Development Management Committee 20 June 2016

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 20 JUNE 2016

Case No: 15/01753/FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 4NO DWELLINGS WITH GARAGES WITH ANCILLARY WORKS COMPRISING OF ACCESS ROADWAY, DRIVES AND PARKING FOR VISITORS AND HARD AND SOFT LANDSCAPING

Location: LAND NORTH OF 13 MOORFIELD WAY GREAT STUKELEY

Applicant: SWIFT BUILDING CONTRACTORS LTD

Grid Ref: 521914 274615

Date of Registration: 30.09.2015

Parish: THE STUKELEYS

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

This application has been referred to Committee as the Parish Council recommendation to refuse is contrary to the Officer recommendation which is to approve

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The application site is rectangular parcel of land covering an area of approx. 0.2 of a hectare and situated behind two detached dwellings that front Ermine Street in the village of Great Stukeley. The land has an extensive planning history and its use appears to be garden land associated with Denmark House (no. 4 Ermine Street). At present the land is mostly overgrown with some trees growing around the edges and hedgerow along some boundaries. The topographical survey indicates that ground levels, whilst uneven, generally fall away towards the south west. A public footpath extends along the eastern boundary.

1.2 Planning permission is sought to subdivide the land from Denmark House and to erect 4 x 3 bedroomed two storey dwellings (2 matching pairs) and garages on the land. The homes would take their vehicle and pedestrian access from Moorfield Way via a new access road into the site. Each dwelling would be approx. 8.10m high to the main roof ridge. A single garage and off-road parking space would serve each dwelling. An additional two off-road parking spaces are shown on the drawings and appear to be available to visitors. An underground culverted watercourse flows through the site and this would be diverted in accordance with the permission granted by the County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority.

1.3 The application is supported by an Arboricultural Report and a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal.

1.4 A previous application (submitted 2011, ref: 1101183FUL) for the erection of four dwellings on the land was the subject of a resolution by the Development Control Panel to grant planning permission subject to the prior completion of a section 106 agreement to secure a single affordable unit of housing. This did not happen because the applicant considered the development unviable and withdrew the application.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development - an economic role, a social role and an environmental role - and outlines the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Under the heading of Delivering Sustainable Development, the Framework sets out the Government's planning policies for : building a strong, competitive economy; ensuring the vitality of town centres; supporting a prosperous rural economy; promoting sustainable transport; supporting high quality communications infrastructure; delivering a wide choice of high quality homes; requiring good design; promoting healthy communities; protecting Green Belt land; meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change; conserving and enhancing the natural environment; conserving and enhancing the historic environment; and facilitating the sustainable use of minerals.

2.2 Planning Practice Guidance is also relevant, including paragraph 031 which says that affordable housing contributions should not be sought from developments of 10-units or less, and which have a maximum combined gross floorspace of no more than 1000sqm.

2.3 For full details visit the government website https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for- communities-and-local-government

3. PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

• H31: "Residential privacy and amenity standards" • H32: "Sub-division of large curtilages" • H33: "Sub-division of large curtilages affecting protected buildings or features" • T18: "Access requirements for new development" • T19: "Pedestrian Routes and Footpath" • En11: "Archaeology" • En12: "Archaeological Implications" • En13: "Archaeological Implications" • En18: “Trees” • En19: "Trees and Landscape" • En20: "Landscaping Scheme" • En22: "Conservation" • En25: "General Design Criteria" • CS8: "Water"

3.2 Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

• HL5 – Quality and Density of Development.

3.3 Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2009)

• CS1: "Sustainable development in Huntingdonshire" • CS3: "The Settlement Hierarchy • CS4: “Affordable housing” • CS10: “Infrastructure” • 3.4 Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013)

• Policy LP 1: "Strategy and principles for development" • Policy LP 2: "Contributing to Infrastructure Delivery" • Policy LP 6: "Flood Risk and Water Management" • Policy LP 10: "Development in Small Settlements" • Policy LP 13: "Quality of Design • Policy LP 15: "Ensuring a High Standard of Amenity" • Policy LP 18: "Parking Provision" • Policy LP 29: "Trees, Woodland and Related Features • Policy LP 31: "Heritage Assets and their Settings"

3.5 Other relevant guidance:

• Huntingdonshire Developer Contributions SPD 2011.

Local policies are viewable at https://www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 A number of planning applications have been submitted to develop the application land including:

4.2 1101183FUL – erection of four dwellings on the land within the curtilage of Denmark House. The Development Control Panel resolved to grant planning permission subject to the prior completion of a section 106 agreement to secure single affordable unit of housing. This did not happen because the applicant considered the development unviable and withdrew the application. Copies of the Panel Report and drawings are attached as ‘Green Paper’.

4.3 1200544FUL – erection of detached dwellinghouse on the side garden of Denmark House, approved June 2012 and now built and occupied as no. 6 Ermine Street.

4.4 1400909FUL – erection of detached dwellinghouse to the rear of no. 6 Ermine Street and accessed off Moorfield Way. This permission is extant, but there is no indication that it has been implemented. Copies of the Panel Report and drawings are attached as ‘Green Paper’.

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 The Stukeleys Parish Council – recommend refusal (copy attached)

5.2 County Council Highways – no objection. The road and footways in the development site will not be adopted by the County Council and will remain private. Conditions are recommended for the LPA to agree the maintenance arrangements for the road and footways; ensure surface water does not run-off onto the highway, that parking and turning space is provided and that gates are prevented from being erected across the access without the prior permission of the LPA.

5.3 County Council Archaeologist - the site lies in an area of high archaeological potential; no objection subject to a condition securing implementation of a programme of archaeological investigation.

5.4 HDC Projects and Asset Manager – recommend that an appropriate method of surface water drainage be secured by a planning condition.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 The occupiers of ‘Orchard Lea’ and 13 Moorfield Way, object to the proposal for the following summarised reasons:

• increased risk of flooding and resultant property damage caused by surface water run-off from the application site. • no objection to building bungalows as this is an elderly area. • effect of additional traffic on this quiet close.

7. ASSESSMENT

7.1 The main issues to consider in the determination of this application are the principle of development, drainage of surface water, diversion of the culverted watercourse, impact on the character and appearance of the area, residential amenity and highway safety.

Principle of development:

7.2 The application land has been the subject of previous planning applications for residential development; most notably the 2011 application (ref. 1101183FUL) for 4 homes that the Development Management Panel resolved to approve, but was subsequently withdrawn.

7.3 While there have been changes in planning policy since 2011, the application land remains within the built-up area of the village and is therefore an appropriate site for residential infilling, subject to all other material planning considerations

7.4 Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy 2009, defines ‘residential infilling’ as up to 3 dwellings and provides for development proposals of a larger scale where site specific circumstances demonstrate that this secures the most sustainable option for the site. Officers, in recommending approval of the 2011 application, considered that 4 dwellings would make efficient use of the land in a settlement where services and a bus service are available.

7.5 It was concluded in 2011 that erecting 4 dwellings on the land was acceptable in principle and there is nothing to justify reaching a different conclusion now.

Impact on the character and appearance of the locality:

7.6 There is considerable variety in the styles of the existing dwellings within the locality of the application site. For example, Denmark House and no. 6, that stand on the Ermine Street frontage are traditional period style detached two storey dwellings built from buff brick with slated roofs. Nos. 10-16 on the Ermine Street frontage are two storey gable fronted c.1950 semi-detached dwellings, finished in render with concrete roof tiles. The dwellings on Montagu Road to the west of the site are generally two storey semi-detached dwellings constructed from red brick, and those on Moorfield Way, to the south of the site, are mostly single storey bungalows of red brick, and include a block of garages. The bungalow to the south of the site (Orchard Lea) is constructed of buff brick and stands in spacious grounds. The common characteristics of these dwellings are their simple gabled form and brick construction.

7.7 The proposed dwellings are gabled in form with a relatively narrow plan form. Each would be built from brick with timber clad upper walls and concrete tiled roofs. In the context of the built development surrounding the application site, it is considered that the proposed dwellings would sit comfortably within their surroundings, adding further variety to this already mixed area of properties. The proposed garages are simple subservient buildings, positioned behind the front wall of each dwelling reflecting their subservient function.

