A Meeting of the DEVELOPMENT

A meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL will be held in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, PATHFINDER HOUSE, ST MARY'S STREET, HUNTINGDON, PE29 3TN on MONDAY, 18 JUNE 2007 at 7:00 PM and you are requested to attend for the transaction of the following business:-

APOLOGIES

1. MEMBERS' INTERESTS

To receive from 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.

2. MINUTES (Pages 1 - 8)

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 21st May 2007.

3. DIVERSION OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY: PART OF BRIDLEWAY NO. 26 - THE STUKELEYS AND PART OF BRIDLEWAY NO. 17 - BRAMPTON - TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (Pages 9 - 12)

To consider a report by the Planning Policy Manager.

4. DESIGNATION AS BEST VALUE PLANNING AUTHORITY FOR MAJOR APPLICATIONS FOR 2007/08 AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN (Pages 13 - 18)

To consider a report by the Development Control Manager.

5. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (Pages 19 - 66)

Applications Requiring Reference to Development Control Panel

(a) Warboys - Erection of dwelling for agricultural contractor, land east of Long Lott Meadows, Fenside Road (b) Brampton - Part change of use and extension to dwelling to form children’s nursery, 1 West End (c) Folksworth & - Variation of Condition 14 of planning Washingley permission 0500055 (agricultural occupancy condition on Manor Farm), land south of Folksworth Lodge, Folksworth Road, Norman Cross (d) Great Paxton - Erection of two/three dwellings, land north of Lingdale, Paxton

Hill (e) Great Staughton - Change of use of showroom/workshop to health and fitness centre, GSN Conservatories, The Town (f) Houghton & Wyton - Erection of dwelling, land adjacent to Hill View, Meadow Lane, Houghton (g) Huntingdon - Erection of two semi-detached dwellings, land south west of 12 Sayer Street.

To consider reports by the Development Control Manager.

6. APPEAL DECISIONS (Pages 67 - 72)

To consider a report by the Development Control Manager.

Dated this 8 day of June 2007

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, a partner, relatives or close friends;

(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 £5,000; 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. If you wish to address the Panel please contact Jackie Holland in Planning Services on Tel No 01480 388418 before 4.30pm on Friday 15th June 2007. 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 base of the flagpole in the car park at the front of Pathfinder House. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 2

HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

MINUTES of the meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL held in the Council Chamber, Pathfinder House, St Mary's Street, Huntingdon, PE29 3TN on Monday, 21 May 2007.

PRESENT: Councillor P G Mitchell – Chairman.

Councillors Mrs M Banerjee, P L E Bucknell, E R Butler, D B Dew, J J Dutton, J D Fell, J E Garner, L W McGuire, I R Muir, R Powell, T D Sanderson, C J Stephens, P A Swales, G S E Thorpe, R G Tuplin, P K Ursell, P R Ward, J S Watt and R J West.

APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence from the meeting were submitted on behalf of Councillors Mrs B E Boddington and D J Priestman.

IN ATTENDANCE: Councillors J E Garner, L W McGuire, I R Muir, R Powell, T D Sanderson and J S Watt, Councillor Cusak and Rickman – Yaxley Parish Council.

7. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 16th May 2007 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

8. MEMBERSHIP

The Chairman welcomed Councillor P K Ursell to his first meeting of the Panel following his recent election and, on behalf of the Panel, extended his appreciation to Councillors C R Hyams and R Powell for their contribution as former Members of the Panel and his best wishes to them in their new Council posts.

9. MEMBERS INTERESTS'

Councillor P L E Bucknell declared a personal interest in Minute No. 10 (a) having undertaken an arranged site visit in his capacity as Portfolio Holder for Environment, Transport and Planning Strategy.

Councillor J J Dutton declared a personal interest in Minute No. 10 (a) by virtue of his membership of Cambridgeshire County Council.

Councillor J D Fell declared a personal interest in Minute No. 10 (a) by virtue of his membership of the Friends of Huntingdon Library.

Councillor R G Tuplin declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Minute No. 10 (c) and left the meeting for the duration of and voting on the application.

Councillor P L E Bucknell declared a personal interest in Minute No. 10 (e) by virtue of his membership of the Steering Group on Gypsies and Travellers.

Councillors Mrs M Banerjee and P G Mitchell declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Minute No. 10 (g) and left the meeting for the duration of and voting on the application.

Councillor P L E Bucknell declared a personal interest in Minute No. 10 (g) by virtue of his position as District Council representative on Luminus Homes.

Councillor P A Swales declared a personal interest in Minute No. 10 (g) by virtue of his family relationship with a neighbour to the proposed development.

10. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

The Development Control Manager submitted reports (copies of which are appended in the Minute Book) on applications for development to be determined by the Panel and advised Members of further representations (details of which also are appended in the Minute Book) which had been received in connection therewith since the reports had been prepared. Following consideration of the applications in question, it was

RESOLVED

(a) Erection of 110 residential apartments, new library, office building and associated works following demolition of library and other buildings, various properties west of Princes Street, Huntingdon – 06/03692/FUL

(See Min No 9 for Members’ Interests)

(Councillor T D Sanderson, Ward Councillor, Mrs O Baddeley and Messrs B Smith and R Buchan as objectors, and Mr D Stevenson representing D E Clegg, applicant, addressed the Panel on the application).

(i) that the Director of Central Services be authorised to enter into an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of affordable housing, open space and play equipment; and

(ii) that the application be approved subject to the completion of the Agreement referred to in resolution (i) above and to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning Services to include those listed in paragraph 9 of the report now submitted.

(b) Erection of a dwelling, following demolition of existing, The Willows, Harpers Drove, Ramsey Heights – 07/00810/FUL

(Councillors I R Muir and R Powell, Ward Councillors, Town Councillor M Cusack and Mr D Combes, applicant, addressed the Panel on the application).

2 (i) that the application be refused for the following reason –

the proposed development is contrary to policies P1/2 and P1/3 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 and H23 and En17 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 and policy P8 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 in that the erection of a second replacement dwelling in the countryside (where development is generally restricted to that which is essential to the efficient operation of local agriculture, horticulture, forestry, permitted mineral extraction, outdoor recreation or public utility services) is unjustified. A replacement dwelling has already been erected to the south-east of the site under planning consent reference No. 94/0927/FUL. The proposal would therefore constitute an unacceptable non-essential development in the countryside, which would result in additional motor journeys which would be unsustainable and contrary to policies P1/1 and P1/3 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 and P1 and P3 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 and guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement Nos. 1 and 3 and Planning Policy Guidance No. 13 relating to sustainability. Furthermore, the proposal would, by replacing the dwelling, rather than demolishing it, as was sought by condition 6 of planning consent number 94/0927/FUL and proposing a dwelling with a greater upper bulk than exists, detract from the rural character and appearance of the countryside and would fail to satisfy policy H27 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 and policy H4 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement, 2007;

(ii) that, in the event that a recently received flood risk assessment is not considered acceptable, the following paragraph be included as an additional reason for refusal of the application –

the site is in a flood zone with 1:1000 probability of flooding but the applicant has not provided an adequate flood risk assessment as required by Planning Policy Statement No. 25. The proposed development may therefore be at risk of flooding and may increase the risk of flooding to existing properties, contrary to Planning Policy Statement No. 25 and policies P1/2 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003, CS9 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995, P2 and P10 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement, 2007; and

(iii) that the Director of Central Services be authorised to issue an enforcement notice to secure the demolition of the existing dwelling and

3 buildings and that, in the event of failure to comply therewith, proceedings in the Magistrates Court be authorised.

(See Minute No. 9 for Members’ Interests).

(Councillor J E Garner, Ward Councillor, addressed the Panel on the application).

that the application be refused for the following reason –

the surrounding built form has a strong linear form. The undeveloped rear gardens, where visible, re-enforce this strong character and create an important spacious and informal appearance to Green End Road. The application site also has a strong visual relationship with the open countryside located beyond. The erection of a bungalow to the rear of the existing dwelling, No. 44 Green End Road, will fail to respect the linear form of development and will significantly increase the built up appearance of the area, to the detriment of the more informal character of this part of the village. Furthermore, to be able to secure appropriate access and egress into the site, the access drive will need to be upgraded. The more formal and engineered appearance of the works required would further undermine the spacious character of the area. The development is therefore considered contrary to policies P1/3 and P7/4 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003, policies H32 and En25 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995, policies HL5 and HL8 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002, policies P3, G2 and B1 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007, Planning Policy Statement Nos. 1 and 3 and the Huntingdonshire Design Guide.

(d) Part change of use of lake and adjoining land to private syndicate fishery, The Meadow, Parkhall Road, Somersham – 07/00729/FUL

that the application be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning Services to include those listed in paragraph 8 of the report now submitted.

(e) Change of use of land to residential caravan site for four gypsy families with eight caravans, hardstanding and landscaping, St. Ives Road, Woodhurst – 07/00959/FUL

(See Minute No. 9 for Members’ Interests).

(Mr R Price, applicant, addressed the Panel on the application).

that the application be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning Services to

4 include those listed in paragraph 8 of the report now submitted.

(f) Renewal of Planning Permission 06/00428/FUL for Extension to Housing Baling Plant to process straw, hay and dried grass, Sundown Straw Products, Station Road, Tilbrook – 07/00930/S73

that the application be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning Services to include those listed in paragraph 8 of the report now submitted.

(g) Residential Development, 2 Park Close, Yaxley – 06/02428/OUT

(See Minute No. 9 for Members’ Interests).

Councillor D B Dew, Vice-Chairman, in the Chair.

(Councillors L W McGuire and J S Watt, Councillor M Rickman representing Yaxley Parish Council and Dr Grant, representing Yaxley Group Practice, objector, addressed the Panel on the application).

that the application be refused for the following reason –

the proposed development site represents an important community care asset and its supplanting by private market residential development would result in the loss of opportunity to improve health or social care in Yaxley contrary to policy CS5 – development of health and social care facilities, as set out in the Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995.

Councillor P G Mitchell, Chairman in the Chair.

(h) Layout, scale and access for the erection of a dwelling, land east and rear of 75 Broadway, Yaxley – 07/00390/OUT

that the application be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning Services to include those listed in paragraph 8 of the report now submitted.

(i) Erection of dwelling, land rear of 35A Middletons Road, Yaxley – 07/00827/FUL

that the application be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning Services to include those listed in paragraph 8 of the report now submitted.

(j) Demolition of various properties (including Library) and boundary walls, west of Princes Street, Huntingdon – 06/03640/CAC

that the application be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning Services to

5 include those listed in paragraph 8 of the report now submitted.

(k) Change of use from bank to amusement centre with associated retail use (A1), 6 Market Hill, Huntingdon – 06/03760/FUL

(Dr A Owen-Smith of the Hartford Conservation Group, objector, and Mr A Campbell, agent, addressed the Panel on the application).

that the application be refused for the following reasons –

the proposed development is sited within a visually prominent location off the Market Square. The Market Square and the many listed buildings which surround the site form part of the historic core of Huntingdon.

