$$Adocpackpublic.Pdf

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, 16 JUNE 2008 at 7:00 PM and you are requested to attend for the transaction of the following business:-

APOLOGIES

1. MINUTES (Pages 1 - 12)

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 19th May 2008.

2. 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.

3. THE EAST OF ENGLAND PLAN - THE REVISION TO THE REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR THE EAST OF ENGLAND (Pages 13 - 16)

To consider a report by the Head of Planning Services. (Copies of the Plan are enclosed with Members’ copies only.)

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

4.1 Other Applications (Pages 17 - 60)

(a) Warboys - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission 9601420 to the date by which landfilling must cease from 31st December 2008 to 31st December 2011, Warboys Landfill Site, Puddock Hill

(b) Warboys - Variation of condition 1 of planning permission 9700476 to extend the date by which operation of the waste transfer station must cease from 31st December 2008 to 31st December 2011, Warboys Landfill Site, Puddock Hill

(c) Warboys - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission 0101229 to extend date until which clay overburden may be stored from 31st December 2008 until 31st December 2011, Warboys Landfill Site, Puddock Hill

(d) Woodhurst - Erection of dwelling, Silver Birches, South

(e) Kimbolton - Variation of condition 2 of permission and 0100204 to allow additional time for Stonely submission of reserved matters, Robinson, The Garage, Thrapston Road, Kimbolton

(f) Huntingdon - Erection of dwelling, land rear of 23 and 24 East Street.

To consider reports by the Development Control Manager.

4.2 Applications requiring reference to Development Control Panel (Pages 61 - 160)

(a) St Ives - Erection of four houses and conversion of offices into four flats following demolition of existing light industrial units, 23A to 27 West Street

(b) St Neots - Erection of dwelling, land at 16 Barford Road, Eynesbury

(d) Tilbrook - Construction of vehicular access, land adjacent 55 Station Road

(e) Tilbrook - Erection of dwelling, land adjacent 24 Station Road

(f) Alconbury - Erection of dwelling and garage, land adjacent 1 Globe Lane

(g) Earith - Erection of dwelling, West View Marina, High Street

(h) Houghton - Erection of four dwellings following and Wyton demolition of existing garage buildings, land at corner of The Green and St Ives Road, Houghton

(i) Houghton - Continued used of part of building as a and Wyton dwelling, Fish Farm, Hartford Lake, Banks End, Wyton

(j) Huntingdon - Erection of sixty-eight apartments, land south of Sovereign Bus and Coach Company, Stukeley Road

(k) Pidley- - Demolition of existing buildings and erection cum- of building for the sale and repair of

Fenton agricultural machinery, former Rays Motors Site, Fen Road, Pidley.

To consider reports by the Development Control Manager.

5. APPEAL DECISIONS (Pages 161 - 174)

To consider a report by the Development Control Manager.

Dated this 6th day of June 2008

Chief Executive

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please contact Ms C Deller, Democratic Services Manager, Tel No. 01480 388007/e-mail: [email protected] if you have a general query on any Agenda Item, wish to tender your apologies for absence from the meeting, or would like information on any decision taken by the Panel. However, if you wish to speak at the Panel's meeting regarding a particular Agenda Item please contact Jackie Holland, Tel No. 01480 388418 before 4.30 pm on the Friday preceding this meeting. Specific enquiries with regard to items on the Agenda should be

directed towards the Contact Officer. Members of the public are welcome to attend this meeting as observers except during consideration of confidential or exempt items of business.

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

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

Emergency Procedure

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

Agenda Item 1

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, 19 May 2008.

PRESENT: Councillor P G Mitchell – Chairman.

Councillors J D Ablewhite, Mrs B E Boddington, P L E Bucknell, E R Butler, C J Stephens, P A Swales, Mrs M J Thomas, R G Tuplin, P K Ursell, P R Ward and R J West.

APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence from the meeting were submitted on behalf of Councillors Mrs M Banerjee, W T Clough, J J Dutton and G S E Thorpe.

IN ATTENDANCE: Councillors K M Baker, S J Criswell, P J Downes, J A Gray, A Hansard, Miss S L Kemp, M F Newman, T V Rogers, T D Sanderson and M F Shellens.