7.8 The layout of the proposed development is broadly similar to the 2011 scheme with dwellings fronting the road and providing good separation from neighbouring dwellings. The proposed dwellings would, like those proposed in 2011, be visible from a number of different vantage points, including Ermine Street, Moorfield Way and Montagu Close. In each viewpoint, it is considered that the proposed dwellings would be seen intermingled amongst and against the backdrop of existing buildings. Because the finished floor levels of the proposed dwellings would generally follow existing land levels, none would be unduly high or dominant relative to surrounding dwellings. For example, the roof ridge levels of plots 1 & 2 are shown on the drawings as approx. 46m ODN, and plots 3 & 4 approx. 46.5m ODN and approx. 45.7m ODN respectively. By comparison the roof ridge levels of Denmark House and no. 6 Ermine Street are shown on the drawings at approx. 47m ODN and 46m ODN.

7.9 The conclusion reached on this issue is that the erection of the proposed dwellings would bring about change to the character and appearance of the locality, as the proposed dwellings infill land that is not built on and which adds to the variety of the buildings. However, the scale and nature of change would not significantly harm the character and appearance of the locality as the proposed dwellings would intermingle comfortably amongst the existing dwellings.

7.10 Materials samples and details of hard and soft landscaping would be secured by condition. As with the 2011 scheme, permitted development rights to erect/construct a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure would be removed in the interests of visual amenity.

Drainage and diversion of watercourse:

7.11 Like the previous planning applications for development of this land, concerns have once again been raised by the Parish Council and objectors that the development will increase flood risk to surrounding properties.

7.12 It is reported by the occupier of 13 Moorfield Way, that her property has been flooded by water running off the application site. A similar report is made by the occupiers of ‘Orchard Lea’, who say that water continues to flow off the application site and onto their property. Both objectors point to an underground stream and pond that lie beneath the site, and ask that the drainage issues be resolved before planning permission is granted.

7.13 Officers explained in paragraphs 7.19 – 7.25 of the report to the October 2014 meeting of the Development Management Panel on application ref. 1400909FUL (attached as a ‘Green Paper’ item) the issues surrounding the drainage of the development site. Officers acknowledged how the site is crossed by an underground private surface water pipe, not a public surface water sewer, and during construction of the dwelling to the north (granted planning permission 1200544FUL), this pipe was damaged which caused surface water runoff. This also coincided with water backing up from a restriction in a section of the underground pipe downstream, behind a property in Moorfield Way. Officers also acknowledged that the existing site levels result in natural surface water runoff ‘downhill’ towards Orchard Lea and Moorfield Way.

7.14 However, with regard to surface water run-off, the Local Planning Authority can only secure details which mean that the development will not exacerbate the situation prior to granting permission and cannot reasonably seek betterment. This was reported to the Development Management Panel in 2014.

7.15 The Council's Projects and Asset Manager has reviewed the application and is of the opinion that a satisfactory means of surface water drainage can be secured by planning condition, to ensure that the existing situation with regard to flood risk is not exacerbated. This may or may not involve the use of soakaways as is proposed by the applicant.

7.16 The applicant has also submitted a copy of the Ordinary Watercourse Consent granted by the County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority for the diversion of the piped watercourse that flows beneath the application site. A copy is attached as a ‘Green Paper’ item. This consent indicates that the County Council is satisfied that the proposed diversion of the watercourse is satisfactory in all respects and should not increase flood risk. A condition will require the diversion works to be undertaken and completed before any other development is first commenced.

7.17 The conclusion reached on this issue is that a satisfactory means of surface water drainage can be secured by planning condition.

Residential amenity:

7.18 The layout of the proposed development provides satisfactory space between the proposed dwellings, and between them and the neighbouring dwellings. The distances of separation are labelled on the proposed site plan (drawing no. 1713/02/100). The proposed layout avoids any unacceptably overbearing relationships and it avoids any unacceptable loss of light and overshadowing of neighbouring property.

7.19 The Parish Council considers that plot 4 will have an overbearing impact on no. 14 Montagu Close, which is a single storey bungalow. Officers note the relationship that would be created, but do not agree with the Parish Council’s opinion. The distance from the rear wall of plot 4 to the boundary with 14 Montagu Close is approx. 10m and this gives a satisfactory separation distance and creates a relationship that is not unacceptably overbearing when experienced from the rear garden of no. 14, which is approx. 14m wide. It should be noted that the relationship between plot 4 and 14 Montagu Close is substantially the same as the relationship between 14 Montagu Close and plot 3 that was proposed by the previous application ref. 1101183FUL.

7.20 Occupiers of the proposed dwellings will be afforded views across neighbouring residential properties, but these views will not cause unacceptable overlooking and a loss of privacy given the resulting viewing distances. For example, the approx. 20m back-to-back distances between the proposed dwellings on plots 1 & 2 and the dwelling at No. 6 Ermine Street is satisfactory and is not substantially dissimilar to the relationship between No. 6 Ermine Street and the single dwelling granted planning permission under ref. 1400909FUL. The back-to-back distances between the dwellings on plots 3 & 4 and nos. 18-22 Montagu Close are greater at approx. 27m.

7.21 The single upper floor roof light in the south facing roof slope of plot 4 and serving the landing/stairwell, would not lead to unacceptable overlooking of ‘Orchard Lea’. The front upper floor window serving Bedroom 3 in plot 2 would allow future occupiers with a view across the bungalows to the south (including 13 Moorfield Way), but this would not lead to an unacceptable loss of privacy, given the distance involved and the viewing angle. The relationship between proposed plot 2 and 13 Moorfield Way is not substantially dissimilar to the relationship between 13 Moorfield Way and the single dwelling granted planning permission under ref. 1400909FUL.

7.22 Normal domestic activities associated with the proposed dwellings will not lead to an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance in this residential area.

7.23 The conclusion on this issue is that the proposed development will have an impact on surrounding properties, but not an unacceptably harmful impact.

Highway safety:

7.24 There was no objection raised in the determination of the 2011 application to serving 3 dwellings via a new private access road off Moorfield Way. This application now proposes that the 4 proposed dwellings would be accessed off Moorfield Way via a new private access road.

7.25 A development of this scale would generate a relatively small number of vehicle journeys and the layout of the development provides a satisfactory means of vehicle and pedestrian access to each dwelling, and turning space within the proposed cul-de-sac. On plot parking provision amounts to a single space plus garage for each dwelling; albeit tandem parking to the front of the garages serving plots 3 and 4 appears practical. This level of parking provision is satisfactory. It is considered that occasional visitor parking is capable of being absorbed within the proposed access road and/or Moorfield Way, without a significant adverse impact on highway safety.

7.26 The County Council Highways Officer has no objection to the development on highway safety grounds and has recommended the planning conditions listed in section 5 of this report. Should planning permission be granted, these conditions are recommended to be imposed, with the exception of the maintenance arrangements for the road and footways, which, given the scale of the development, is a private matter for the individual property owners.

Other issues:

7.27 Affordable housing provision: the Planning Practice Guidance was recently updated to reinsert passages of guidance stipulating that affordable housing contributions "should not be sought from developments of ten units or less, and which have a maximum combined gross floorspace of no more than 1,000 square metres".

7.28 The proposed development does not exceed either threshold and the Planning Practice Guidance overrides the District Council’s affordable housing policies on this matter. As such, the Council cannot reasonably require any of the housing units to be affordable.

7.29 The submitted tree survey proposes to protect and retain the following:

• the evergreen hedgerow along the boundary with the properties on Montagu Close, and the Field Maple (denoted as T11 on the tree protection place) that is growing within the hedgerow, and;

• the mixed hedgerow along the east boundary with the public footpath, and the Ash Tree (denoted as T2 on the tree protection place) that is growing within the hedgerow.

7.30 This is acceptable as there are no other trees or hedgerow that are of sufficient significance to warrant retention and integration into the development.

7.31 The preliminary ecological appraisal considers the potential impact of the development on a range of species and concludes that the development can proceed in accordance with the recommendations contained with the appraisal, namely:

• Birds – recommendation: works avoid the bird-breeding season (late February to August inclusive) to avoid damage to nesting species. If this is not practicable then a nesting bird survey should be undertaken by an experienced ecologist prior to site clearance commencement to identify whether active nests are present.