The proposed change of use from No. 6 Market Hill to an amusement arcade, given the nature of the use, will not make a positive contribution to the character of the area and is considered to undermine the feel and character of this historic market square, a key public square located within the heart of the designated Huntingdon Conservation Area.

The proposed change of use is therefore considered contrary to policies P1/2, P1/3 and P7/6 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003, policy En5 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995, policies P3, B2 and B8 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement, 2007 and Planning Policy Statement No. 1 and Planning Policy Guidance No. 15.

(l) Approval of siting, design, external appearance and means of access for 114 houses and apartments with associated car parking, land off Ullswater and Handcrofts Lane, Ullswater, Huntingdon – 07/00045/REM

that the application be approved subject to the resolution of issues raised by the Transportation and Service Development Officers and to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning Services to include those listed in paragraph 8 of the report now submitted.

11. APPEAL DECISIONS

The Panel received and noted a report by the Development Control Manager (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) in respect of nine appeals against refusal of planning permission by the District Council.

12. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PROGRESS REPORT: 1 JANUARY - 31 MARCH 2007

The Panel received and noted a statistical report by the Development Control Manager on the activities of the Development Control Section of the Planning Division over the period 1st January – 31st March

6 2007 (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book).

Referring to Table 2 (a) and having been advised that the District Council, as Local Planning Authority, had been formally designated as a Standards Authority for major applications, the Panel were reminded of the emphasis which now would be placed on the determination of this type of application.

Chairman

7 This page is intentionally left blank

8 Agenda Item 3

AGENDA ITEM NO. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18th June 2007

DIVERSION OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY Part of Bridleway No26 The Stukeleys & Part of Bridleway No17 Brampton Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (Report by Planning Policy Manager)

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To seek approval for the making of an order for the diversion of part of Bridleway No26, The Stukeleys & part of Bridleway No17, Brampton

2. Background

2.1 Bridleway No26 The Stukeleys runs in a southerly direction from Ermine Street, Gt. Stukeley to Huntingdon Race Course where it continues in a generally south easterly direction through the racecourse to the parish boundary with Brampton where it continues as Bridleway No17 Brampton. The bridleway then follows the racecourse access road and terminates at the road’s junction with the A14.

2.2 Planning permission (0603166FUL) for alterations and extensions to the racecourse facilities was granted on 27th of November 2006.

2.3 This authority is aware that the current legal route of the bridleway through the racecourse has been obstructed by various buildings and structures since the 1950’s. At that time public rights of way in the area were not fully recorded and the obstruction of the public right of way was not an intentional action by the racecourse. Although Cambridgeshire County Council was aware of these obstructions, no formal action was taken as the public have been able to use various routes through the racecourse, bypassing the obstructions.

3. The Proposal

3.1 The proposal is to divert the bridleway from its current route through the racecourse to a new route (A-J-K-L-M on order plan) around the eastern and northern boundary of the racecourse.

4. Issues

4.1 Implementation of the recent planning consent will worsen the current situation. In addition, improvements to other public rights of way in the area and the proposed Northbridge development will see the increased importance and usage of this bridleway route.

4.2 The new route will be a clearly defined four metre wide strip with a grass surface. A bridleway bridge will be provided to cross a drainage ditch at the south eastern section of the new bridleway (point K on the order plan). The costs of providing this bridge will be met by the racecourse.

9 4.3 Huntingdonshire District Council will certify the diversion as coming in to operation, only when both District and County Council are satisfied that all work to create the new bridleway has been carried out. This effectively assures the provision of the new route of the bridleway before the existing bridleway is extinguished.

4.4 The applicant has agreed to meet the District Council’s legal and advertising costs.

4.5 This planning authority is satisfied that this diversion order meets the necessary criteria as set out in Section 257 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

5. Pre-order consultations

5.1 Cambridgeshire County Council has made the following comments- Support the proposal which resolves the longstanding obstruction to the bridleway. The new route to be four metres in width with a good grassed surface.

5.2 Local group of the Ramblers Association- The new Public Right of Way should be of sufficient width to accommodate walkers and riders, be pleasant to use and properly signed.

5.3 Local group of the British Horse Society- No response received.

5.4 The Stukeleys Parish Council- No objections.

5.5 Brampton Parish Council- No response received.

6. Recommendation

6.1 That the appropriate order be made under the relevant statutory provisions of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 to divert part of Bridleway No26, The Stukeleys & part of Bridleway No17, Brampton.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Nil

Contact Officer: Mr R Probyn, Planning Policy Manager 01480 388430

10 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 Section 257 Diversion of part of Bridleway No26 The Stukeleys & Diversion of part of Bridleway No 17 Brampton

Site

1:15,000 Pathfinder House St Mary's Street Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown Copyright. Huntingdon ±Date: 29/11/06 Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. HDC LA 100022322 PE29 3TN Operational Services

11 Waterloo Farm

Co ttages 2 Town & Country Planning1 Act 1990

k c a r Section 257 T

in a r D Diversion of part of19.4m Bridleway No26 The Stukeleys & Diversion of part of BridlewayWaterloo Farm No 17 Brampton 20.9m

L ET 19.5m 6 2 o N s y y a le e k P lew tu u id b M r 16.9m S T li B e h c h F T e D r a S ino t o u tp k a 12.7m e t le h y N s o 7 H BM 11.76m

11.7m

Tower

D r G B a i r n i T d h le e w

S a BM 12.34m t y u k N Clubhouse e o 11.2m le 2 ys 6

11.6m E

Pa r a G de ra R n ing d s t T a e r n r d a c e m s .9 1 1 Huntingdon Race Course D

F T e r r a c e W s S i t n a n n Tank in d g

P o s t 2m 1. PCs 1 E l S u b S S ta ta n d L C

Car& Coach Park D ra in Light Sta ndards Car & Coach Park

Water W ard f Bdy e D 1.22m BM RH 11.32m

S B table s

Car& St ables Coach D Park Car & Coach Park r a B i n

i d K Water Huntingdon Race Course l

w Def r

a a Wa D ter r Ju y a mp m in

N H Pos t m R p 1.22 a in Post t o

n d 10.9m B 7 d

Key a

W F lo od P ro C Bridlewayte to S ct 3 i 2 o No n th a L tp e oo v F e lic be divertede Pub W ar d B dy New route of A s D ley Bridleway e e k D Al u ef con f St bu e ry h B T rook Weir n i a r Flow Gauge Existing Public D St at ion Rights of Way to remain unchanged J

1:5,000 Pathfinder House St Mary's Street Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown Copyright. Huntingdon ±Date: 29/11/06 Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. HDC LA 100022322 PE29 3TN Operational Services

12 Agenda Item 4

AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18 JUNE 2007

DESIGNATION AS BEST VALUE PLANNING AUTHORITY FOR MAJOR APPLICATIONS FOR 2007/8 AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN (Report by the Development Control Manager)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The purpose of this report is two-fold, firstly to inform the Panel that the Council, acting in respect of its role as the Local Planning Authority, has as had been anticipated now formally been designated as a ‘standards authority’ for Major Applications for 2007/08 and, secondly, to therefore seek the Panel’s endorsement of a Performance Improvement Plan to ensure that the targets for determining major applications in particular are met.

1.2 Those Members on the Panel in December will remember that you considered a report at that meeting advising you that the Council had been designated as a potential ‘standards authority’ for Major Applications in 2007/08. At that meeting, amended and enhanced procedural arrangements, and operating practices, in order to allow the Council to increase its effectiveness and efficiency in terms of the ways in which it determines major planning applications were endorsed.

1.3 The agreed procedural and operational enhancements were:

• The planning application registration process is made even more stringent in order to ensure that all of the required essential information, which will be necessary for the Council to appropriately deal expediently with the planning proposal, is submitted with the application. In relation to this measure the Council will continue to upgrade, update and enhance its guidance to potential applicants in order to ensure that they are fully aware of the standard of application submission that will be required from them.

• That all the applicable administrative procedures and processes (right through from the submission of an application to decision making) are reviewed in order to look for further deliverable increases in efficiency. This may include reviewing current performance management systems and the use of process mapping to identify and remedy any discernable blockages within the determination process.

• That detailed consideration be given to further enhancing our existing pre-application advice service, which due to other operational necessities has had to be considered a lesser priority, in order that potential applicants can be advised about what will be required in order to constitute an appropriate submission, that good design and other environmental improvements can be encouraged and significantly that

13 inappropriate planning proposals can be effectively discouraged prior to any formal submission.

• That the Council positively considers making use of more standardised Section 106 Agreements, and other forms of planning obligations, in order to try and fast track the negotiation processes which can extend the life of a major application way beyond its required decision date. Major applications, by their very nature, obviously give rise to the need for complex Section 106 Agreements, and in conjunction with the on-going work in respect of the emerging Planning Obligations Development Plan Document, additional detailed thought will be given to the viability of requiring proactive pre- application negotiations.

• That the scheme of delegation for the determination of planning applications is again reviewed in order to ensure that it is operating efficiently and effectively both in terms of what type of application the Development Control Panel is focussing is on dealing with and to ensure that all avoidable processing delays are minimised wherever possible. As Member’s will be aware national best practice strongly advocates that the Development Control Panel should target its limited time resources at dealing with those major and controversial applications that could have a significant impact upon the character of Huntingdonshire.

• That there is an on-going further programme of dedicated, and targeted, training on planning matters (for Member’s, relevant staff and other interested parties) in order to increase overall understanding of the applicable planning processes. It is considered important that the Council seeks to foster greater public engagement and appreciation of the planning process and understanding of the ways in which the consideration of planning matters, and the determination of planning applications, can influence broader community and environmental outcomes.

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.1 As Members will be aware, the Government continues to place great emphasis upon the speed of application determination as a performance measure for all local planning authorities. Whilst HDC has always sought to balance the quality of the decision against the need for a speedy determination, and we have consistently maintained our performance over time (whilst dealing with an increasingly complex workload of significant and controversial proposals), a combination of recent factors resulted in our application handling performance (specifically in respect of the determination of major planning applications) for the year ending June 2006 being subject to this further external scrutiny process.

2.2 Current Government application handling targets (which are defined Best Value Indicators) require all Local Planning Authorities to determine 60% of major applications (which include all proposals for 10 or more dwellings or over a 1000 square metres of commercial floorspace) within a target of 13 weeks; 65% of minor residential and commercial applications (which include proposals for up to

2 14 9 dwellings and most changes of use) within a target of 8 weeks; and 80% of other applications (which are mainly householder and other smaller applications) also within a target of 8 weeks.

2.3 Having regard to these defined national targets, for the year ending June 2006 (which is the applicable timescale for this standards assessment), whilst the Council achieved the targets for minor residential and commercial applications and other applications, the Council’s performance was deemed to be unacceptable because we only managed to deal with 46% of major applications (61 cases) within the applicable target timescale. It is considered that this particular level of performance level can be related to a number of factors including the nature of the current development pressures focussed on Huntingdonshire and the sheer complexity of many of the applications that we have to deal with (including the negotiation and completion of several highly complex S106 Agreements).

2.4 It is worthy of note that, whilst we did not achieve the 60% target of major applications determined within 13 weeks within the year ending June 2006, 71% of major applications were determined within 13 weeks during the subsequent assessment period (July 2006- March 2007).

3. THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE POTENTIAL STANDARDS

3.1 As stated above the Council has, for the year ending June 2006, failed to achieve the required performance target for major applications. Whilst this can clearly be accredited to a series of related operational reasons, which the Council detailed in its response to the DCLG standards consultation, the Council has been formally designated as a ‘standards authority’ for major applications for 2007/8. A copy of the designation letter is attached for Members’ information.

3.2 It is understood that the Government will redefine the applicable major application handling target for HDC when acting as the Local Planning Authority. Designation is the first step in a legal process that, in the event of persistent underperformance, can lead to formal intervention by the Secretary of State in the Council’s planning service. It may also affect the Council’s overall score in the Audit Commission’s Comprehensive Performance Assessment and the continued non-achievement of that performance standard would have clear implications for the potential future level of Planning Delivery Grant that may be awarded.

4. PROPOSED PROCEDURAL AND OPERATIONAL CHANGES

4.1 As indicated in paragraph 2.4, the Council exceeded the 60% target for the determination of major applications within 13 weeks in the most recent assessment period. However, in response to the standards designation and to ensure that the Council can continue to deal with all submitted planning proposals (and in particular major applications) as effectively and efficiently as possible, the Development Control Service will need to put into place a series of further enhanced procedural arrangements and operating practices, which are derived from the consideration of current national best practice advice.

3 15

4.2 The suggested procedural and operational enhancements are:

• Pre-application discussions – Continue to encourage pre- application discussions, including necessary obligations, and community involvement prior to the submission of applications to improve the quality of submissions and reduce the need for amendments following submission.

• Rigorous and Timely Validation – Ensure that all the necessary information for the Council to deal expediently with applications is submitted with an application and that valid applications are registered without undue delay. The 1st October 2007 sees the introduction of 1APP, the national standard application form, which should make it clearer what information must accompany an application in order for it to be validated.

• Consultee responses – Ensure consultees and neighbours are consulted without delay and urge statutory consultees to respond in a timely manner, and normally within 21 days.

• ‘Major Applications Champion’ - In April of this year an experienced officer was appointed into the newly created post of Development Control Special Projects Officer. In addition to dealing with and concentrating on some of the major applications received, he will also oversee and monitor progress on all of the major applications received. Amongst his other tasks, he will also prepare a Procedures Manual and a review of conditions to help ensure the service works consistently and effectively.

• Scheme of Delegation – Continue to periodically review the scheme of delegation acknowledging that Members should continue to consider many of the major applications which are most likely to be controversial and/or have the greatest impact on the District.

• Use of Conditions – Continue to consider the use of planning conditions in lieu of the signing of S.106 obligations prior to determination in appropriate circumstances.

• Standard S.106 Agreements – Prepare and roll-out a standard S.106 Agreement for simple cases.

• Determine Applications as Submitted – Deal rigorously with poor design by refusing applications that are unacceptable.

• Training – Identify specific training needs to ensure that officers (and Members) are suitably trained to deal effectively and expediently with applications. In particular, this may include training on design and project management. It is also considered important that the Council seeks to foster greater public engagement and appreciation of the planning process and understanding of the ways in which the consideration of planning matters, and the determination of planning

4 16 applications, can influence broader community and environmental outcomes.

• Planning Advisory Service (PAS) – To take advantage of support for the improvement of Local Authority Planning Services offered by PAS.

• Staffing levels – Continue to make best endeavours to fill vacant posts. To continue to deliver improvements, the service needs to be fully staffed. Members will be aware of the difficulties recently faced, and still being faced, in terms of filling vacant posts. In addition to recent vacancies for a Team Support Officer, Admin Assistant and Development Control Officers, for the second half of 2006 there was no Development Control Manager in post and, for the last five months, the service has been operating with at least one of the three Area Team Leaders positions vacant. The Development Control Manager and Area Team Leaders are the officers that mostly deal with major applications and provide guidance to more junior staff dealing with such applications. It is also hoped that proposed Government changes to the General Permitted Development Order will enable the service to dedicate more time and resources to the more major and controversial proposals.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 That the Panel notes the contents of this report and the potential implications for the Council, acting in respect of its role as the Local Planning Authority, of the designation as a Standards Authority.

5.2 That the Panel positively endorses the suggested further procedural and operational changes as set out in Paragraph 4.2 of the report, and that wherever possible they are brought into use with immediate effect.

5.3 That planning application performance continues to be closely monitored by the Panel and the scope for further performance enhancements be evaluated.

Background Papers:

Planning Best Value Performance Standards for 2007/08 Notification letter dated 7 March 2007.

CONTACT OFFICER - enquiries about this Report to Andy Moffat, Development Control Manager 01480 388402.

5 17 This page is intentionally left blank

18 Agenda Item 5

AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18 JUNE 2007

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

Case No: 0700777OUT (OUTLINE APPLICATION)

Proposal: ERECTION OF DWELLING FOR AGRICULTURAL CONTRACTOR

Location: LAND EAST OF LONG LOTT MEADOWS FENSIDE ROAD

Applicant: D R A FABB ESQ

Grid Ref: 531726 281780

Date of Registration: 16.04.2007

Parish: WARBOYS

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 This site is in the open countryside, approximately 2.5 km north east of the village. It is part of an extensive tract of agricultural land, and has no features of note, with only a mature hedge along the roadside boundary. To the west of the site is the applicant’s agricultural contractor’s compound, with a Dutch barn presently under construction. In addition to the contracting business, the applicant also operates a straw bailing and straw supply company. The land to the north of the site is typical flat fenland, but, to the south, the land is more undulating. In both cases, development is sporadic. Access to the site can be taken from Fenside Road, a surfaced, single track highway with passing places.

1.2 The proposal is in outline, and is to erect an agricultural contractor’s dwelling. Whilst an indicative site layout and front elevation have been submitted, all matters are reserved.

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 PPS7 - ‘Sustainable development in Rural Areas’ (2004) Contains advice on a wide range of development 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 The site is in the open countryside for the purposes of the Development Plan

3.2 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. The principal policies in this case are:-

• P1/1 – Approach to development • P1/2 – environmental restrictions on development • P1/3 – sustainable development in built environment. • P5/5 – homes in rural areas

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

Policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95. The policies to consider are:-

• H23 - there is a general presumption against new houses in the open countryside unless it is required for the efficient management of agriculture etc. • En17 – development in the countryside will be restricted to that which is essential to the efficient operation of local agriculture and other rural uses.

3.4 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). There are no policies in the Alteration which have a bearing on this application.

3.5 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. The relevant policies are:-

• P1 – sustainable development • P8 – development in the countryside • H1 – Location of Housing Development • H5 – housing for agricultural workers

2 20 3.6 There is a DC Practice Note relating to the provision of agricultural dwellings.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 05/03407/OUT – erection of agricultural contractor’s dwelling. Refused 20/12/05 (copy attached). Consent for the use of the existing buildings and adjacent land as an agricultural contractor’s yard was granted on 03/01/07. The Dutch barn was the subject of a determination in June 2005 but was also included in the consent granted on the 3rd January. Consent for a cattle rearing barn to the north of this was approved on the 24th April 2007.

4.2 It should be noted that, at the time of the previous application for the erection of a dwelling, the contracting business was in operation but was unauthorised. The situation has now been resolved by the permission granted in January 2007.

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Warboys Parish Council – NO OBJECTION(copy attached)

5.2 Environment Agency – NO OBJECTION

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 Neighbours – None received.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The principal issue in this case is an assessment of the proposal against those policies in the Plan, and relevant advice in the Statements, which are intended to control development in the rural parts of the District.

7.2 This site is in the open countryside. The applicable policies, and advice in the Statements, are restrictive, and will generally only permit development where it can be demonstrated to be essential in a particular rural location. Each application should be supported by a specific justification, without which there is a presumption of refusal. PPS7 requires countryside to be protected for its intrinsic character and beauty, and for new housing away from settlements to be strictly controlled. Isolated dwellings in the countryside will require special justification. Sustainability is a further issue.

7.3 On the basis of the information received in respect of the earlier application, it was concluded that a dwelling in this location was not essential for the efficient needs of agriculture (or any of the other permitted exceptions) and that the benefits for the applicant related primarily to improved security and business efficiency. It was considered that the reasons put forward for the dwelling did not satisfy the functional tests as laid down in Annex A of PPS7, and, as a consequence, the application was refused.

7.4 The circumstances of this case have not changed substantially since the previous refusal, although consent has been granted for the cattle rearing building. The intention is that the straw unfit for sale will be

3 21 used for bedding, but the animals will have to be fed on imported food as none is to be grown on the site. This building has not been erected to date. The dwelling is to be a 3 or 4 bed unit, and will include an office. The office will replace the temporary building already on the site.

7.5 The arguments advanced to support this application are essentially as before, and relate primarily to enhancing security and improving business efficiency. The applicant conceded that the proposal may not directly relate to agriculture (see definition in s336 in the 1990 Act). On the basis of the information provided, when assessed against the relevant policies and advice in PPS7, it must again be concluded that the dwelling is not essential to the efficient operation of local agriculture, and that it does not meet the functional tests laid down in Annex A of PPS7.

The tests are as follows:-

1) there is a clearly established functional need. The present operation requires a person on site to operate it, but, given the nature of the business, there is nothing to suggest that such a person is required to be on site 24 hours per day. There are no animals or agricultural processes which require essential care at short notice, and the only serious losses are likely to be caused through deliberate action by third parties. Indeed, the applicant lost a substantial amount of straw through an arson attack in October 2006. However, this is not considered be to sufficient justification to permit an exception to established policy. Security is referred to in paragraph 7 of the Annex, but this relates to animal welfare and even then it states that “The protection of livestock from theft……… may contribute……… to the need for a new agricultural dwelling, although it will not by itself be sufficient to justify one.”

2) The need relates to a full time worker. No evidence has been submitted in respect of the number of hours required to operate the business, but it is reasonable to assume that a full time worker is necessary in this case.

3) The unit has been operating for at least three years. The applicant states that the use has been in operation for over three years, is viable and profitable

4) The need could not be met by a dwelling elsewhere. Based on the nature of the business, there is no reason why it cannot be operated from a remote location. In the Authority’s opinion there is no overriding need for a person to be on this site for a 24 hour period.

5) Other planning requirements can be met. The physical impact of the proposal is considered below.

7.6 The one difference between this proposal and the previous one is that consent has been granted for the cattle rearing building. However, the building has yet to be erected, and this side of the business has not been started. Whether this use could justify a dwelling in the future remains to be seen, but a new appraisal would be required, and, even if a dwelling could be justified, PPS7 suggests that only a temporary

4 22 unit would be appropriate in the beginning. In the light of the present circumstances, there is no justification for a dwelling.

7.7 Notwithstanding the above comments, the erection of a dwelling in this location, coupled with the increased domestification of the site would be visually intrusive, and would erode the character of this very open, rural, landscape.

7.8 A dwelling in this location is not sustainable in that there is no local bus service, and all amenities are beyond the reach of foot or cycle.

7.9 There are no reasons to depart from approved policy in this instance, and there are no overriding material considerations to support an exception to policy in this instance. Therefore, having regard to applicable national and local planning policies, and having taken all relevant material considerations into account, it is considered that planning permission should not be granted in this instance.

