibility, would increase exposure to the conservatory of the host dwelling which would be detrimental to the appearance of the terrace. In addition, the required visibility splays are not within the control of the appellant so could not be the subject of a condition.

• The proposed dwelling would be sited to the rear of the restricted gardens of Badgers Close where quiet and relaxing conditions would normally prevail. Furthermore, the access would be directly against habitable rooms of Nos. 24 and 26 Main Street, the front and rear gardens would be visible from the track and there would be a direct effect on the privacy of occupants of the host dwelling from the additional comings and goings. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 24 and 26 Main Street with particular reference to privacy, noise and disturbance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The link to this planning application in Public Access is: http://planning.huntsdc.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_det ailview.aspx?caseno=HIDEL7IKF1000

6. 0702182FUL Erection of a dwelling Land adjacent 14 St Neots Road Abbotsley Mr & Mrs Woodward

Planning permission was refused under delegation agreement in accordance with the recommendation of the Parish Council for the following reason:

1. The scale, design and position of the dwelling is considered to be out of character with the surrounding built form and harmful to the character of the Abbotsley Conservation Area contrary to Development Plan Policy.

The Inspector’s Reason

• The appeal site comprises land to the side of a semi-detached dwelling. The existing house and proposed dwelling are both outside of the Conservation Area but land immediately to the front is within the Conservation Area. The Inspector considered that the basic height, form and two-storey length of the new dwelling would be similar to that of the existing property but differs in respect of matters such as the pitched roof porch and rear projection. The scale would not therefore, be excessive and the individual design would accord with the incremental development of the village. He therefore concluded that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the locality or the setting of the Conservation Area. The land to the front of the new dwelling, within the Conservation Area, would remain free of buildings and be used for car parking which would reflect other frontages in the 8 152

Conservation Area. He concluded that the character and appearance of the Conservation Area would be preserved.

The appeal was allowed.

The link to this planning application in Public Access is: http://planning.huntsdc.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_det ailview.aspx?caseno=HIDEL7IKF1000

7. 0702269FUL Erection of a Conservatory 34 Tudor Road, Godmanchester Mrs Lane

Planning permission was refused under delegation agreement contrary to the recommendation of the Town Council for the following reason:

1. The size, scale and siting of the conservatory does not complement the form and character of the existing dwelling. The proposal would be a prominent addition in the streetscene, to its detriment. The proposal is therefore contrary to Development Plan Policy.

The Inspector’s Reason

• The proposed conservatory would be attached to the side elevation facing towards the street. The Inspector considered that it would be of modest height and footprint although it would not be set back from the front of the dwelling, which is already the case with the existing conservatory. The conservatory would be clearly visible from the street but would be set back 3-5 metres from the street. Given this and the variety in type and design of buildings in the locality and their distance and orientation from the street he did not consider this would be harmful.

The appeal was allowed.

The link to this planning application in Public Access is: http://planning.huntsdc.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_det ailview.aspx?caseno=HIDEL7IKF1000

Background Papers: Relevant Appeal Files

CONTACT OFFICER - enquiries about this Report to Mrs J Holland, Administrative Officer, ( 01480 388418.

9 153

FORTHCOMING APPEALS

None

10 154 Agenda Item 9

AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 19 MAY 2008

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PROGRESS REPORT 1 JANUARY 2008 – 31 MARCH 2008 (Report by Development Control Manager)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report covers the period 1 January 2008 to 31 March 2008 and compares the performance with the preceding quarter, which is attached to this report, together with the corresponding quarter of 2007.

2. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

2.1 Table 1 indicates the statistics relating to this quarter (column (a)), the previous quarter (column (b)) and the corresponding quarter of 2007 (column (c)).

(a) (b) (c) TABLE 1 01.01.08 01.10.07 01.01.07 to to to 31.03.08 31.12.07 31.03.07

No. of applications in hand at beginning of quarter. 351 420 331

No. of applications received. 517 428 544

No. of applications determined. 395 453 451

No. of Householder applications determined. 196 214 246

No. of applications withdrawn. 37 44 42

County Matters Received. 4 2 6

No. of applications in hand at end of quarter. 436 351 382

County Council Regulation 3 or 4 Received. 2 5 5

155 2.2 The applications referred to above were determined in the time period shown in Tables 2a and 2b. ( NB . Table 2a is a new form of performance report based upon the revised/new national performance targets for the determination of planning applications).

(a) (b) TABLE 2a 01.01.08 01.10.07 ALL APPLICATIONS to to 31.03.08 31.12.07

60% of MAJOR 13 out of 15 = 87% 12 out of 18 = 67% applications to be determined in 13 weeks

65% of MINOR applications 79 out of 111 = 71% 78 out of 121 = 64% to be determined in 8 weeks

80% of all OTHER 233 out of 269 = 87% 280 out of 314 = 89% applications to be determined in 8 weeks

TOTAL 325 out of 395 = 82% 370 out of 453 = 82%

(Note: The percentage figures are the % achieved within each target group)

(a) (b) (c) TABLE 2b 01.01.08 01.10.07 01.01.07 HOUSEHOLDER to to to TYPE APPLICATIONS 31.03.08 31.12.07 31.03.07

0-8 weeks 178 (91%) 203 (95%) 236 (96%) over 8 weeks 18 (9%) 11 ( 5%) 10 (4%)

TOTAL 196 (100%) 214 (100%) 246 (100%)

HOUSEHOLDER DECISIONS AS % OF ALL DECISIONS

Householder 196 214 246 All decisions 395 453 451

% 50 47 55

2 156 2.3 Table 3 gives details of the reasons for delay when applications have taken more than eight weeks to determine.

(a) (b) (c) TABLE 3 01.01.08 01.10.07 01.01.07 to to to 31.3.08 31.12.07 31.3.07

Reasons for Delay:

Local Highway Authority ------

Anglian Water Authority ------

Environment Agency - - - - 1 (2%)

Government Office ------

Parish Council - - 1 ( 1%) - -

Other Statutory 1 ( 1%) 2 ( 3%) 2 (4%) Consultations

Applicant 20 (29%) 17 (21%) 29 (49%)

Referred to DC Panel 18 (26%) 30 (37%) 13 (22%)

Processing Delays 30 (43%) 30 (37%) 12 (20%)

S106 1 ( 1%) 1 ( 1%) 2 (3%)

TOTAL 70 (100%) 81 (100%) 59 (100%)

3. CHARGES FOR APPLICATIONS

(a) (b) (c) TABLE 4 01.01.08 01.10.07 01.01.07 to to to 31.03.08 31.12.07 31.03.07

Fee Applications 405 356 464

Fees £175,905.00 £214,775.00 £238,242.00

3 157 4. COMPARISON WITH BUDGET

4.1 The fee income figures for this Quarter compare with the budget as follows:

QUARTERLY BUDGET TABLE 6 INCOME (a) (a)

Planning Fees £193,280 £212,612

5. RECOMMENDATION

5.1 That the contents of this report be noted.

CONTACT OFFICER - enquiries about this report to Andy Moffat, Development Control Manager on ( 01480 388402.

4 158