• Bats - recommendation: It is recommended that the tiles of the building are stripped under the supervision of an experienced bat worker.

• Reptiles - recommendation: initial ground clearance including rubble and log piles etc. should be undertaken under the supervision of an experienced herpetologist.

• Badger - recommendation: any trenches/pits created during the works nightly to prevent any badgers from becoming trapped.

• Hedgehog - recommendation: potential shelter/resting/hibernation areas should be fingertip searched by an experienced mammologist.

7.32 Officers concur with the findings of the preliminary ecological appraisal.

7.33 A signed undertaking has been submitted under Section 106 of the Planning Act to fund wheeled bins.

7.34 An archaeological investigation of the land would be secured by condition.

Conclusion:

7.35 Taking national and local planning policies into account and having regard for all relevant material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be granted for the development as proposed.

8. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL subject to conditions to include those listed below:

• time limit (3 years) • development in accordance with the submitted drawings. • materials • finished floor levels in accordance with submitted site plan. • tree retention and protection in accordance with submitted scheme. • adherence to the recommendations in the preliminary ecological appraisal • complete watercourse diversion works before commencement of development. • scheme for disposal of surface water drainage. • hard and soft landscaping. • archaeological investigation of the site. • no surface water run-off onto the highway. • provide parking and turning space for each dwelling before the respective dwelling is first occupied. • provide new access road to base course level between each dwelling and the public highway before the respective dwelling is first occupied. • remove permitted development rights for new gates, fences and walls.

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.

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Mr Gavin Sylvester Development Management Officer 01480 387070 Huntingdonshire DC Public Access

From: [email protected] Sent: 10 November 2015 14:20 To: DevelopmentControl Subject: Comments for Planning Application 15/01753/FUL

Planning Application comments have been made. A summary of the comments is provided below.

Comments were submitted at 2:19 PM on 10 Nov 2015 from Mrs Carole Pollock.

Application Summary Address: Land North Of 13 Moorfield Way Great Stukeley Proposed residential development of 4no dwellings with garages with ancillary works comprising of access Proposal: roadway, drives and parking for visitors and hard and soft landscaping Case Officer: Harry Heywood Click for further information

Customer Details Name: Mrs Carole Pollock Email: [email protected] 5 Gore Tree Road, Hemingford Grey, Cambridgeshire Address: PE28 9BP

Comments Details Commenter Town or Parish Council Type: Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Reasons for comment: Comments: Stukeleys Parish Council recommend refusal for the following reasons: • Unresolved drainage issue with 6 Ermine Street and the problems of surface water runoff from the site to Orchard Lea (Montagu Close) and 13 Moorfield Close. The Parish Council takes issue with the Design and Access Statement item 3.4, which proposes to allow as much natural drainage as possible across the site. The Parish Council considers that this would exacerbate the already existing land drainage issue. • Overbearing nature of plot 4 in relation to 14 Montagu Close (two storey building/bungalow).

1 Development Management Panel

Scale =1:1,250 Application Ref: 15/01753/FUL

Date Created: 01/06/2016 © Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Location:Great Stukeley Ordnance Survey HDC 100022322

2c 5

2b 1

2a Elm Tree House

21 1 32

LB 4

Hall 18

MONTAGU ROAD 6

12 1

13 El Sub Sta Lea 2 15 Church 1 28 Walk 26 MOORFIELD WAY 10 3 21

1 16 24 8

17 22a 18 14 22

2 7 Key 11 9 The Site 1 Listed Building 1

WEST VIEW HILL CLOSE Conservation Area

12 16 10 TCB

Default specification for protective barrier

Panels secured to uprights and cross-members with wire ties

Standard scaffold poles

Heavy gauge 2m tail galvanised tube and welded mesh infill panels

Approx 2m

GL GL Approx. 0.6m Approx 3m

TREE PROTECTION AREA Uprights driven into ground the ground until KEEP OUT! secure (min. depth 0.6m) (TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990) TREES ENCLOSED BY THIS FENCE ARE PROTECTED BY PLANNING CONDITIONS AND/OR ARE THE SUBJECT OF ATREE PRESERVATION ORDER. CONTRAVENTION OF A TREE PRESERVATION ORDER, MAY LEAD TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION THIS FENCING MUST NOT BE REMOVED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE TREE AND LANDSCAPE OFFICER

GREEN PAPERS FOLLOW

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PANEL 20th October 2014

Case No: 1400909FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: PROPOSED 3 BEDROOM DETACHED DWELLING WITH DOUBLE GARAGE

Location: LAND NORTH OF 13 MOORFIELD WAY GREAT STUKELEY

Applicant: MR J BURGESS

Grid Ref: 521914 274615

Date of Registration: 11.06.2014

Parish: THE STUKELEYS

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The application site relates to land to the north of No. 13 Moorfield Way. The site is part of orchard land and slopes from north to south. A public footpath runs along the eastern boundary.

1.2 This application follows on from a previous application for residential development of the area with four dwellings which was recommended for approval by the Development Management Panel in September 2011 but subsequently withdrawn prior to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure an affordable dwelling. A further application was submitted which permitted the erection of one detached dwelling on land to the east of No. 4.

1.3 The current application seeks the erection of a one and half storey dwelling which is to be sited to the rear of the recently constructed dwelling and accessed from Moorfield Way. Also proposed is a detached double garage which is to be located to the side of the dwelling.

1.4 At Officer request further details on the proposed drainage measures were submitted. It was also noted that the block plan and elevations originally submitted did not match; this error has now been corrected and the block plan amended accordingly.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.2 Planning Practice Guide

For full details visit the government website https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities- and-local-government

3. PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

• H31: "Residential privacy and amenity standards" - indicates that new dwellings will only be permitted where appropriate standards of privacy can be maintained and adequate parking provided.

• H32: "Sub-division of large curtilages" - states support will be offered only where the resultant dwelling and its curtilage are of a size and form sympathetic to the locality.

• H33: "Sub-division of large curtilages affecting protected buildings or features" - states the subdivision of curtilages will not be supported where development will adversely affect the qualities of a Conservation Area or affect trees worthy of protection.

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

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

• En11: "Archaeology" - permission will normally be refused for development that would have an adverse impact on a scheduled ancient monument or an archaeological site of acknowledged importance.

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

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

• En19: "Trees and Landscape" - will make Tree Preservation Orders where it considers that trees which contribute to the local amenity and/or the landscape are at risk.

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

• En22: "Conservation" - wherever relevant, the determination of applications will take appropriate consideration of nature and wildlife conservation.

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

• CS8: "Water" - satisfactory arrangements for the availability of water supply, sewerage and sewage disposal facilities, surface water run-off facilities and provision for land drainage will be required.

3.2 Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

• HL5: "Quality and Density of Development" - sets out the criteria to take into account in assessing whether a proposal represents a good design and layout.

3.3 Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2009)

• CS1: "Sustainable development in Huntingdonshire" - all developments will contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development, having regard to social, environmental and economic issues. All aspects will be considered including design, implementation and function of development.

• CS3: "The Settlement Hierarchy" - identifies Great Stukeley as a smaller settlement in which residential infilling will be appropriate within the built up area.

3.4 Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013)

• Policy LP 1: "Strategy and principles for development" - The Council will support proposals which contribute to the delivery of new housing, economic growth and diversification and infrastructure provision

• Policy LP 2: "Contributing to Infrastructure Delivery" A proposal will be supported where it makes appropriate contributions towards the provision of infrastructure, and of meeting economic, social and environmental requirements. Applicable developments will be liable to pay the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as set out in the Huntingdonshire Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule or successor documents.

• Policy LP 6: "Flood Risk and Water Management" - A proposal will be supported where: a. it is located in an area that is not at risk of flooding with reference to the Environment Agency flood risk maps and the Council's Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA), unless a Sequential Test, and if necessary an Exception Test, as set out in the NPPF's technical guidance on flood risk, proves the development is acceptable; b. suitable flood protection/ mitigation measures can be agreed as appropriate to the level and nature of flood risk and satisfactorily implemented and maintained; and c. there will be no increase in the risk of flooding for properties elsewhere, e.g. through a net increase in surface water run- off, or a reduction in the capacity of flood water storage areas, unless suitable compensation or mitigation measures exist or can be agreed, satisfactorily implemented and maintained.