7.10 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 – REFUSAL, for the following reason:

8.1 The proposal would be contrary to the provisions of policies P1/2 and P5/5 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003, policies H23 and En17 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, policies P1, P8, H1 and H5 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007, together with the guidance contained in PPS1, PPS3 and PPS7, in that the development is not essential to the efficient operation of local agriculture, horticulture, forestry, permitted mineral extraction, outdoor recreation or public utility services. The erection of the proposed dwelling and the associated domestication of the site would be visually intrusive, would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the open countryside and rural landscape, and its location would not accord to the requirements of sustainable development.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application File Reference: 0700777OUT 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 David Hincks Development Control Officer 01480 388406

5 23 This page is intentionally left blank

24 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18 JUNE 2007

Case No: 0701161FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: PART CHANGE OF USE AND EXTENSION TO DWELLING TO FORM CHILDREN'S NURSERY

Location: 1 WEST END, PE28 4SD

Applicant: MR B LAVIN

Grid Ref: 520443 270904

Date of Registration: 04.04.2007

Parish: BRAMPTON

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The property is a two storey detached dwelling in the Brampton Conservation Area. To the south lies Brampton Infant and Junior schools.

1.2 The proposal seeks to change the use from residential to a mixed residential/Child minding facility for around 15 pre-school children, the child minding part of which falls within D1 of The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1 – Delivering sustainable development (2005) – Sets out government guidelines for delivering sustainable development.

2.2 PPG4 – Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms (1992) – suggests a positive approach to helping small firms through the planning process.

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

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

25 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.

• P8/1 – Local Plans should include policies to ensure that new development provide appropriate access from the highway network that does not compromise safety.

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

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

• E1 – The District Council will promote economic growth in Huntingdonshire.

• E7 – The District Council will normally support the establishment and expansion of small businesses subject to traffic and environmental considerations.

• H30 – Planning permission will not normally be granted for the introduction of commercial uses within existing residential areas where this would be likely to have a detrimental effect on amenities.

• H34 – A development proposal should not have a negative impact on the amenity of neighbours.

• En5 – development in Conservation Areas will be required to preserve or enhance its character or appearance.

• En6 – requires high standards of design in Conservation Areas.

• En25 – New development should respect the character of 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 specific policies are relevant from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations 2002.

2 26 3.4 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• P1 – A development proposal should contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development.

• B4 – A development proposal should not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of existing or future occupier within, adjoining or within the vicinity of the site.

• B8 – sets out the criteria against which applications for development within Conservation Areas should be assessed.

• T1 – A development proposal should not cause harm to the character of the surrounding area as a result of the amount or type of traffic generated and should be capable of being served by safe and convenient access.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 9900437FUL – extension – permission granted.

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Brampton Parish Council – NO OBJECTION to new child minding facility but reservations expressed regarding dropping off and collection of children on this busy corner – (copy attached).

5.2 HDC Highways - OBJECTION – the proposal fails to provide adequate parking and fails to facilitate the turning of vehicles clear of the public highway.

5.3 Alconbury and Ellington Internal Drainage Board – if ground conditions are satisfactory for soakaways, they must be constructed in accordance with the latest BRE Digest.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 TWO letters of OBJECTION received highlighting parking concerns with respect to the double yellow lines to the front of the property and the congested nature of this part of west end during school drop off and collection times.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues for consideration are whether the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the residential amenities of neighbours, whether the existing residential character and appearance of the locality would be preserved and whether there would be an adverse impact upon the free flow of traffic and highway and pedestrian safety.

3 27 Residential Amenity

7.2 Whilst no specific advice is given to the operation of childcare facilities within residential areas PPG4 clearly states that ‘planning permission should normally be granted unless there are specific and significant objections such as relevant development plan policy ,unacceptable noise, smell, safety and health impacts or excessive traffic generation’.

7.3 The traffic generated by this proposal will include possible staff arrivals, parent pick ups and drop offs and any ancillary deliveries. This part of West End is the main thoroughfare to many other residential estates within this area of Brampton where a significant amount of traffic passes on a daily basis. It is not considered that the noise from the traffic generation of this proposal will have any further adverse effect on the amenity of neighbours than the existing traffic movements within West End nor is it considered that, subject to a condition restricting the hours of opening of the nursery, the extension and its use would cause serious harm to the amenity of neighbours. The proposal would accord with Policy H34 of The Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 and Policy B4 of The Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007.

Character of the Locality

7.4 This proposed extension and part change of use would not result in any impact upon the existing residential character or appearance of the Conservation Area and would accord with Policies En5, En6 and En25 of The Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 and Policy B8 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007.

Highway Safety

7.5 The proposed use will generate increased vehicle movements and greater parking needs at collection and drop off times. West End by its nature has an element of on-street parking so it cannot be depended upon that parking further along West End will be available to parents. Within this application the applicant proposes that there will be 8 spaces in total – 6 on-site 2 off-site. The two off-site spaces cannot be depended upon as they are not in the applicant control and availability cannot be guaranteed. While 6 spaces are proposed on- site, no means for turning or manoeuvring has been proposed and these are serious considerations given that this proposal is on a busy bend on a main thoroughfare. It is noted that consideration has been given, in the past, to the highway safety implications of parking in this part of West End as double yellow lines have been painted outside the property to ensure that vehicles do not obstruct the highway. It is, therefore, considered that this proposal would be contrary to Policy E7 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 and Policy T1 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007.

Conclusion

7.6 While there are Local Plan Policies in place to support small enterprise, support can only be considered as long as the proposal does not have a harmful impact on the safety of pedestrians and highway users in general. This advice can also be found in national

4 28 guidance PPG4. In this case it is considered that the traffic generation would cause significant harm to the safety of the highway. In light of national guidance, Development Plan Polices and other material considerations it is considered that planning 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 reason:

8.1 The proposed change of use would not provide adequate facilities within the curtilage of the site for the parking and turning of vehicles. The manoeuvring of vehicles likely to be generated by a use of the scale proposed would therefore have a harmful impact on the safety and free flow of traffic on the adjoining public highway, to the detriment of highway safety. This proposal is therefore considered contrary to Policy E7 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, Policy T1 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 and PPG13.

Background Papers:

Planning Application File Reference: 0701161FUL 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.

5 29 This page is intentionally left blank

30 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18 JUNE 2007

Case No: 0600752S73(RENEWAL OF CONSENT/VARY CONDITIONS)

Proposal: VARIATION OF CONDITION 14 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 0500055 (AGRICULTURAL OCCUPANCY CONDITION ON MANOR FARM)

Location: LAND SOUTH OF FOLKSWORTH LODGE FOLKSWORTH ROAD NORMAN CROSS

Applicant: L BLACKMAN AND SONS

Grid Ref: 515684 290234

Date of Registration: 13.03.2006

Parish: FOLKSWORTH & WASHINGLEY

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The proposal is to vary condition 14 of 0500055OUT of an outline permission in order to remove an agricultural occupancy condition from Manor Farm, east of the A1 at Manor Farm Stilton, and to instead impose an occupancy condition on another dwelling in the applicants control (Folksworth Lodge, also known as 37 Folksworth Road, which is west of the A1).

1.2 The condition states: ‘The occupation of the dwelling at Manor Farm Stilton shall be limited to a person solely or mainly working, or last working, in the locality in agriculture or in forestry, or a widow or widower of such a person, and to any resident dependants’.

1.3 The reason states: ‘The dwelling is under control of the applicant and at the time of this application is needed for use in connection with the farm. The condition will help protect the countryside from the risk of pressure for another farm worker for a further dwelling, if the dwelling were sold to a person not working in agriculture, in accordance with policy P1/2 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 and H23 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995’.

1.4 The condition was imposed when permission was given to erect a new agricultural dwelling and a livestock building next to an existing building to consolidate the farm centre in the countryside west of the A1, north of Stilton and south of the Norman Cross A1(M) roundabout. The approved development has not been implemented.

1.5 The applicant advises that Manor Farm house is less suitable for retention in connection with the farm than Folksworth Lodge as the former is further from the proposed farm centre/site of the approved and existing livestock buildings.

31 2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1 - ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (2005) requires decisions on applications to take account of the Development Plan policies and material considerations.

2.2 PPS7 - ‘Sustainable development in Rural Areas’ (2004) provides guidance on development in the countryside including agricultural dwellings.

2.3 Annex A confirms that the availability of other houses on a holding is a valid consideration.

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)

• P1/2 restrictions on development in the countryside.

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

Policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95 The following policies apply:

• H23 restricts development in the countryside except where dwellings are required for the efficient management of agriculture and where other accommodation cannot be suitably provided in nearby settlements.

• En17 restricts development in the countryside.

3.3 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

Policies from the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 are relevant and viewable at www.huntsdc.gov.uk/Environment and follow the link to Informal Policy Statements;

• P8 restrict development in the countryside

• H5 occupancy conditions will be imposed on new agricultural dwellings. (The policy does not refer to imposing conditions on existing dwellings).

2 32

3.4 Paragraph 2.3 of Agricultural Dwellings and Occupancy Conditions Supplementary Planning Guidance 1997 provides guidance on the handling of agricultural proposals and seeks to impose occupancy conditions when new dwellings are proposed on holdings with existing dwellings on a farm.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 99/0411 Existing agricultural building approved west of A1(M) to allow the farm to continue to operate after the holding was severed by the widening of the A1(M).

4.2 The partnership sold two dwellings: a cottage at Manor Farm (thought to be Bramble Cottage south of Manor Farm, east of the A1) and a dwelling at Thorney, outside Huntingdonshire (2003).

4.3 The applicant’s sheep enterprise ceased when the sheep were sold in 2004 due to staffing difficulties and to the lack of accommodation for a shepherd close to the lambing facilities.

4.4 Application 0500055OUT was approved for new dwelling (for livestock supervision and security) and new agricultural building for finishing beef cattle, beef suckler cows and breeding sheep west of the A1 (copy of report attached). It was concluded that there was an essential functional need for a new dwelling for a full-time worker close to the livestock building, due to the number of cattle being raised, and that no other existing accommodation could fulfil this need. At the time of the last application The Local Planning Authority consultant established that there was a need for more than 3 full-time workers on the farm.

4.5 At that time it was understood that the holding included about 140ha/345acres (both owned and rented in the Folksworth area) with an additional 40 ha/98 acres rented annually for grass-keep, totalling 180 ha with the cattle bought in at 10/12 months and later transferred to the farm’s land in Berwickshire for growing on.

4.6 The new dwelling was permitted with an agricultural occupancy condition and in 2005, there were already 4 dwellings in partnership control:

* Farmhouse at Manor Farm Stilton (east of the A1 and 1 1/2 miles from new farmstead.

* 37 Folksworth Rd also known as Folksworth Lodge Farm House (which is occupied by retired farm worker and is apparently unlikely to be available for 20 years). It is at the northern end of the track leading to the main cattle building on the site.

* 79 and 81 Folksworth Road (tenanted on short-term tenancies) all 1/2 mile from new farmstead at Sheeplair Farm.