7. MINUTES

The Minutes of the Panel held 14th May 2008 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman welcomed Councillor Mrs M J Thomas, newly elected Councillor, to her first meeting of the Panel.

8. MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Councillor P L E Bucknell declared a personal interest in Minute Nos. 10 and 11 having had previous knowledge of both matters by virtue of his position as Executive Councillor for Planning Strategy and Transport.

Councillor P K Ursell declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Minute No. 12 (c) and (d) by virtue of his membership of the St Neots Outdoor Swimming Pool Trust and left the Chamber during discussion and voting thereon.

Councillors E R Butler and P A Swales declared a personal interest in Minute No. 12 (j) by virtue of their association with the applicant.

Councillor P L E Bucknell declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Minute No. 12 (k) by virtue of an association with the applicant and left the Chamber during discussion and voting thereon.

Councillor P G Mitchell declared a personal interest in Minute No. 12 (f) as Ward Councillor for Holme.

1 9. SOMERSHAM CONSERVATION AREA: BOUNDARY REVIEW AND CHARACTER STATEMENT

By way of a report by the Planning Policy Manager (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book), the views of the Panel were invited on the content on the Somersham Conservation Area Boundary Review and Character Statement documents (copies of which also are appended in the Minute Book).

Members were reminded that the District Council was committed to the production of Conservation Area Character Statements which provided an analysis of the special interests of all sixty Conservation Areas in the District. These documents would guide decisions on planning matters and other changes to the fabric of the Conservation Areas to ensure their character and appearance were not diminished. In addition, the Panel was advised that the boundary of the Somersham Conservation Area was first designated in 1974 and that the proposed new boundaries would better reflect the historic interest of the settlement, the wider setting of the village and significant views and vistas within the Parish. Having concurred in the importance of the work which was essential to protect the village from development pressures, the Panel

RESOLVED

that the content of the Somersham Conservation Area Boundary Review and Character Statement documents be endorsed and the Cabinet recommended to adopt both as Council policy.

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

(See Minute No. 8 for Members’ Interests.)

Further to Minute No. 76, the Panel considered a report by the Head of Planning Services (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) containing an indication of early responses received to consultation on a design brief which examined the redevelopment opportunities presented by the site of the former health authority offices, south of Primrose Lane, Huntingdon.

The Panel was advised that comments received thus far had expressed a wish to retain one of the two victorian/edwardian buildings on the site to maintain some of the historic fabric of the town. It was reported that the Primrose building contributed most to the character of the Conservation Area.

Although the period of consultation with local and statutory bodies had yet to expire, Members

RESOLVED

that the Cabinet be advised that it would be the preference of the Panel to retain the Primrose building as part of future development of the site at Primrose Lane, Huntingdon but that consideration should be given to its demolition in the

2 event of a submission of a scheme of high quality for planning consent.

11. DESIGN BRIEF - MAYFIELD ROAD, HUNTINGDON

(See Minute No. 8 for Members’ Interests.)

A report by the Head of Planning Services was submitted (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) requesting the views of the Panel on the development opportunities presented by an area of open space along Mayfield Road, Huntingdon. A copy of the draft Design Brief also is appended in the Minute Book.

The Panel was advised that the site was currently in the ownership of the District Council and that discussions had taken place with registered social landlords to deliver a high quality, sustainable, eco- friendly, affordable residential development on the site.

Having been informed that the Design Brief still was subject to a period of consultation with local and statutory bodies, the Panel

RESOLVED

that the content of the Design Brief for Mayfield Road, Huntingdon be endorsed and the Cabinet recommended to adopt the document as Interim Planning Guidance subject to the retention of approximately one-third of the site as open space.

12. 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 (detailed of which also are appended in the Minute Book) which had been received in connection therewith since the reports had been prepared.

The Development Control Manager informed the Panel of the implications of the East of England Plan, recently published by the Government Office for the East of England and advised Members that they should disregard all references made in the Panel’s agenda for the meeting to policy P1/3 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan which had consequently been superseded.