• Policy LP 10: "Development in Small Settlements" - Great Stukeley is defined as a Small Settlement. A proposal which is located within the built-up area of a Small Settlement will be considered on individual sustainability merits, taking into account whether it is in accordance with other policies of this Local Plan.

• Policy LP 13: "Quality of Design" - A proposal will need to be designed to a high standard based on a thorough understanding of the site and its context.

• Policy LP 15: "Ensuring a High Standard of Amenity" - A proposal will be supported where a high standard of amenity is provided for existing and future users and residents of both the surroundings and the proposed development.

• Policy LP 18: "Parking Provision" - A proposal will be supported where it incorporates appropriately designed vehicle and cycle parking with a clear justification for the level of provision proposed.

• Policy LP 29: "Trees, Woodland and Related Features" - A proposal will be supported where it avoids the loss of, and minimises the risk of harm to trees, woodland, hedges or hedgerows of visual, historic or nature conservation value, including orchards, ancient woodland and aged or veteran trees. The landscaping scheme for the proposal will incorporated any of these features that lie within the site and should link with any of these features on adjacent land/ nearby.

• Policy LP 31: "Heritage Assets and their Settings" - Great weight is given to the conservation of any heritage asset; more weight is accorded to assets of greater significance. A proposal which affects the special interest or significance of any heritage asset or its setting must demonstrate how it will conserve, and where appropriate enhance, the asset. Any harm must be fully justified and this harm will be weighed against the public benefit of the proposal. Substantial harm or loss will require exceptional justification. Harm to assets of the highest significance will require wholly exceptional justification.

3.5 Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents:

• Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment (2007)

• Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2007)

• The Huntingdonshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2010)

• Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework - Developer Contributions SPD (2011)

Local policies are viewable at https://www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 0200012FUL - erection of six dwellings and garages - permission REFUSED

4.2 0300150FUL - erection of two dwellings and garages - permission REFUSED

4.3 0502662FUL - alterations, extension and part change of use from dwelling to 12 bedroom care home with ancillary manager's and care assistant's living accommodation - permission REFUSED

4.4 0600900FUL - alterations, extension and part change of use from dwelling to 10 bedroom care home with ancillary manager's and care assistant's living accommodation - permission GRANTED

4.5 1101183FUL - erection of 3 no. 4 bed houses with double garages, 1 no. 3 bed house with parking space, double garage to existing dwelling with walls, fences, landscaping etc - recommendation to APPROVE, subject to prior completion of Section 106 to secure affordable housing unit. (DETAILS ATTACHED AS GREEN PAPAERS)

4.6 1200544FUL - Erection of four bedroom house, double garage (and new garage for Denmark House) and associated works - permission GRANTED (DETAILS ATTACHED AS GREEN PAPAERS)

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 The Stukeleys Parish Council recommended REFUSAL and maintained this recommendation following consultation on the additional drainage details (COPY ATTACHED)

5.2 HDC Transportation - NO OBJECTIONS on highway related grounds as there is adequate vehicular access onto Moorfield Way and on-site parking and turning space.

5.3 Cambridgeshire County Council: Archaeology - NO OBJECTIONS, having regard to previous investigations in the area archaeological investigation is not considered to be justified in connection with this planning application.

5.4 Cambridgeshire County Council: Flood and Water Team (as the Lead Flood Authority) - advise that they would require an application for ordinary watercourse consent if the applicant planned to move or alter the piped watercourse but if the watercourse is not to be touched then no further plans/details would be needed.

5.5 HDC Projects and Asset Manager - NO OBJECTIONS since the piped watercourse does not need to be diverted and is not directly affected by the building; there are not any Byelaws which would give a minimum distance of buildings from a pipe.

5.6 Cambridgeshire County Council: Rights Of Way - NO OBJECTIONS but draw attention to the fact that Footpath No.15 'The Stukeleys' runs alongside the application site and that Rights of Way need to be kept open at all times, including during site construction. It is also noted that the existing boundary hedge alongside the footpath is to be retained, this is welcomed and it is requested that Rights of Way be consulted if this is to be replaced with a fence at any time in future, to allow that appropriate attention is drawn to boundary treatments.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 Representation received from ONE neighbour who does not object to the proposal as they understand the builder will not be the same as the adjacent site, but do RAISE CONCERNS over the drainage details. - The development to the north caused surface water problems which had subsequent impacts and resulted in damage to neighbouring sites - The drawings for the current application appears to show that this bungalow is to be sited over a natural stream - Alconbury Weald are now developing the aerodrome from which it is understood that all these water courses start and then flow down into and around the villages, Great Stukeley being one - The Culvert at the top of Ermine Street near Denmark House takes some of this water, and it is believed that the builder broke the pipe at this culvert - this pipe is only approx. some 5inches in diameter; drainage details have not been supplied as part of the condition discharge process of the adjacent site - At the last Parish Council meeting it is understood that at least 3 other householders in Great Stukeley have raised the issue of manholes lifting with water and flooding parts of their properties - Many years ago a gentleman who lives in one of the Stukeleys used to keep the sluice gates which are situated somewhere near or on the air base at Alconbury, he apparently left the sluice gates open by mistake and flooded part of Little Stukeley, who manages this sluice gate now? - The current drainage problems are part of a larger issue - Unless the water discharge problem is dealt with effecting "Orchard Lea", we will object to any further development the land adjacent to Denmark House.

6.2 Following reconsultation on the amended plan, no further comments have been received.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues to consider in the determination of this application are the principle of development and the impacts upon the character and appearance of the area, on residential amenity and on highway safety.

Principle of Development

7.2 The site is considered to be within the built-up area of Great Stukeley, therefore the principle of infill residential development of up to three dwellings is considered to be in accordance with policies LP10 of the Draft Local Plan to 2036 (Stage 3) and CS3 of the Core Strategy.

7.3 The principle of development is therefore supported.

Character and Appearance of the Area

7.4 Properties fronting onto Ermine Street are generally two storey properties and detached or semi-detached. Properties in Montagu Road to the west of the site are generally two storey semi-detached and properties in Moorfield Way are single storey dwellings, understood to generally be occupied by elderly residents, but not restricted to elderly occupation.

7.5 Whilst the previous application for four dwellings (1101183FUL) was not formally determined it is noted that plot 1 related to a two storey dwelling fronting onto Ermine Street, similar to the subsequent approval under permission 1200544FUL, plots 2 and 3 were two storey properties and plot 4, sited in a similar location to the current application site, was a one and half storey dwelling. At this time it was considered that plot 4 was of an appropriate scale as it provided a link between the single storey properties adjacent the site and the two storey dwellings proposed within the site.

7.6 The site plan (Drawing No. 1678/4/01A) indicates finished floor levels (FFL); the site slopes up towards Ermine Street and the proposed floor level is shown to be 37.50 with the new property to the north having a floor level of approx. 38.50. These levels are considered to be acceptable and will ensure that the proposed dwelling does provide the link between the adjoining single and two storey buildings.

7.7 Whilst the position of the proposed dwelling has altered, the scale and appearance is the same as that previously proposed. It is considered that this is acceptable and the materials (slate, brick and stained vertical boarding) will give a contemporary look and will aid in integrating the site with the adjacent properties that are of mixed materials.

7.8 The garage design with a single door does not accord with the Design Guide which suggests that double width garage doors can be visually dominant and that two single doors provide better proportions. It is however not considered that in this instance, the resultant dominance will be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

7.9 The proposed site plan states that the existing hedgerow/site boundaries are to be retained and a large amount of new planting is proposed, much of this is however detailed on land outside of the red edged site plan, but within the applicant's ownership. Hedge protection details are submitted and this is considered acceptable.

7.10 Therefore no Officer objections are raised owing to the impacts upon the character and appearance of the area.

Residential Amenity

7.11 It is considered that the further subdivision of Denmark House curtilage is acceptable as the retained garden is adequate for the size of property and will be in keeping with other plots in the locality.