4.7 There are no occupancy conditions on the existing dwellings (other than the one imposed by the last permission on Manor Farm, which would become ‘live’ when the outline permission is implemented).

3 33 4.8 A further existing dwelling at 15 Folksworth Road was considered, but is not partnership property, as it is owned personally by Mr John Blackman. As it is owned by one of the applicants, but not by the partnership, it cannot be considered to be available for use by the applicants.

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Folksworth and Washingley Parish Council – OBJECTION (copy attached)

5.2 Neighbouring Stilton Parish Council - No response received

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 None received.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issue to be considered is whether or not the occupancy condition can appropriately and reasonably be transferred from one property (Manor Farm) to another (Folksworth Lodge).

7.2 It was reasonable to impose an occupancy condition at the time of the previous application because at the time of that application it was needed for use in connection with the farm. The house could serve the two other full-time staff, especially as one of the partners is working towards retirement and at the time of the last application, the farm needed over three full-time workers.

7.3 At the time that the previous application was considered, the applicant advised that the erection of the new dwelling would release Manor Farm for the ‘additional worker which will be needed on the farm’.

7.4 The applicants agent now queries the need to have more than one worker for the business and advises that to impose the condition on Manor Farm ‘which is totally unsuitable for supervision of the farming centre is unrealistic and unacceptable. 37 Folksworth Road is conveniently located to the farming centre… and it is therefore suggested that the condition is more appropriately tied to that dwelling’.

7.5 The Council has sought independent advice from a consultant on this application. He advises that although PPS7 does not refer to the possibility of assigning secondary retrospective agricultural occupancy conditions, the Courts have confirmed the appropriateness of such actions where there is a demonstrable need for more than one dwelling to be available for an agricultural business.

7.6 In this case, the amount of labour required to run the unit is based mainly on the labour needs generated by the farm’s cattle. At the time of the last application, the applicant’s adviser and the Local Planning Authority adviser agreed that over three full-time workers would be required with the proposed farming system.

4 34 7.7 The current labour requirements for the farm have therefore been checked to assess if there has been a change in circumstance and therefore a need for a second dwelling with an occupancy restriction.

7.8 The current labour requirements are for;

* Mr P Blackman and

* his wife (who assists with office work)at Manor Farm and plan to relocate to the new dwelling at the farm centre,

* 1 full-time farm worker who lives at 79 Folksworth Road,

* Mr J Blackman senior who lives at his own house at 15 Folksworth Road and

* a retired worker who lives at Folksworth Lodge/37 Folksworth Road and works part-time, but to a declining degree, due to ill-health.

7.9 The existing numbers of cattle (without the proposed approved extra livestock building) generate a demand for 2 full-time workers with part-time assistance.

7.10 Once the barn is built, the numbers of cattle could rise further, resulting in further labour demands. The Local Planning Authority’s consultant and the Local Planning Authority therefore do not accept that the business only has a labour requirement of one worker.

7.11 The Local Planning Authority’s consultant concludes that at present there is a clear and demonstrable need for at least 2 full-time workers at the farm (as evidenced by the number of cattle sold each year and the fact that 2 full-time workers are engaged in the work with part-time assistance). In the future, as the two older part-time workers reduce their input, there is likely to be a need for replacement workers, rather than less staff, especially if the farm began to keep beef sucklers cows and sheep, as before.

7.12 The consultant therefore concludes that it is perfectly reasonable for the Council to seek to ensure that a retrospective condition is imposed to ensure that two dwellings (ie the approved proposed dwelling and an existing dwelling) remain available to service the agricultural needs of the farm for the forseeable future.

7.13 If Manor Farm and the other dwellings owned by the applicants were to become unavailable, being sold or let to protected tenants, the Local Planning Authority would find it difficult to resist an application for an extra dwelling to service the needs of 600+ cattle reared at the unit.

7.14 It would be sensible for the second worker to live close to the unit to attend and assist when required. The question is therefore if it is reasonable to transfer the occupancy condition onto Folksworth Lodge.

7.15 The Local Planning Authority consultant advises that Manor Farm is not well suited for a farm worker at Sheep Lair Farm, given its

5 35 distance from the farm centre (relating to the welfare needs of the cattle) and the size of the dwellings (5-beds, being relatively large).

7.16 It is considered that it would be reasonable to vary the condition to refer to 37 Folksworth Road. The house is close to the farm centre.

7.17 37 Folksworth Road is occupied by a tenant protected under the Rent(Agriculture) Act 1976 which would limit its immediate use by another party for as long as the tenant remains in situ. However, although the tenancy agreement would require the existing tenant to be found alternative accommodation, the new property could be in another property owned by the applicants or via a body such as a local housing association.

7.18 The occupancy condition would allow the dwelling to be retained for existing and future farm workers.

7.19 If such a condition were imposed it would allow the Local Planning Authority to reasonably resist an application for a further dwelling on the basis that a suitable dwelling exists.

7.20 Having regard to applicable national and local policies and having taken all relevant material considerations into account, it is considered that planning permission should be approved.

7.21 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:

Nonstand vary to refer to 37 Folksworth Road

Nonstand other conditions apply

Nonstand amended applicant’s name

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy 2007 Agricultural dwellings and Occupancy Conditions Supplementary Planning Guidance 1997 Planning applications 0500055OUT, 0600752S73

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

6 36 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18 JUNE 2007

Case No: 0701275OUT (OUTLINE APPLICATION)

Proposal: ERECTION OF TWO/THREE DWELLINGS

Location: LAND NORTH OF LINGDALE, PAXTON HILL

Applicant: MRS J LOE

Grid Ref: 520613 263286

Date of Registration: 08.05.2007

Parish: GREAT PAXTON

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The site is located within a loose ribbon of sporadic residential development south of the defined limits and built framework of the village of Great Paxton and is therefore considered to be open countryside.

1.2 The site of 0.5 hectares forms part of the approximate 1.3 hectare curtilage of ‘Lingdale’, a bungalow dating from the 1960’s with boundaries fairly well screened by hedges and bounded to the west by the mainline railway.

1.3 The proposal is for outline consent for the erection of two/three dwellings, with all matters reserved for future consideration.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1 ‘Delivering sustainable development’ (2005) – sets out policies for different aspects of land use planning in England.

2.2 PPS3 ‘Housing’ (2006) – underpins the government’s strategic housing policy objectives and advices on efficient use of land to meet housing needs.

2.3 PPS7 ‘Sustainable development for rural areas’ (2004) – contains advice regarding development proposals in the open countryside with development being strictly controlled and requiring a high quality design respecting the character of the countryside and distinctiveness of the local landscape.

2.4 PPG24 ‘Planning and noise’ (1994) – guides Local Authorities on the use of planning powers to minimise the adverse impact of noise.

37 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)

• P1/2 – Sets out criteria for environmental restrictions on development.

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

• P5/2 – Guidance on the re-use of previously development land and buildings.

• P5/3 – Advises on efficient use of land.

• P5/5 – Sets out guidance for considering proposals in rural areas.

• P7/4 - Expects development to relate sensitively to the local environment.

• P8/8 – Expects new development to encourage walking and cycling.

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

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

• H23 – sets out the general presumption against housing development in the countryside.

• H31 – New dwellings will only be permitted where appropriate standards of privacy and amenity can be maintained and adequate parking provision provided.

• H32 – The subdivision of large curtilages will only be permitted where the resultant dwelling and its curtilage will be of a size and form sympathetic to the locality.

2 38 • H33 – The sub-division of large curtilages will normally be resisted where the setting of a listed building, or the qualities of a conservation area would be harmed, or where there would be a detrimental impact upon important trees and gardens.

• En17 – Development outside defined village environmental limits will generally be restricted to that which is essential to the efficient operation of local agriculture, horticulture, forestry, permitted mineral extraction, outdoor recreation or public utility services.

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

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

• En21 – permission will not normally be granted for development which would adversely affect the character of the Area of Best Landscape.

• En25 – New development will respect the scale, form, materials and design of existing buildings in the locality.

• T18 – New development to be accessed by new highways of appropriate design and construction.

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 – Sets out settlement hierarchy.

• STR2 – explains housing development definitions.

• HL5 - All new housing development shall incorporate good design and layout, achieve an efficient use of land and mix of dwelling sizes, types and affordability.

3.4 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• P3 - states that a development must contribute to the social and economic well-being of the district. One of the criteria to be considered is the need to limit the need to travel.

3 39 • P8 - considers development outside the defined limits of the Market Towns and Key centres (Potential and Limited Growth) and outside the existing built-up framework of the Smaller Settlements.

• B1 - states development proposals should demonstrate a high quality of design.

• B4 - states development should not have an unacceptable impact upon amenity.

• G2 – requires development proposals to respect and respond to landscape character.

• G3 - states that important trees, hedges, meadowland and other environmental features will be protected.

• G6 – sets out the need to have regard to Strategic Greenspace Enhancement.

• G7 – requires development proposals to have regard to Biodiversity.

• H1 – considers the location of housing development.

• H2 – requires the efficient use of land.

• H3 – explains that development proposals should include an appropriate mix of sizes and types of dwellings.

• H6 – defines ‘affordable housing’.

• H7 – sets out affordable housing targets and thresholds.

• T1 – explains transport requirements of new development proposals.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 0503573OUT – an outline application for the erection of 3 dwellings – refused.

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Great Paxton Parish Council - NO OBJECTION (copy attached).

5.2 HDC Environmental Health - comments awaited.

5.3 HDC Highways - OBJECTION.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 No representations received.

4 40 7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issue to be considered here, given the outline nature of the application with ‘all matters reserved’, is the principle of residential development at the site, with careful consideration of sustainability, highway safety and visual impact of the development on Paxton Hill also being required.

Principle of Development

7.2 National Planning Policy on housing proposals outside of defined settlements is contained within PPS1, PPS3 and PPS7. The general thrust of national guidance is to see new development centred upon existing settlements, both in the interests of sustainability and also to prevent the spread of built development into undeveloped, open areas.

7.3 The Draft Regional Spatial Strategy aims are for development to be focussed in market towns and thereafter in key service centres. The Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 defined settlement boundaries around villages and the proposed housing use on this site outside of the defined settlement boundary of the village would conflict with Policies En17 and H23 of the Local Plan, and the general thrust of guidance and policy which reinforces the general presumption against housing development outside the environmental limits of settlements. The Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 does not define settlement boundaries of smaller settlements but instead requires an assessment of the existing built framework of the settlement, excluding “buildings (and gardens) that are clearly detached from the main body of the settlement, especially where those gardens relate more to the surrounding countryside than they do to the built-up parts of the village”. In this case the site is clearly outside of the existing built framework of the village and more closely related to the surrounding countryside, with this rural character reinforced by the lack of a pedestrian footway and national speed limit of the B1043.

7.4 Central Government guidance in the form of PPS7 advises that isolated new housing in the countryside will require special justification for planning permission to be granted. The advice is clear and is supported by Policy H23 of the Huntingdon Local Plan 1995 which states that there is a general presumption against housing development in the countryside with the exception of dwellings required for the efficient management of agricultural forestry and horticulture. The residential dwellings proposed in this application are not required for the efficient management of agriculture, forestry or horticulture and, in the absence of any special justification, would be by definition, contrary to policy.