Following consideration of the applications in question, it was

RESOLVED

(a) Development of new college campus and access works, associated parking and sports pitches, part of sports ground, Cambridgeshire Constabulary, Hinchingbrooke Park, Hinchingbrooke Road, Huntingdon – 07/03432/OUT

(District Councillors P J Downes, T D Sanderson and M F Shellens, Mr K Nancekievill and Dr Cracknell,

3 objectors and Ms A Constantine on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Panel on the application.)

(i) that, subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning Services to include those listed in paragraph 8 of the report now submitted, the Council be recommended to approve the application;

(ii) that, if the application is approved by the Council, the Government Office for the Eastern Region be invited to consider whether they wish to call in the proposal; and

(iii) that, in the event that the proposal is not called in by the Government Office, the Director of Environmental and Community Services be authorised to advertise the application as a departure from the Development Plan.

(b) Residential development following demolition of college buildings and access improvements, Huntingdonshire Regional College, California Road, Huntingdon – 07/03433/OUT

(District Councillors Ms S Kemp and M F Shellens and Ms A Constantine and Mr M Page on behalf of the applicants addressed the Panel on the application.)

(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 8 of the report now submitted.

(c) Development of new college campus with access and car parking, land at site of former St Neots open air swimming pool, Huntingdon Road, St Neots – 07/03435/OUT

(See Minute No. 8 for Members’ interests.)

(Ms A Constantine on behalf of the 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 access for the public to

4 parking spaces on the college site during evenings and weekends at times when the college is not in use; 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 8 of the report now submitted.

(d) Residential development following demolition of college building and construction of access from Huntingdon Street, land at and including Huntingdonshire Regional College and corner of Priory Hill Park. Huntingdon Road, St Neots – 07/03505/OUT

(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 contributions detailed in paragraphs 8.1 – 8.6 of the report now submitted and additionally, at the request of the Section 106 Agreement Advisory Group, to ensure that development on the open grassed area of Priory Park and on the proposed residential site does not progress until such time as development commences on the provision of the new college campus, that residential development on the remainder of the site does not commence until the new campus is delivered and that public access within an agreed timeframe to 59 car parking spaces be provided on the new campus site.; and

(iii) that the application be approved subject to the completion of the Agreement referred to resolution (i) above and to conditions to be determined by the Head of the Planning Services to include those listed in paragraph 10 of the report now submitted.

(e) Extension to dwelling, 12 Castel Way, Folksworth – 08/01047/FUL

that, as the application had been withdrawn at the request of the applicant, no further consideration be given to the proposals.

(f) Erection of eight dwellings, land adjacent 25 St Giles Close, Holme – 08/01163/FUL

(See Minute No. 8 for Members’ Interests.)

(Mr R Finnegan, objector and Mr D Mead, agent, 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 contributions relating to affordable housing and education as detailed in paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the report now submitted; and

(ii) that the Head of Planning Services be authorised to approve the application subject to the completion of the Agreement referred to in resolution (i) above, to conditions to include those listed in paragraph 8 of the report now submitted and subject to no new material issues being raised prior to the expiry of the neighbour consultation period.

(g) Erection of replacement dwelling, Greenacres, St Ives Road, Somersham – 08/01073/FUL

(Councillor S J Criswell, Ward Councillor and Mr P Cursley, applicant, addressed the Panel on the application.)

that the application be refused for the following reason -

the proposed replacement dwelling, due to its design, scale, form and prominent location would have a materially greater impact on the countryside than the existing dwelling to the detriment of the character and visual amenity of the area contrary to policies H27 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 and H4 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007.

(h) Change of use of cottage into two dwellings, Maltings Cottage, Needingworth Road, St Ives – 08/00767/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.

(i) Extension to form additional retail unit with flat over, Units 1 - 3 Bishops Road and Flats 3, 5 and 7 Andrew Road, Eynesbury – 08/003125/FUL

(Councillor A Hansard, Ward Councillor and Mrs M Adnitt, objector, addressed the Panel on the application.)

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 and additionally to reduce potential for

6 overlooking from the proposed balcony and site levels.

(j) Erection of replacement dwelling, 70 Low Road, Little Stukeley – 08/00848/FUL

(See Minute No. 8 for Members’ Interests.)