7.12 The proposed building is to be approx. 14m from the common boundary with No. 13 Moorfield Way and around 16m from the corner of the boundary of Orchard Lea. Both of these properties have driveways alongside the application site. In the case of Orchard Lea, the private amenity area is on the opposite side of the site, 13 Moorfield Way is sited side on to the application site and the amenity space is to the rear of the dwelling. The proposal has a bedroom window within the western elevation, due to the siting and relationship with the adjacent plots, it is not considered that this will have a significantly detrimental impact upon residential amenity in terms of overlooking of loss of privacy. There are bedroom windows within the front elevation of the proposed dwelling, the siting in relation to the adjacent bungalow and separation distance is considered in this instance to be acceptable in terms of impacts upon residential amenity. The application site is to the north of No. 13 and the north east of Orchard Lea, as such there are no concerns regarding overshadowing or loss of light.

7.13 The scheme has minimal first floor windows and the use of rooflights is considered appropriate as the separation distance between the application site and new dwelling to the north is sufficient to ensure that potential overlooking and loss of privacy within the site is reduced.

7.14 As such, no Officer objections are raised owing to the impacts upon residential amenity.

Highway Safety

7.15 The proposed access point is adequate in size and geometry to accommodate the single dwelling. It is noted that, as with previous schemes, the internal space available within the garages is approximately 5m wide by 5.5m long; this is a very tight arrangement for two vehicles, however it is considered sufficient to provide for one vehicle and additional storage such as cycle storage.

7.16 The parking and turning arrangements are acceptable as they allow vehicles to enter and leave in forward gear.

7.17 As referred to above, the driveway to No. 13 is alongside the southern boundary of the application site. In considering application 1101183FUL it was acknowledged that the existing arrangement means that the driveway to No. 13 is at right angles to the highway with the boundary treatment creating a 'stop' to the highway. The proposal was previously considered to improve the access to this driveway as the arrangements will not be as tight. This view remains and it is not felt that the proposed access will restrict access to No. 13, nor should on-street parking on Moorfield Way block vehicular access to the proposed property as the road width of Moorfield Way at this point is approx. 5.7m which is sufficient for two vehicles to pass, and such a width is actually far in excess of a minimum width of 4.1m to facilitate this manoeuvre.

7.18 Therefore, no Officer objections are raised owing to the impacts upon highway safety.

Other Matters

Drainage:

7.19 Concerns have been raised by the Parish Council and neighbour over drainage issues. Concerns were also raised about drainage in the area by the Parish Council in their response to planning application 1200544FUL, accordingly a condition requiring the prior approval of foul and surface water drainage details was imposed.

7.20 The site is crossed by a private surface water pipe, not a public surface water sewer, and during construction of the dwelling to the north, this pipe was damaged which caused problems with runoff. This also coincided with water backing up from a restriction in a section of pipe downstream, behind a property in Moorfield Way. This was unfortunate, however was not a matter which the District Council had any control over.

7.21 It must also be noted that the existing site levels result in runoff towards Orchard Lea and Moorfield Way naturally and the Local Planning Authority can only secure details which mean that the development will not exacerbate the situation prior to granting permission and cannot seek betterment.

7.22 Given this past experience, the applicant for the current proposal was asked to provide details of the proposed dwelling in relation to the piped watercourse and also submit drainage details so that these could be considered upfront.

7.23 Additional information was submitted which shows the location of the piped watercourse is to the west of the proposed dwelling. Cambridgeshire County Council, as Lead Flood Authority, have confirmed that as the development will not move or alter the piped watercourse there is no need for approval, but do question the nearby tree planting as tree roots could damage the pipe. Details of the soft landscaping can be secured by condition to enable this point to be considered, an informative can also be added to advise the applicants of riparian owner responsibilities. 7.24 The additional drainage details, in note 7 of drawing No. 1678/4/01A confirms that surface water is to be discharged into soakaways and that if an overflow to the soakaway discharge is required then this will be incorporated to use the existing watercourse. The Council's Projects and Asset Manager has reviewed the details and advised that this arrangement is acceptable.

7.25 Therefore it is Officer opinion that a recommendation of refusal could not be upheld owing to the drainage impacts.

Sustainable Attributes:

7.26 The Design and Access Statement details that the dwelling is to have a minimum of two 200litre water harvesting tanks and that all joinery is to be from sustainable sources.

Archaeology:

7.27 Previous consultee comments for development in this area have requested an archaeological investigation. In this instance Officers from Cambridgeshire County Council have confirmed that the report submitted following investigation of the site to the north identified a feature of medieval date and a ditch/channel thought to have been backfilled in the 20th century. They advise that although the area is significant (two Scheduled Monuments, Roman barrows, are located within 10m of the site) it is likely that the ditched feature will take up a considerable proportion of the proposed development area and therefore do not consider archaeological investigation to be justified in connection with this planning application.

Affordable Housing:

7.28 Policy CS4 of the Core Strategy requires that 40% of all housing on proposals of 3 or more homes in smaller settlements be affordable; the scheme for four houses therefore exceeded the threshold for providing affordable housing on the site but an affordable unit could not have been secured on the following application for one dwelling.

7.29 The Core Strategy and the Draft Local Plan to 2036 (Stage 3) affirms that subdivision of sites in order to avoid liability for contributions will not be accepted. In this instance the current application site forms part of the larger, original, site, and the applicant is the same; however, this proposal only relates to the second dwelling and therefore would not trigger the requirement for affordable housing. An informative should however be added to the Decision Notice to advise the applicant that future development of the site, should an application(s) be received, would be considered as the whole developable area, and against policy criteria regarding affordable housing which is in place at that time.

Rights of Way:

7.30 The comments of the Rights of Way Team are noted; the submitted plan confirms that the boundary and hedge alongside the public right of way is to be retained and this can be secured through the application. It is therefore not considered reasonable to require, as part of this application, any future details to be provided.

Refuse Bins:

7.31 Wheeled bins are usually provided for dwellings and a Unilateral Undertaking is used to secure the contribution required to provide these bins in accordance with the Developer Contributions SPD 2011 and CS10 of the Adopted Huntingdonshire Core Strategy 2009 and LP2 of the Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013).

7.32 The applicant has been reminded of the need to provide this agreement and the Agent has confirmed that one will be submitted. The agreement has however not been received at the time of writing the report and Members will be updated on this prior to, on at the Development Management Panel.

Conclusion

7.33 It is considered that the proposal is acceptable in principle and that it will not have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the area, significantly harm residential amenity of the surrounding neighbours or of the occupants of the proposed dwelling and will not have an adverse impact upon highway safety. Therefore, taking national and local planning policies into account, and having regard for all relevant material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission, subject to the prior submission of a unilateral undertaking to provide refuse bins be granted, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

8. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL subject to condition to include the following

• Time limit • Development carried out as approved • Material details • Soft landscaping scheme • Hedge protection as submitted

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.

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Ms Charlotte Fox Development Management Officer 01480 388457

Development Management Panel

Scale =1:2,500 © Crown copyright and database rights 2014 Application Ref: 1400909FUL Ordnance Survey HDC 100022322 Date Created: 06/10/2014 Location: The Stukeleys

Legend The Site

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PANEL 19 SEP 11

Case No: 1101183FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: ERECTION OF 3 NO. 4 BED HOUSES WITH DOUBLE GARAGES, 1 NO. 3 BED HOUSE WITH PARKING SPACE, DOUBLE GARAGE TO EXISTING DWELLING WITH WALLS, FENCES, LANDSCAPING ETC.

Location: LAND BETWEEN 4 AND 10 ERMINE STREET GREAT STUKELEY

Applicant: MR J BURGESS

Grid Ref: 521906 274637

Date of Registration: 08.07.2011

Parish: THE STUKELEYS

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The application site relates to land to the south east of No. 4 Ermine Street, known as Denmark House, which covers an area of approximately 0.3 hectares. The site is orchard land and slopes from north to south with a maximum levels difference within the site of approximately 2 metres. There is an Ash tree in the north eastern corner of the site which has a Tree Preservation Order on it. A public footpath also runs along the eastern boundary.