Sustainability

7.5 The site lies outside the village envelope where current and emerging planning policy and guidance seek to reduce the reliance on the private car by encouraging development to locate in areas well- served by public transport, with good benign mode accessibility to a range of local services. The village is a rural settlement with an infrequent bus service of 9 journeys per day: 4 to Huntingdon and 5 to

5 41 St Neots. The morning service to St Neots does not commence adequately early to provide a reasonable modal choice, particularly for journeys to work, schools, main shopping or other local facilities. Additionally, the adjacent road has no footway, cycleway or lighting to encourage walking or cycling to what limited services are available within the village. Accordingly, the site cannot be considered a sustainable location for new residential development.

7.6 Such an assessment of ‘sustainability’ is considered in PPS3 at paragraph 41 where the advise suggests that when identifying previously developed land for housing developments Local Authorities will in particular consider sustainability issues as some sites may not be suitable for housing.

Highway Safety

7.7 Although the application has all matters including ‘means of access’ reserved for future consideration, it is supported by an illustrative layout plan and letters showing the formation of a new vehicular access to Paxton Hill. Additionally, the layout plan and supporting letters also refer to the closure of an ‘existing access’ to the road, although this appears already to be permanently closed by fencing and undergrowth and as such would require formal planning permission to be re-opened.

7.8 The required visibility splays for a safe access in this location to serve two or three dwellings is 2.4 metres x 215 metres, measured from a driver eye height of 1.05 metres at the site access to 600mm at the extremity of the visibility splay. Adequate visibility to the north could be achieved in relation to the speed 30 village speed limit; however, it is not clear what visibility splay would be actually achievable southwards towards the crest of the hill. A reduction in the required minimum splay dimension of 215 metres is not appropriate unless corroborated by a speed survey. No such survey has been undertaken.

7.9 From a pedestrian safety perspective, where the site is outside the village limits and remote from the existing footway network, for any development to be considered acceptable any scheme would need to include a footway link to the village to be provided at the developer’s expense, the form and location to be agreed with the local highways authority.

Visual Amenity

7.10 The sporadic residential development of Paxton Hill clearly defines the area as outside the built up framework of Great Paxton itself. The erection of two or three dwellings on this site would consolidate development in the countryside and thereby detract from its visual amenity.

Proximity to Railway

7.11 The Environmental Health Officer’s comments in relation to the proximity of the development to the railway will be reported prior to or at the meeting.

6 42 Conclusion

7.12 The principle of providing dwellings on this site within the open countryside would be contrary to planning policy and guidance. The dwellings would not be required for the efficient management of agriculture, forestry or horticulture enterprises and would represent an unsustainable form of development. As such, and in the light of National Guidance, Development Plan Policies and other material considerations planning permission should be refused for the development as proposed.

7.13 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 are not required for the efficient management of agriculture, forestry or horticulture enterprises and an essential functional need has not been proven for additional dwellings. The proposed erection of two or three dwellings within the open countryside is therefore contrary to Policy P1/2 of The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003; Policies En17 and H23 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, Policies H1 and P8 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 and Central Government Guidance contained in PPS1, PPS3, and PPS7.

8.2 The availability and capacity of community facilities, public transport and other social infrastructure in this rural location is very restricted. As a result, the occupiers of the proposed dwellings would be car dependant, having to visit other settlements for all their daily needs. As such, the proposed development is considered to be unsustainable, contrary to Policies P1/3, P5/5 and P8/8 of The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003, Policy P3 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 and Central Government Guidance in the form of PPS1, PPS3 and PPS7.

8.3 The erection of two or three dwellings in this rural location would consolidate development in the countryside and thereby detract from its visual amenity and therefore would be contrary to Policies P1/2 and P1/3 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003, Policy En21 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 and Policy G2 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007.

Background Papers:

Planning Application File Reference:0701275OUT; 0503537OUT 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 43 This page is intentionally left blank

44 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18 JUNE 2007

Case No: 0701357FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: CHANGE OF USE OF SHOWROOM/WORKSHOP TO HEALTH AND FITNESS CENTRE

Location: GSN CONSERVATORIES, THE TOWN, PE19 5BE

Applicant: MR S O'DONNELL

Grid Ref: 511425 264298

Date of Registration: 18.04.2007

Parish: GREAT STAUGHTON

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The site lies in the open countryside approximately 1.5km from the defined village limits of Great Staughton with a dwelling either side of the site and a farm opposite.

1.2 The proposal is for the change of use of a workshop at GSN Conservatories to a health and fitness centre.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1 – Delivering sustainable development (2005) – The delivery of sustainable development through the planning system.

2.2 PPS6 – Planning for Town Centres (2005) – Sustainable development and inclusive patterns of development for town centres.

2.3 PPS7 – sustainable development for rural areas (2004) – The aim of which is to increase the quality of life and the environment in rural areas through the promotion of sustainable rural communities and more sustainable patterns of development.

2.4 PPG13 – Transport (2001) – The objectives of this policy are to promote more sustainable transport choices for people and to promote accessibility to job, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking, cycling or on foot and reduce the need to travel by car.

2.5 PPG17 – Planning for open space, sport and recreation (2002) - Ensuring that open space, sports and recreational facilities are easily accessible by walking and cycling and that more heavily used or intensive sports and recreational facilities are planned for locations well served by public transport.

45 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)

• P1/1 – New development may be located at identified rural centres on a scale appropriate to the size, location and function of such centres. Provision of land for new development should be located within or on the periphery of existing settlements over the use of land outside that settlement.

• P1/2 – Development will be restricted in the countryside unless the proposal can be demonstrated to be essential in a particular rural location.

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

• P2/2 - Development should maximise the use of previously developed land but should be located in areas that will contribute to the reduction in need to travel, particularly by private car.

• P2/6 – sensitive small scale employment development in rural areas would be considered where it contributes to one or more of the stated objectives.

• P3/2 – Proposals for sports and leisure facilities, shopping and other uses which attract a large number of people should be focused in existing city and town centres or on the edge-of- centre sites. The proposals should be accessible by a range of transport modes, particularly public transport, walking and cycling.

• P4/1 – Tourism, recreation and leisure development should be accessible by a choice of transport modes.

• P8/1 – Development should be located in areas that are, or can be made, highly accessible to public transport, cycle and on foot and is designed to reduce the need to travel, particularly by car. It should provide for the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.

2 46 3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

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

• E7 – The Local Planning Authority will normally support the establishment and expansion of small businesses subject to traffic and environmental considerations.

• E8 – suitable small scale employment generating development will normally be permitted within defined village environmental limits.

• E10 – The district Council will normally allow proposals for the re-use of buildings in rural areas to create employment subject to there being no over-riding objections on traffic or environmental grounds.

• T19 – The Local Planning Authority will require all new development to provide safe and convenient pedestrian routes.

• T27 – The District Council will normally require the provision of car parks to serve existing and proposed recreation facilities.

• R2 – The District Council will consider planning applications for recreation facilities on their merits bearing in mind the following factors: The effect upon landscape along with access, parking and traffic generation.

• En17 – Development outside defined village environmental limits will generally be restricted to the efficient operation of local agriculture, horticulture, forestry, permitted mineral extraction, outdoor recreation or public utility services.

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 specific policies from The Huntingdonshire Alteration Plan are relevant to this application.

3.4 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• P1 – A development proposal should contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development.

• P3 – A development proposal should contribute to the social and economic well being of the district by, among other things,

3 47 limiting the need to travel and increase opportunities to make necessary journeys by foot, cycle or public transport.

• P8 – Outside the defined limits of Market Towns and Key Centres (Potential and Limited Growth) and outside the existing built-up framework of the Smaller Settlements development will be restricted to the efficient operation of agriculture, horticulture or forestry or acquired for outdoor recreation, mineral extraction, waste management facilities, infrastructure provision or national defence. The alteration, replacement or change of use of existing buildings in the countryside will only be considered if the proposal does not conflict with other policies in the Local Development Framework.

• E7 – Development proposals for retail or leisure developments should be within the defined limits of the market towns, Key Centres or within the existing built up framework of Smaller Settlements.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 There is a variety of planning history dating back to the 1980’s. The most relevant history is

4.2 0403596FUL – Erection of warehouse building and alterations to showroom/ workshop building to form offices – permission granted.

5. CONSULTATIONS

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

5.2 Cambridgeshire County Council Highways – Unable to comment as parking area had been excluded from planning application.

6. REPRESENTATIONS-

6.1 ONE letter received – OBJECTION for the following reasons:

• Increase in traffic movements; • Operational hours of a health and fitness centre throughout evenings and weekends would ruin tranquillity of areas and what are the operational hours proposed; • Potential noise from the health and fitness centre; • Concerns regarding impact on neighbours privacy; and, • Query over the Level of exterior lighting and concerns over the impact that will have on neighbours.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 When considering this application it cannot be ignored that the proposal would be within an existing business site within a rural location. To clarify, for the purpose of this report, the existing use and that granted permission in January 2005 would fall within the defined B1/B2/B8 Class Uses, a health and fitness centre would fall within a D2 leisure use and would need to comply with guidance and policies for leisure uses as well as economic uses. The application that

4 48 subsequently was granted permission in 2005 was for a small scale operation where it was proposed that should permission be granted there would be no more than 20 people on site, with only 1-2 heavy goods vehicle movements per day and 5-6 other vehicle movements. It was also proposed that the site would only open from 9am to 5pm from Mondays to Fridays with no weekend opening. The main issues of this proposal for consideration are the impact of this proposal on its rural surroundings and the sustainability of the proposal which would go hand in hand.

7.2 When exploring material considerations expressed by neighbours immediately adjacent to the site, it should be factored in to the process that there is an existing commercial use on the site itself therefore the question would be of the impact on neighbours over and above the existing use. At the time of drafting this report no comments have been received from Environmental Health. Subject to no adverse comments being received from Environmental Health, it is considered that the proposed use would have no greater impact on neighbours than the existing use as issues of noise, lighting and hours of operation could be controlled by way of condition.

7.3 When considering recreation facilities in the open countryside it must be considered that this proposal is specifically for an indoor Health and Fitness Centre rather than an outdoor facility utilising the countryside itself. Advice found in National Guidance and Development Plan Policies specifically seek to resist this form of development in the open countryside unless clear need can be demonstrated. No clear need has been demonstrated as part of this application.

7.4 Traditionally fitness centres are made available from early morning to late evening on a seven day a week basis, allowing working people the opportunity to fit in fitness related activities around their working lives. The applicant states that there would be no more than 15 persons on site at any one time. There is no doubt that the use proposed would result in a harmful intensification of use, over and above the existing use of the site by the general public most likely in their private vehicles. The key issue for consideration is the sustainability of the proposal. The site is on a classified road and does not benefit from a footpath, cycle path or any means of lighting and has a limited bus service therefore it must be assumed that the users of the facility would be dependant upon the use of private cars. The site does not lie on a main thoroughfare from the nearest market towns of St. Neots and Huntingdon, therefore specific car journeys will be needed to access this facility. It is considered that this renders the proposal both inaccessible and unsustainable and would therefore again be directly contrary to national Guidance and advice found in Local Plan Policies.