(Councillor K Baker, Ward Councillor addressed the Panel on the application and although having a personal and prejudicial interest in the application was permitted to speak under the terms of the Members’ Code of Conduct. Councillor Baker left the Chamber on the conclusion of his address.)

that consideration of the application be deferred to enable the Development Control Manager to undertake further negotiations with the applicant to secure an improved design for the dwelling and changes to the positioning of the garage on site relative to the proposed house.

(k) Erection of dwelling, Silver Birches, South Street, Woodhurst – 07/03340/FUL

(See Minute No. 8 for Members’ Interests.)

(Councillor M F Newman, Ward Councillor and Mr A Augstein, applicant, addressed the Panel on the application.)

that consideration of the application be deferred until the next meeting to enable the Panel to undertake an accompanied site visit and in particular to view the site from the adjacent property “Chelsea Rest”.

(l) Erection of two dwellings, land at 81 The Highway, Great Staughton – 08/00411/FUL

(Councillor J A Gray, Ward Councillor and Mr P Bradbury, agent, addressed the Panel on the application.)

that the application be refused for the following reasons –

♦ the proposed dwellings will, due to their position, height, mass and scale, as represented within the illustrated street scene on drawing DD 729, have a poor physical relationship with the adjacent built form. The resulting dwellings would form an overly prominent, cramped and disproportionally large form of development. The proposed development is therefore considered contrary to policies H32 and En25 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995, policy HL5 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002 policies P3, G2 and B1 of the Huntingdonshire

7 Interim Planning Policy Statement, 2007, Planning Policy Statement No. 3 and the Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2007; ♦ the proposed access to the site is inadequate and below the standard required by reason of the poor visibility to the west of the site towards the bend in the B645 and its proximity to the junction at this bend. Furthermore the manoeuvring of vehicles likely to be generated by the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the safety and free flow of traffic on the adjoining public highway. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Planning Policy Statement No. 1 and Planning Policy Guidance Note 13; and ♦ the proposed dwellings will have an adverse effect upon the amenities of the surrounding properties by reason of overlooking and an overbearing impact. The proposal would, therefore, be contrary to policy H31 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 and policy B4 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007.

(The Panel noted the content of written representations which had been circulated on behalf of Councillor J A Gray.)

(m) Erection of dwelling, land south west of 80 High Street, Needingworth – 08/01188/FUL

(Councillor T V Rogers, Ward Councillor, Councillor M Williamson, Holywell cum Needingworth Parish Council and Mr M Page, agent, addressed the Panel on the application.)

that the application be refused for the following reason –

having regard to the limited area of the site, the close proximity to the boundaries and the resulting space about the building, the proposed erection of a dwelling would appear cramped and incongruous in the streetscene and generally detract from the character and appearance of the area contrary to polices H32 and En25 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 as altered by the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations 2002.

(n) Demolish of existing dwelling and garages and erection of twelve flats with associated parking and landscaping, Whitehills, 7 Mill Common, Huntingdon – 08/00967/FUL

(Mr D Riach, objector, and Mr D Mead, applicant, addressed the Panel on the application.)

that the application be refused for the following

8 reasons –

♦ the proposed erection of a building for twelve units, by reason of its design, scale and massing fails to respect and respond appropriately to the existing semi-rural character of Mill Common. The building would not preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Given the scale of the development, the building would form an unduly prominent addition in the landscape, particularly when viewed from Port Holme, due to its scale and form. The extensive area of hard landscaping proposed at the front of the site would also form an incongruous element within this semi rural area to its detriment. The proposal is therefore contrary to Planning Policy Statement Nos. 1 and 3, Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 15, policies En5, En6, En9 and En25 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995, policy HL5 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002, policies P3, G2, B1 and B8 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement, 2007 and the Huntingdonshire Design Guide, 2007; ♦ the proposed building due to its height and positioning of windows would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the adjacent neighbour, Penwartha, to the east of the site by reason of overlooking. In addition to this the poorly proportioned windows to the top floor accommodation and proximity to the existing trees along the boundary would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of future occupiers, due to the limited and restricted amount of natural daylight that would enter these rooms. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy H31 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 and policy B4 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement, 2007; ♦ due to the insufficient information supplied with the application, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety; ♦ the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have a harmful impact on the archaeological interest of this site. The proposal is therefore contrary to Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 16, policies En12 and En13 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 and policy B9 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement, 2007; and ♦ the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the existing trees and hedgerows on the site. The proposal is therefore

9 contrary to policy En18 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 and policy G3 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement, 2007.