1.2 The application relates to residential development of the site with four dwellings.

1.3 Plot 1 is proposed to be located to the front of the site and a new direct access is included off Ermine Street. This dwelling is a two storey, four bed house with a separate double garage.

1.4 Plots 2, 3 and 4 are to be accessed from Moorfield Way, a cul-de-sac to the south of the site; plots two and three are also proposed as two storey, four bed properties with detached double garages. Plot 4 is a two storey, three bed property with two parking spaces to the front of the property; this is designated as the ‘affordable dwelling’.

1.5 The proposal also seeks the provision of a new vehicular access to Denmark House and provision of a double garage with parking and turning areas; the existing access is to be stopped up and the verge reinstated.

1.6 The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement, a Tree Survey and Arboricultural Constraints Report and Landscape Proposal.

179 2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

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

2.2 PPS3: “Housing” (2011) sets out how the planning system supports the growth in housing completions needed in England.

2.3 PPG13: “Transport” (2011) sets out the objectives to integrate planning and transport at the national, strategic and local level and to promote more sustainable transport choices both for carrying people and for moving freight.

2.4 Draft National Planning Policy Framework: Consultation (2011) - sets out the Government’s key economic, social and environmental objectives and the planning policies to deliver them. The intention is that these policies will provide local communities with the tools they need to energise their local economies, meet housing needs, plan for a low-carbon future and protect the environmental and cultural landscapes that they value. It seeks to free communities from unnecessarily prescriptive central government policies, empowering local councils to deliver innovative solutions that work for their local area.

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 East of England Plan - Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008) Policies viewable at http://www.go-east.gov.uk then follow links to Planning, Regional Planning then Related Documents

SS1: “Achieving Sustainable Development” – the strategy seeks to bring about sustainable development by applying: the guiding principles of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy 2005 and the elements contributing to the creation of sustainable communities described in Sustainable Communities: Homes for All.

H1: “Regional Housing Provision 2001 to 2021” – Local Planning Authorities should facilitate the delivery of district housing allocations – 11,200 for Huntingdonshire.

H2: “Affordable Housing” – Development Plan Documents should set appropriate targets. At the regional level, delivery should be monitored against a target for some 35% of housing coming forward through planning permissions granted after the publication of the RSS.

180 T2: “Changing Travel Behaviour” – to bring about significant change in travel behaviour, a reduction in distances travelled and a shift towards greater use of sustainable modes should be promoted.

T14: “Parking” – controls to manage transport demand and influencing travel change alongside measures to improve public transport accessibility, walking and cycling should be encouraged. Maximum parking standards should be applied to new residential development.

ENV3: “Biodiversity and Earth Heritage” it should be ensured that the region’s wider biodiversity, earth heritage and natural resources are protected and enriched through conservation, restoration and re-establishment of key resources.

ENV7: “Quality in the Built Environment” - requires new development to be of high quality which complements the distinctive character and best qualities of the local area and promotes urban renaissance and regeneration.

WM6:”Waste Management in Development” – developments should be designed and constructed to minimise the creation of waste, make maximum use of recycled materials and facilitate collection, separation, sorting, recycling and recovery of waste arising from development and surrounding areas where appropriate.

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

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

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

H31: “Residential privacy and amenity standards” – Indicates that new dwellings will only be permitted where appropriate standards of privacy can be maintained and adequate parking provided.

H32: "Sub-division of large curtilages" states support will be offered only where the resultant dwelling and its curtilage are of a size and form sympathetic to the locality.

H33: “Sub-division of large curtilages affecting protected buildings or features” states the subdivision of curtilages will not be

181 supported where development will adversely affect the qualities of a Conservation Area or affect trees worthy of protection.

H34: “Extensions to Dwellings” – should have regard to the amenity and privacy of adjoining properties.

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

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

En11: “Archaeology” – Permission will normally be refused for development that would have an adverse impact on a scheduled ancient monument or an archaeological site of acknowledged importance.

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

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

En19: “Trees and Landscape” – will make Tree Preservation Orders where it considers that trees which contribute to the local amenity and/or the landscape are at risk.

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

En22: “Conservation” – wherever relevant, the determination of applications will take appropriate consideration of nature and wildlife conservation.

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

CS8: “Water” – satisfactory arrangements for the availability of water supply, sewerage and sewage disposal facilities, surface water run-off facilities and provision for land drainage will be required.

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

182 HL5 – Quality and Density of Development - sets out the criteria to take into account in assessing whether a proposal represents a good design and layout.

HL6 – Housing Density - indicates that housing development shall be at a density of 30-50 dwellings per hectare

HL10 – Housing Provision – in the district should reflect the full range of the local community’s needs by ensuring a choice in new housing.

3.5 Policies from the Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2009 are relevant and viewable at http://www.huntsdc.gov.uk click on Environment and Planning then click on Planning then click on Planning Policy and then click on Core Strategy where there is a link to the Adopted Core Strategy.

CS1: “Sustainable development in Huntingdonshire” – all developments will contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development, having regard to social, environmental and economic issues. All aspects will be considered including design, implementation and function of development.

CS3: “The Settlement Hierarchy” – identifies Great Stukeley as a smaller settlement in which residential infilling will be appropriate within the built up area.

CS4: “Affordable Housing in Development” – 40% of all housing on proposals of 3 or more homes or 0.1ha, in all smaller settlements as defined in the settlement hierarchy should be affordable.

3.6 Policies from the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010 are relevant.

C1: “Sustainable Design” – development proposals should take account of the predicted impact of climate change over the expected lifetime of the development.

C5: “Flood Risk and Water Management” – development proposals should include suitable flood protection / mitigation to not increase risk of flooding elsewhere. Sustainable drainage systems should be used where technically feasible. There should be no adverse impact on or risk to quantity or quality of water resources.

E1: “Development Context” – development proposals shall demonstrate consideration of the character and appearance of the surrounding environment and the potential impact of the proposal.

E2: “Built-up Areas” – development will be limited to within the built-up areas of the settlements identified in Core Strategy policy CS3, in order to protect the surrounding countryside and to promote wider sustainability objectives.

183 E5: “Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows” – proposals shall avoid the loss of, and minimise the risk of, harm to trees, woodland or hedgerows of visual, historic or nature conservation value, including ancient woodland and veteran trees. They should wherever possible be incorporated effectively within the landscape elements of the scheme.

E8: “Sustainable Travel” – proposals must demonstrate how the scheme maximises opportunities for the use of sustainable travel modes, particularly walking, cycling and public transport.

E10: “Parking Provision” – car and cycle parking should accord with the levels and layout requirements set out in Appendix 1 ‘Parking Provision’. Adequate vehicle and cycle parking facilities shall be provided to serve the needs of the development.

H1: “Efficient Use of Housing Land” – housing developments will optimise density taking account of the nature of the development site; character of its surroundings and need to accommodate other uses and residential amenities such as open space and parking areas.

H2: “Housing Mix” – a mix of housing is required that can reasonably meet the future needs of a wide range of household types in Huntingdonshire and reflect the advice and guidance provided within the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough SHMAs and relevant local housing studies. Regard must also be given to other materials factors specific to the site.

H7: “Amenity” – development proposals should safeguard the living conditions for residents and people occupying adjoining or nearby properties.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 0200012FUL – erection of six dwellings and garages – permission REFUSED

4.2 0300150FUL - erection of two dwellings and garages – permission REFUSED

4.3 0502662FUL – alterations, extension and part change of use from dwelling to 12 bedroom care home with ancillary manager’s and care assistant’s living accommodation – permission REFUSED

4.4 0600900FUL - alterations, extension and part change of use from dwelling to 10 bedroom care home with ancillary manager’s and care assistant’s living accommodation – permission GRANTED

4.5 Relevant planning history for No. 4 Ermine Street: 0001920FUL – retention of use of one room of dwelling as taxi business – permission GRANTED

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 The Stukeleys Parish Council recommends REFUSAL (copy attached)

184 5.2 Cambridgeshire County Council Highways – NO OBJECTIONS subject to conditions requiring location of gates, and stopping up of the existing access to Denmark House.