7.5 This proposal would directly conflict with advice found in PPS1, PPS6, PPS7, PPG13 and PPG 17. It also conflicts with Policies P1/1, P1/2, P1/3, P2/2, P3/2 and P4/1 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003, Policies E7, E10, T19, R2 and En17 of the Local Plan 1995 and Policies P1, P3, P8 and E7 of the Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007.

5 49 7.6 In light of National Guidance, Development Plan Policies and other material consideration it is recommended that this application, as proposed, 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 reason:

8.1 The site lies outside the built up framework of Great Staughton on a C-classified road that does not benefit from cycleways or a footpath, does not have any source of illumination along the carriage way to the village itself and also benefits from a limited bus service. The proposed change of use of a showroom/workshop to a health and fitness centre would result in a harmful increase in traffic generation in an unsustainable location outside the village environmental limits and therefore would be contrary to Policies P1/1, P1/2, P1/3, P2/2, P3/2 and P4/1 of The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2002, Policies E7, E10, T19, R2 and En17 of The Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, Policies P1, P3, P8 and E7 of The Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 and National Guidance PPS1, PPS6, PPS7, PPG13 and PPG17.

Background Papers:

Planning Application File Reference: 0701357FUL 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 50 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18 JUNE 2007

Case No: 0701025FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: ERECTION OF DWELLING

Location: LAND ADJACENT TO HILL VIEW, MEADOW LANE HOUGHTON

Applicant: CROMWELL COUNTRY HOMES LTD

Grid Ref: 528684 272416

Date of Registration: 22.03.2007

Parish: HOUGHTON & WYTON

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 This site is located on the northern side of the village, to the south of the A1123, and has measurements of approximately 30 metres by 20 metres. It is dominated by tall conifer trees on 2½ sides although the centre of the site is open. There is a newly erected 1.8 metres high close boarded fence along the southern boundary adjacent to Hillview. There are dwellings on two sides of the site, and a garage court on the third. The northern boundary is defined by the A1123.

1.2 The proposal is to erect a detached dwelling.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development.

2.2 PPS3 – “Housing” provides guidance on the provision of new housing, making more efficient use of land, and other related issues.

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

51 3.1 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• P1/3 – sustainable development in built environment.

• P5/2 – re-using previously developed land and buildings.

• P5/5 – homes in rural areas.

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

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

• 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.

• H37 – housing development will not be allowed on sites where there is a known source of environmental pollution.

• En18 – important site features should be protected.

• En25 – new development will generally respect the scale etc of established 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). The policies are:

• STR5 – Houghton is a group village.

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

• HL7 – the Council will seek to maximise the re-use of previously developed land, and support the re-use of empty properties.

• 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.

2 52 3.4 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

Policies from the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 are relevant and viewable at www.huntsdc.gov.uk/Environment and follow the link to Informal Policy Statements. The most relevant policies are:

• P7 – Houghton is a smaller village

• B1 – Design Quality

• B4 - Amenity

• H1 – Location of Housing Development

3.5 The SPG Design Guide is a material consideration.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 Planning permission for a dwelling on this site was first granted in 1989 (on appeal), and the permission was renewed in 1992, 1995 and 1998. A detailed application for a dwelling on the site was withdrawn on the 11th January 2007 (06/032532/FUL)

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Houghton and Wyton Parish Council – OBJECTION (copy attached).

5.2 Local Highway Authority (CCC) – NO OBJECTION.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 FIVE letters of OBJECTION have been received. The following points have been raised:

• The junction of Meadow Lane and the main road is dangerous and the erection of a further dwelling, with the consequential increase in traffic generation, will add to the hazards faced by existing road users; • The proposal will breech a building line and will be contrary to a covenant; • An additional dwelling will increase the maintenance burden for the residents who have part shares in the road. No permission has been obtained by the applicants to use the road; • The building is too large for the plot and will be cramped in its setting. The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site; • The proposal will exacerbate flooding problems in the area; • The proposal will have an adverse impact on the amenities of the existing property; • The proposal is for private gain; • The living conditions for the residents will be very poor with excessive noise from the adjoining road, and the overbearing impact of the conifer trees; and,

3 53 • The proposal will have an adverse impact on the character of the lane. The lack of garden is contrary to the present form of development.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The principle of this development was first established, on appeal in 1989, and the consent was renewed in 1992, 1995 and 1998. Although the permission has lapsed, there is nothing in the current Development Plan to suggest that the principle of an additional dwelling on this site is now unacceptable. The scale of the proposal is consistent with the status of the village in the residential hierarchy contained in the Plan, and the proposal will make more efficient use of previously developed land.

7.2 During the consideration of the withdrawn application, it was suggested to the applicant that the scale of the building then proposed was too great for the site with insufficient space around it, and that the design was too fussy. Following further discussions, the overall footprint of the building has been reduced (although it now has 5 bedrooms rather than the previous 4), and it has been made into a full two storey structure. The overall dimensions follow the advice in the Design Guide, and, generally, it is a well mannered and well proportioned structure. The space around the building has been improved to a degree where it does not now appear cramped. Development in the area is mixed in character and the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the streetscape. The site does not form an open area worthy of retention. The proposed materials are to be reserved for further consideration.

7.3 The proposal should not have an adverse impact on the amenities of the adjacent properties although greater activity on the site may result in a slight increase in noise and disturbance. However, when set against the noise coming from the road, this will be marginal. There should be no overlooking or overshadowing of “Hillview”.

7.4 The development will generate a small amount of additional traffic, but not sufficient to justify a refusal. The Local Highway Authority has not objected to the proposal. Parking spaces to the required standards, and turning space, are to be provided within the site.

7.5 The application proposes the removal of the ash tree, and the leylandii hedge, although the applicant has indicated a willingness to be flexible in this regard. The withdrawn application stated that both features were to be retained. On balance, it is considered that both should be retained in order to assimilate the new dwelling into its surroundings. This is particularly important in order to provide some privacy for the occupants, but also to screen this property, and others, from the noise of the road. The hedge is a distinctive feature along the frontage, and its removal will leave the site very open.

7.6 The comments regarding flooding have been noted, but the issue is not considered to be of sufficient weight to warrant a refusal of the application. However, it would be pertinent to impose a surface water drainage condition to ensure that the Authority has control over the details of the drainage provisions.

4 54 7.7 It is considered that the amended plans have overcome the concerns expressed with regard to the earlier proposal, and that there are now no objections to an approval. Therefore, having regard to applicable national and local planning policies, and having taken all relevant material considerations into account, it is considered that planning permission should be granted in this instance.

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)

05001 Buildings

17001 Levels Building/Site

Nonstand Hedge protection

Nonstand Tree protection

Nonstand Access improvements

03022 Parking

Nonstand Visibilty splays

Nonstand Visibility splay

04003 Surface water only

Background Papers:

Planning Application File Reference: 0701025FUL; 0603532FUL Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995

CONTACT OFFICER - enquiries about this Report to Mr D Hincks, Development Control Officer 01480 388406.

5 55 This page is intentionally left blank

56 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18 JUNE 2007

Case No: 0701401FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: ERECTION OF TWO SEMI-DETACHED DWELLINGS

Location: LAND SOUTH WEST OF 12 SAYER STREET

Applicant: MESSRS J HALLIDAY AND R TAYLOR

Grid Ref: 523436 272230

Date of Registration: 26.04.2007

Parish: HUNTINGDON

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The site is situated on the corner of Sayer Street and Merritt Street, adjacent No. 12 Sayer Street. The site is currently overgrown with two garages sited to the south west of the site. A picket fence runs along the north east and south east boundary. To the north west of the site, beyond an existing brick wall lies a small amenity area, to the north east, south east and south west lie existing dwellings. The area is predominately characterised by terrace dwellings set on the back of the pavement. Further to the south west is a block of flats and detached maisonette. Parking is restricted, some on street parking is available to the southern end of Sayer Street. To the North West of the site lies the elevated mainline railway.

1.2 The proposal seeks the erection of two semi detached 2 bedroom dwellings, parking is provided for two vehicles and cycle storage is provided. Amended plans were received, 29th May 2007, altering the design of the proposal, as recommended, to incorporate the design details of the existing terrace dwellings along Sayer Street. A revised streetscene is required.

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 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

For full details visit the government website

57 http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

3. PLANNING POLICIES

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

3.1 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 - requires a high standard of design and sustainability for all new development

• P5/2 - indicates that at least 43% of new dwellings will be on previously developed land

Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

3.2 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.

• H38 - indicates that development adjoining pollution sources will be required to implement adequate design solutions to reduce ambient noise.

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

Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

3.3 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 2 58

• HL7 - indicates that the District Council will seek to maximise the re-use of previously developed land

Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

3.4 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 – proposal should contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development

• 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.

• P5 – settlement hierarchy – Huntingdon is identified as a Market town

• 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

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

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

• 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.

3 59 • 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

• 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

3.5 Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2004)

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 0700696FUL – erection of 2 dwellings - withdrawn

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Huntingdon Town Council – OBJECTION (copy attached)

5.2 HDC Highways – comments awaited

5.3 HDC Environmental Health – comments awaited

5.4 HDC Landscape – NO OBJECTIONS, soft and hard landscaping Condition to be attached.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 TWO letters of OBJECTION summarised below:

• Garages only unused as the owners are the developers, one garage is being used by the occupiers of No. 4 however notice has been served on them; • new arrangement putting parking spaces where there were garages makes the arrangement worse, overshadowing properties in Merrit Street, Sayer Street and St Johns Terrace; • Over 50% is not brownfield, previously existing gardens to nos. 12 and 13 Sayer Street – the developers; • Reference to land being Greenfield i.e. not where the garages are situated; • Alternative to build a bungalow/small dwelling to solve issues of light/overshadowing; • Concern over profit; • Not consider that previous objections have been considered; • Proposal restricts daylight to No. 1 St Johns Terrace, only 19 feet away; • Primary windows shall face the site;

4 60 • Reference to policy HL7 – and the need to re-use previously developed land, land has never been developed on; • H31 – requires maintenance of privacy – this would not be the case; • Supplementary guidance refers to developers using land without compromising the quality of the environment – not adhered to; • Overlooking ad overshadowing not been taken into consideration; • States primary objective would be not to harm the surrounding properties, this is not the case; • States windows only to front and rear although windows on the side elevation, windows shall overlook; • Concerns over the parking arrangement the space furthest from the development would only be accessible if the other space is occupied, directly opposite are original parking facilities and • Concern over sewers.

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 design, the impact on residential amenity, the impact on highway safety and the impact of noise from the railway.

Principle

7.2 The principle of residential development on the site is considered acceptable. The site is situated within the Market Town of Huntingdon, and has at present two existing garages on the site. The proposal falls within the definition of ‘previously developed land’ as set out in PPS3 Housing.

7.3 This application is a resubmission of the previous application which was also for two dwellings but subsequently withdrawn following concerns raised over highways issues. This application seeks to address these concerns.

Character and appearance of the area

7.4 The proposal seeks to erect two semi detached dwellings on land south west of 12 Sayer Street. This land is currently occupied by two garages which are not in use. Other parts of the site are overgrown.