5.3 Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeology – NO OBJECTIONS subject to imposition of a condition requiring investigation of the site.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 ONE petition signed by residents of No.’s 1-17 and 19 Moorfield Way opposing any plans to bring traffic into the road as it is quite an elderly road and access would take this away with vehicles and children.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

Principle of Development

7.2 The site is considered to be within the built-up area of Great Stukeley, therefore in accordance with policies E2 of the Huntingdonshire LDF Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010 and CS3 of the Core Strategy, the principle of infill residential development of up to three dwellings is considered acceptable.

7.3 The Core Strategy does allow for larger scale developments where it offers the most sustainable option for the site and suggests that in smaller settlements (such as Great Stukeley), developments seeking an excess of minor scale (nine dwellings) may be acceptable but requires strong justification. The application seeks four new dwellings which is considered acceptable in principle based upon the services and public transport available within the village and the benefits of making more efficient use of the land.

7.4 Core Strategy policy CS4 requires that 40% of all housing on proposals of 3 or more homes in smaller settlements be affordable. The application proposes one of the four properties (25%) to be affordable; this will require a Section 106 Agreement to secure the provision, but the application is considered acceptable in this regard.

7.5 As such, the principle of development is acceptable subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement.

Character and Appearance of the Area

7.6 Properties fronting onto Ermine Street are generally two storey properties and detached or semi-detached. Properties in Montagu Road to the west of the site are generally two storey semi-detached and properties in Moorfield Way are single storey dwellings, understood to generally be occupied by elderly residents, but not restricted to elderly occupation.

185 Layout:

7.7 The proposed siting of the dwelling within Plot 1, with its own access, is considered to provide an element of continuity in the built form along Ermine Street and maintains the notable set back of dwellings from the verge. The plot size and scale of the dwelling is felt to be appropriate for the locality and the dwelling will not appear cramped within the plot.

7.8 The plots to the rear of the site are considered to be well sited around the access road and aligned with the plots on Montagu Road.

7.9 The overall layout of the site reflects guidance in the Design Guide in terms of public and private spaces with ‘backs’ of properties facing back gardens and ‘fronts’ facing onto roads and paths. The garages are considered to be sited in locations which do not dominate their plots, or the wider streetscene.

Design:

7.10 Plot 1 – this property will be read in association with Denmark House by virtue of the footpath separating the semi detached properties to the east. The design, fenestration and scale proposed for this dwelling is considered to compliment the existing and will not appear out of place within the streetscene. The rear projection accords with the Design Guide and has a subordinate relationship to the main range; this aids in reducing the massing of the dwelling when viewed from the east. This property is to have brick walls and slate roof which are considered acceptable in principle.

7.11 Plots 2 and 3 – these have been designed to minimise the bulk and massing of the dwellings with gable projections, which again have a subservient appearance. The materials are proposed to be a mix of render and vertical boarding for the walls and slate for the roof; these are considered acceptable and the final colours and details could be secured by condition.

7.12 Plot 4 – this is one and half storey and is orientated to front onto the access from Moorfield Way. The scale is considered appropriate as a link between the single storey properties adjacent the site and the two storey dwellings proposed within the site. The materials proposed for this plot are also render and timber which is felt to give a contemporary look and will aid in integrating the site with the adjacent properties that are of mixed materials.

7.13 The garage design with a single door does not accord with the Design Guide which suggests that double width garage doors can be visually dominant and that two single doors provide better proportions. It is however accepted that this would necessitate an increase in the width to accommodate a mid pier which in this instance is not considered desirable. The garage as detailed is therefore considered to be acceptable in this instance.

Levels:

7.14 The site plan (Drawing No. 1378/02/05) indicates finished floor levels (FFL). These generally correspond with the existing site levels and

186 are considered acceptable. Whilst the Parish Council comments are noted with regards to the levels and the overdevelopment of the site, it is not considered that the proposals will significantly harm the character and appearance of the area.

Landscaping:

7.15 The Arboricultural Report and Tree Protection Plan are both satisfactory; whist the report is dated 2008, it is still considered appropriate and valid for this site. The Ash Tree which is covered by the TPO, an apple tree to the rear of the site, the Common Spruce in the neighbouring site, and the hedgerows along the eastern and part of the western boundary can all be retained and protected; whilst a number of trees are detailed as being removed, those which contribute most significantly to the character and appearance of the area are to be retained.

7.16 The soft landscape proposals are largely considered appropriate, there are some concerns over the spacing and size of species proposed however these can easily be overcome and secured by condition.

7.17 Details of the proposed hardstanding have not been provided within the submitted details however these could be secured by condition.

7.18 Therefore, subject to conditions relating to landscaping matters and materials, no Officer objections are raised in this regard.

Residential Amenity

7.19 The scheme has been well designed with regards to south facing gardens and minimal first floor windows within plots 2, 3 and 4. The use of rooflights is considered appropriate and the separation distance between plots is sufficient to ensure that potential overlooking and loss of privacy within the site is reduced.

7.20 With regards to impacts upon adjacent dwellings, the siting of the dwellings with regards to Moorfield Way is considered satisfactory to ensure residential amenity is not significantly harmed. No first floor windows are proposed within the east facing gable elevation of Plot 4 and the separation distance as a result of the public footpath, is considered sufficient to minimise the afternoon overshadowing to the rear garden of No. 10 Ermine Street.

7.21 There are first floor windows to bedrooms two and three in the western elevations of both plots two and three; these are to be approximately 10.4 metres from the site boundary which is considered adequate in terms of residential amenity in this residential location, such that they will not result in any significant detrimental loss of residential amenity.

7.22 Comments with regards to disturbance from children as a result of the development being for family housing and Moorfield Way being predominantly elderly residents is noted, however it is not considered that the potential resultant disturbance in this residential area is a reason to refuse the application.

187 7.23 It is considered that permitted development rights should be removed by virtue of the relationship of the properties, particularly with regards to the insertion of additional windows and extensions.

Highway Safety

7.24 The proposed access points are adequate in size and geometry to accommodate the number of dwellings served by each. It is noted that the internal space available within the garages is approximately 5m wide by 5.5m long; this is a very tight arrangement for two vehicles, however it is considered sufficient to provide for one vehicle and additional storage. The parking and turning arrangements are acceptable as they allow vehicles to enter and leave in forward gear and the parking provision is in accordance with the current parking guidelines of a maximum of two spaces per dwelling.

7.25 Verbal concerns have been raised relating to the parking arrangements for No. 13 Moorfield Way, which is alongside the southern boundary. The existing arrangement means that this driveway is at right angles to the highway with the boundary treatment creating a ‘stop’ to the highway. The proposal to extend this roadway is considered to improve the access to this driveway as the arrangements will not be as tight. Concerns have also been raised about an increase in traffic from this location; the access point is to serve three additional dwellings. Whilst it is accepted that these are likely to be family properties and are therefore more than likely to have more than one vehicle, it is not considered that there will be a significant increase in traffic such that a recommendation of refusal could be upheld.

7.26 There is sufficient space within the garages and garden store for cycle storage, it is however considered necessary to condition these elements be provided prior to the occupation of the dwelling to ensure that they are provided.

Other Matters

Drainage:

7.27 Concerns have been raised by the Parish Council over drainage issues as gardens of neighbouring bungalows still get waterlogged after substantial rain. A condition can secure the details of foul and surface water drainage be submitted to ensure that the development does not exacerbate the existing situation and is addressed prior to construction.

Sustainable Attributes:

7.28 The Design and Access Statement details that each dwelling is to have a minimum of two 200litre water harvesting tanks, six square metres of photovoltaic panels, air source heat pumps and that all joinery is to be from sustainable sources.

7.29 These elements can all be secured by condition; details of the air source heat pump will be required in order to check that the siting is not harmful to residential amenity by virtue of noise.

188 Archaeology:

7.30 The comments of the Archaeology Officer are noted and a condition can secure the implementation of an archaeological investigation.

S106 Agreement

7.31 The applicant has agreed to enter into an appropriately worded S106 Agreement in respect of the delivery of 1 affordable housing unit.

Conclusion

7.32 It is considered that the proposal is acceptable in principle and that it will not have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the area, significantly harm residential amenity of the surrounding neighbours or of the occupants of the proposed dwellings and will not have an adverse impact upon highway safety. Therefore, taking national and local planning policies into account, and having regard for all relevant material considerations, it is considered that planning permission should be granted, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement which secures one unit as an affordable unit.

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

8. RECOMMENDATION - that powers be delegated to the Head of Planning Services to APPROVE the application subject to the successful resolution of the following: * Prior completion of the S106 Legal Agreement.

Conditions to include:

1. Time limit 2. Material samples

3. Recommendations of the Tree Survey and Arboricultural Constraints Report Ref. 1359.Stokes.GtStukeley.TCR

4. Remove Permitted Development Rights for Part 1 Classes A, B and E and Part 2 Class A

5. Hard and soft landscape details

6. Details of sustainable elements as detailed in Design and Access Statement to be submitted including product specification and siting

7. Stopping up of existing access to Denmark House within 28 days of the new access being used

8. Any gates shall be located a minimum of 6m from the near edge of the carriageway

9. Archaeological investigation.

189 10. Cycle storage

11. Foul and surface water drainage

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Ms Charlotte Fox Assistant Development Management Officer 01480 388457

190 193 194 195 196 197 My ref: CCC-OWC-166 Your ref: Date: 20/05/2016 Contact: Rebecca Roberts Direct dial: 01223 728588

E Mail: [email protected]

Economy, Transport and Environment Executive Director, Graham Hughes Basil Samila

Headley Stokes Associates Ltd Box No. SH1315 Ferrar House Shire Hall 70 High Street Castle Hill Cambridge Huntingdon CB3 0AP PE29 3DL

REF: Proposed re-alignment of existing piped watercourse. Location:Land North of 13 Moorfield Way, Great Stukeley, PE28 4AW

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your application for Ordinary Watercourse Land Drainage Consent received by Cambridgeshire County Council on 23rd March 2016.

I confirm that your proposals for the permanent works are acceptable to Cambridgeshire County Council. I enclose consent number CCC-OWC-166 issued under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991.

Please notify this authority no less than seven days before commencement and upon completion of the works via one of the methods of contact above quoting the above consent number for reference.

Yours faithfully,

Juliet Richardson Head of Service – Growth and Economy

If you have any queries regarding this application please contact the relevant Case Officer (contact details are above).

Cambridgeshire County Council Ordinary Watercourse Land Drainage Consent Land Drainage Act 1991

Name Mr Steve Cook Elite Homes (Cambs) Ltd 31 Waddling Lane Whethampstead St Albans AL4 8FD

Consent applying to Proposed re-alignment of existing piped watercourse.

Land North of 13 Moorfield Way, Great Stukeley, PE28 4AW

Consent Number CCC-OWC-166

Effective from: 20th May 2016

Expiry date: 20th May 2019

- 1 - Introduction This note does not form part of the Certificate of Authorisation. Cambridgeshire County Council Land Drainage Consents are required by virtue of the Land Drainage Act 1991. The following activities on an Ordinary (non-main) Watercourse require Local Authority Consent: Under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991:  The erection or alteration of any mill dam, weir or other like obstruction to the flow of any watercourse;  The erection or alteration of any culvert that would be likely to affect the flow of any watercourse. Under Sections 17 and 20(2) of the Land Drainage Act 1991:  Any drainage works carried out by a local authority against flooding in connection with any watercourse. Under Section 61F Land Drainage Act 1991 (Inserted by Schedule 22 Environment Act 1995)  The operation of any drainage works, under the control of any Internal Drainage Board or local authority, so as to manage the level of water in a watercourse for the purposes of facilitating spray irrigation. Note: Consent under the above legislation is required irrespective of whether the works are permanent or temporary. Contraventions In relation to Ordinary Watercourses, the Agency can under Section 24 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 serve a legal notice requiring the person to abate the nuisance within a specified time. Failure to abide by such a notice can result in the Cambridgeshire County Council carrying out the necessary remedial work and seeking to recover costs.

- 2 - Land Drainage Act 1991 Land Drainage Consent

Control of works affecting watercourses and/or flood defences

Consent number: CCC-OWC-166

To Mr Steve Cook Elite Homes (Cambs) Ltd 31 Waddling Lane Whethampstead St Albans AL4 8FD

Cambridgeshire County Council in exercise of its powers under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 and, subject to the conditions attached, hereby grants its consent in relation to the works or operations described in this Consent. Watercourse: Ordinary Watercourse (piped) Location: Land North of 13 Moorfield Way, Great Stukeley, PE28 4AW Map reference: E 521914, N 274615 Description of works: Proposed re-alignment of existing piped watercourse. As detailed on plans and sections: Drawing Reference: J2322/01/rev.B - Proposed Drainage Plan (19.May.2016) Drawing reference: 1713/02/005 – Proposed Block Plan and Location Plans (September 2015)

Cambridgeshire County Council does not accept any responsibility for the design and construction of the works referred hereto and any liability for any loss or damage which may arise out of their design, construction, maintenance or use. This Consent shall come into effect on Date 20th May 2016. Works for which this consent has been granted has to be undertaken within 3 years from this date. Signed on behalf of Cambridgeshire County Council

Juliet Richardson Head of Service – Growth and Economy

- 3 - Conditions

This consent is granted with the following conditions:

1. General

1.1. It is the applicant’s responsibility to obtain any consent/permission of any owners and occupiers that may be affected by the works. This consent does not remove the applicant’s necessity to obtain other licenses, consents, approvals or permissions (including planning permission) which may be required by law or in order to comply with any duties or responsibilities for conservation of protection of the environment. 1.2. The realignment works consented in this document should be undertaken prior to removing the existing piped watercourse. Any amendments or significant changes to the information provided must be consented by the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) at Cambridgeshire County Council for approval. 1.3. Works to be carried out in accordance with PPG 5 – Pollution Prevention Guidelines (copy as appended). Should any pollution problems occur on site, the Environment Agency must be informed immediately (0800 807060) and the LLFA also informed. 1.4. The applicant must provide a 24-hour emergency contact telephone number to the LLFA seven days prior to construction commencing. 1.5. This approval shall not detract from the powers of control available to the LLFA under Land Drainage Act 1991 Section 24 & 25 – dealing with obstructions and maintenance of flows in watercourses should future need arise 1.6. No excavated material or debris arising from the construction of the works shall be disposed of on the site or the flood plain without the prior approval of the LLFA. Upon completion of the works all debris and surplus materials must be removed from the site of the works and the banks left in a stable condition. The banks and / or the bed of the watercourse where disturbed shall be restored to the reasonable satisfaction of the LLFA.

2. Timing

2.1 Seven days notice of intention to commence works must be given to the LLFA.

2.2 The construction of the works described in this consent must be completed within 36 months from the date of issue of this consent. Works

- 4 - not completed within this time and/or any additional works will require consent. 2.3 Notice in writing must be given immediately by the applicant to the LLFA upon completion of the works.

3. Temporary Works

3.1 All temporary structures must be installed so immediate removal is possible if a Met Office severe weather warning is issued for the area or if instructed by a Cambridgeshire County Council officer. 3.2 All temporary damming works (with or without over pumping) must have prior consent from the LLFA and it has been agreed that works will avoid the need to temporarily dam the existing piped watercourse.

4. Site Specific

4.1 All initial ground clearance within the area of long / rough grassland, must be undertaken under the supervision of an experienced herpetologist. If any reptiles are found, a suitable reptile mitigation strategy should be produced and approved in writing with the LLFA.

Informatives Please be aware of the following informatives:

1. All reptiles are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), and as such it is an offence to injure, kill or take a reptile. In accordance with the Preliminary Ecological Assessment (Greenwillows Associates Ltd (November 2015) submitted to Huntingdonshire District Council in support of planning application 15/01753/FUL), the applicant shall check for the presence of these protected species immediately prior to top-strip / digging up the rough grassland to install the new pipe.

- 5 - A2

22000

19000 17815

Drawing: Tellett Engineering Consultants Orchard House, Moorfield Way, Great Stukeley, PE28 4AW Tebbutts Road, St Neots, Cambs, Proposed Drainage Plan PE19 1AW Drawn: RD Drawing No. Tel. 01480 570 067 Mob. 0780 8781140 Date: 19.May.2016 [email protected] J2322/01/rev.B Scale: 1:200