7.5 The proposal seeks to site a pair of semi detached dwellings on the site, the dwellings would be sited approximately one metre from the north east site boundary and one metre back from the site boundary to Sayer Street. Parking for the two dwellings, a total of two spaces, would be provided to the south west of the proposed dwellings.

7.6 The dwellings measure an overall depth of approx. 7.1 metres, due to its location within the site these would leave each proposed dwelling with a rear private amenity space of approx. 3.05 metres in depth. Whilst this would appear quite a restricted area, it would be comparable to the existing properties along this side of Sayer Street. This level of amenity space is considered acceptable. It should also be noted that to the rear of the site lies an existing amenity space.

5 61

7.7 Examining the area the proposed dwellings have been sited slightly further back than the existing dwellings along Sayer Street, which are set to the back of the pavement. The siting of the dwellings set back from the road forms a transition from those dwellings set to the back of the pavement, leading to the existing maisonettes sited further back from the highway. The addition of these dwellings would not form a prominent feature within the streetscene. The siting of the dwellings near to the existing boundary with Merritt Street maintains a sense of visual cohesion, the proposed dwellings form a complementary addition to the existing built form. The siting of the parking area to the south west of the site means that buildings would screen the off street parking areas from views along Sayer Street. The proposed parking area would not form a dominate feature.

Design

7.8 The proposed dwellings are of an appropriate scale when taking into consideration the surrounding area, the proposed height of the dwellings measure 8.01 metres, the ridge height of the traditional dwellings measure 7.84 metres and the existing maisonettes 8.44 metres in height. The height of the dwellings would sit comfortably within the site context. Amended plans have been received which have altered the design of the dwellings, the proposed dwellings now bear more resemblance to the existing terrace dwellings. The storm canopies have been removed, so too has the soldier detail and one window to the first floor front elevation has been removed. The amended plans are now similar in design to the traditional dwellings and include only one window to the ground floor and first floor front elevation. The addition of the curved lintels is considered an improvement to the previous plans submitted. The amendments to the design are considered more in keeping with the character and appearance of the area and considered acceptable.

7.9 Whilst an amended plan has been submitted the streetscene has not been revised and as such an amended plan has been requested.

Highways

7.10 The siting of the dwellings has been altered to provide adequate parking facilities on site, as well as ensuring access into and out of the site would not be detrimental to highway safety. The plan indicates that pedestrian visibility splays shall be provided 1m x 1m. It is noted that there are existing parking restrictions along Sayer Street. At present there is some availability for on street parking, however in order to ensure access is available to the proposed parking spaces this may mean that this parking area is reduced. This issue would be considered further by the Local Highways Authority, to ensure access is not restricted. However on balance, and subject to the comments of the HDC Highways, it is considered that the proposal would not result in a reduction in parking to the extent that it would have a detrimental impact on highway safety.

Further comments are awaited from HDC Highways.

6 62

Amenity

7.11 The proposed dwellings are not considered to adversely affect residential amenity of the existing neighbours. Considering the design of the dwelling there are windows proposed on the side elevations of the dwellings, these serve the proposed bathrooms and would be obscure, as such these windows would not result in overlooking. In addition to this there are no windows on the first floor side elevation to No. 12 Sayer Street. The windows to the rear would look towards the amenity space, this relationship is considered acceptable. The proposed windows to the front elevation serve Bedrooms 1. Whilst concern has been raised over potential overlooking, due to the separation distance of approx. 7 metres from the front elevation of the proposed dwelling to the common boundary with 1 St Johns Terrace, it is not considered that this would result in an unacceptable relationship, especially as it reflects the existing relationship along Sayer Street. Further concerns have been raised that the proposal shall restrict daylight to the upper and lower level windows to No. 1 St Johns Terrace. It is recognised that the introduction of an additional built form on to the site will result in some shadowing from the proposed dwellings. However the proposed dwellings are sited slightly further back than the existing traditional built form of the area, which is relatively compact. It is considered on balance that this relationship replicates the existing form, as such whilst it may be possible that the proposal could result in some reduction in daylight to these windows, it is also necessary to consider that the dwelling in question is located adjacent the site and separated by a highway. It is not considered that this concern alone would justify the refusal of this application, taking into account the existing relationship of the dwellings along Sayer Street. In conclusion it is considered that the addition of the proposed dwellings is not considered to result in an unduly overbearing impact on amenity.

Bin storage and cycle sheds

7.12 The proposal has included side and rear access to the dwellings, this has enabled adequate bin storage facilities to be provided within the site. The site also provides for cycle storage and would accord with the cycle parking provisions as set out in the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

Noise

7.13 The rear facades of the dwellings are located within approximately 60 metres from the mainline railway. At the time of the previous application, concern was raised from HDC Environmental Health regarding the impact of noise during the night which may result in sleep disturbance. However, subject to Environmental Health’s comments on this application, it is considered to mitigate this concern that noise protection measures should be incorporated into the roof or first floor ceiling, west facing windows and vents. As such it is recommended a condition is attached for details to be provided.

7 63

Neighbour concerns

7.14 The site is considered to be previously developed land and not Greenfield land, as stated.

7.15 Whilst the issue of building a smaller dwelling or bungalow are noted this is not the scheme put forward for consideration and as such these issues cannot be considered further.

7.16 Other concerns relate to the relationship of the properties with those existing and concerns over impacts on amenity, these concerns are noted however as discussed above the dwellings are not considered to form an unacceptable relationship that would seriously adversely affect amenity. The proposal is not considered to result in an unacceptable level of overshadowing to the existing properties. It is noted that the existing windows of 1 St Johns Terrace face onto Sayer Street, however this merely replicates the existing relationship along Sayer Street, this is considered acceptable.

7.17 Concerns over parking are noted, the parking arrangement is considered a workable arrangement and whilst concerns are raised due to the access being located opposite existing on street parking. This is an issue which could be regulated by the Highways Authority.

7.18 Whilst noting that one letter received indicates that the proposal does not address their previous concerns, the application has been amended to improve those areas of concerns raised by Officers, particularly concerning access into the site.

7.19 The concerns over the sewers and profit from the site are noted however these are not planning matters and as such do not form part of the consideration of this application.

Conclusion

7.20 In conclusion the application is considered acceptable, however an amended streetscape is sought and it is recommended that the application is approved.

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 Amended plans

05001 Buildings

Nonstand Hard and soft landscaping

8 64

05012 Hard and soft landscape implementation

17001 Levels Building/Site

Nonstand Engineering scheme

Nonstand No gates

Nonstand Permanent space on site

Nonstand Noise attenuation

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning file reference: 0701401FUL Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003

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

9 65 This page is intentionally left blank

66 Agenda Item 6

AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 18 JUNE 2007

APPEAL DECISIONS (Report by Development Control Manager)

HEARING

1. Appellant: Herts Developments Limited Agent: None

Erection of three dwellings, garaging and Allowed ancillary works 03.05.07 Grenadine, 29 Hunts End, Buckden

WRITTEN REPRESENTATION

2. Appellant: Mr & Mrs Wilkie Agent: John Huggins, Architectural Technician

Extension and alterations to dwelling Dismissed 36 High Street, Hail Weston 16.05.07

HEARING

1. 0602594FUL Erection of three dwellings, garaging and ancillary works, Grenadine, 29 Hunts End, Buckden Herts Developments Limited

Appeal against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period on an application for planning permission. An appeal for six residential units had recently been dismissed and a subsequent application for three dwellings was granted planning permission.

The Hearing was held on 17 April 2007

The Inspector’s Reasons

• The appeal site comprises a bungalow set within a large garden close to the centre of Buckden. The proposal involves the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings on the site frontage and a large house at the rear of the site. The site lies close to Buckden Conservation Area and forms part of the setting for both the Conservation Area and listed buildings. However, the Inspector agreed with the Inspector for the previous appeal and the Council, that distance and interposing walls and high hedges mitigate any effect. They also agreed that the redevelopment would have, at worst, a neutral effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would not affect the listed buildings.

• The proposed frontage buildings would be around 0.5 metres higher at eaves level and 1.75 metres higher to ridge height than the adjacent office building but the Inspector considered that the height difference would be mitigated by the change in ground level and by setting back the main front wall from the road frontage. The access drive, parking, planting and the access alongside 13 Hunts Cottages would provide lateral space and visual separation between the proposed frontage house and Hunts Cottages. The proposed house at the rear of the site would be screened from the rear of houses in Church Street. The Inspector therefore concluded that the proposal would not harm the street scene and would have no significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal was allowed.

Application for Costs against the Council

The Inspector considered this application in the light of Circular 8/93 and all the relevant circumstances. Although the application was not determined by the Council, an officer report was prepared indicating that the proposal would have been refused, giving reasons relating to the access arrangements and the adverse impact of the scale, design and form of the proposal on the character and appearance of the locality. The Council’s failure to determine the application does not protect the Council from the award of costs if the intended reasons for refusal cannot be substantiated. At the Hearing the Council agreed that the imposition of a suitable condition on the appeal proposal would have overcome their concern over the access arrangements. The scheme before the previous Inspector was of an equivalent scale to this 2 68 appeal proposal but the previous appeal decision contained no criticism of the impact of height or scale of the buildings on the street scene or character and appearance of the area.

The Inspector concluded that this case could have been avoided if the Council had responded flexibly to the perceived inadequacies of the access arrangements and assessed the impact of the scale and height of the proposal in relation to the previous appeal decision. In these respects the Council acted unreasonably and an award of costs is justified.

An award of costs was made against the Council.

The link to this planning application in Public Access is: http://planning.huntsdc.gov.uk/PublicAccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_det ailview.aspx?caseno=J3OEZWIKS0000

WRITTEN REPRESENTATION

2. 0600941LBC ‘A’ Extension and alterations to dwelling 0600940FUL ‘B’ 36 High Street, Hail Weston Mr & Mrs Wilkie

Planning permission and listed building consent was refused under delegation agreement against the recommendation of the Parish Council for the following reason:

1. The design, siting, size and scale of the proposals would be detrimental to the character of this listed building contrary to policies P1/3 and P7/6 of the Structure Plan and policies En2 and En25 of the Local Plan.

The Inspector’s Reasons

Appeals A & B

• The proposal relates to a single storey “L” shaped extension forming a courtyard on the south side of the house. The Inspector considered that the proposed materials would fit in generally well with both the listed house and the listed barn to the east. However, the pitch of the roof slopes would be shallower that that of the house, the extension would obscure from view much of the existing south gable and the scale of the extension would intrude into, and would not preserve the setting to the rear of the listed house or the listed barn.

• The main purpose of the extension is to provide ground floor accommodation for Mr Wilkie who is becoming increasingly immobile. However the Inspector considered that there could be scope for adapting the existing rooms to meet his needs without causing lasting damage to the listed house.

The appeals were dismissed.

3 69

The link to this planning application in Public Access is: http://planning.huntsdc.gov.uk/PublicAccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_det ailview.aspx?caseno=IWH6OPIKS0000

Background Papers: Relevant Appeal Files

CONTACT OFFICER - enquiries about this Report to Mrs J Holland, Administrative Officer, 01480 388418.

4 70

FORTHCOMING APPEALS

NONE

5 71 This page is intentionally left blank