(o) Retention of alterations to building, Unit 4 and 5, Cromwell Court, High Street, Kimbolton – 08/00659/FUL and 08/00655/LDC

that the application be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning Services to include one non-standard condition relating to de tails. [The Panel noted the content of written representations which had been circulated on behalf of Councillor J A Gray.]

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

(Mr D Cubitt, owner, addressed the Panel on the application.)

Having regard to a report by the Development Control Manager (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) and in view of the continued use of the woodshaving line at Sundown Straw Ltd and the existing access onto Station Road, Tilbrook, the Panel

RESOLVED

that the Head of Legal and Estates be authorised to take appropriate enforcement action to secure the cessation of the woodshaving line operation at Sundown Straw Ltd, Station Road, Tilbrook or the implementation of the access arrangement approved in planning consent 06/03767/FUL or implementation of the access arrangement approved in planning consent 07/04009/FUL within six months of the date upon which the enforcement notice is served.

[The Panel noted the content of written representations which had been circulated on behalf of Councillor J A Gray.]

14. 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 seven appeals against refusal of planning permission by the District Council.

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

Having received a report by the Development Control Manager (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) regarding the activities of the Development Control Section for the quarter 1st January to 31st March 2008, the Panel was pleased to note that the Section had met all national performance targets for the determination of major, minor and other applications over the period.

16. CAMBRIDGESHIRE AND PETERBOROUGH MINERALS AND WASTE PLAN

Members noted an invitation to attend a presentation by the County Council on the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Plan to be held at 5.45 pm on Monday, 16th June 2008.

Chairman

11 This page is intentionally left blank

12 Agenda Item 3

AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 16 JUN 2008

THE EAST OF ENGLAND PLAN – THE REVISION TO THE REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR THE EAST OF ENGLAND

(Report by Head of Planning Services )

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Secretary of State has now issued the East of England Plan - The Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England and that document now forms part of the statutory Development Plan for Huntingdonshire.

2. THE REVISION TO THE REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

2.1 The Government considers that this review of the Regional Spatial Strategy embeds, within the statutory planning system, a sustainable long term vision for delivering new development in a region faced with dealing with particularly strong growth pressures. It outlines a 20 year vision in terms of how the Government intends to tackle climate change, address housing shortages, strengthen the region’s economy, improve the quality of life for the people of the region and improve and conserve the region’s environment. The RSS covers the period to 2021 buts sets out a vision, objectives and a core strategy for the longer term.

THE SPATIAL STRATEGY

2.2 The regional spatial strategy strongly reflects the Governments desire to put into place a strategy which promotes, rather than constrains, medium and longer term growth. The spatial strategy directs most of the strategically significant growth to the region’s major urban areas where public transport accessibility is at its best and there is the potential to use the proposed growth as a means of enhancing physical and social infrastructure. It is proposed that 60% of the proposed new development would be on previously developed land. Cambridge and Peterborough are defined as being Key Centres for Development and Change whilst the strategy also considers that other growth should be directed towards the market towns in order to increase their economic and social sustainability.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

2.3 The economic development strategy aims to ensure the continued growth of the regions economy and to deliver a better alignment between the location of homes and jobs. The plan states that Local Development Documents should also take into account the outcomes of the on-going review of the Regional Economic Strategy; which is to be published in the summer. Therefore significant growth in jobs is proposed, with an indicative 452,000 for the whole region up to 2021,

13 with 75,000 new jobs being proposed for Cambridgeshire and 20,000 in Peterborough. The strategic employment policies designate the Cambridge Sub-Region as a centre for world-class research and development whilst Peterborough, to achieve regeneration, is advocated as a centre for the growth of environmental services. The cluster development policy goes on to outline support for a life- science regional super-cluster with concentrations at locations including in the Cambridge sub-region, an environmental technologies cluster stretching from Essex to Cambridgeshire with a particular focus on Peterborough and a strong ICT cluster in the Cambridge area.

HOUSING

2.4 The housing strategy proposes a further increase in the planned overall housing numbers for the region so that local planning authorities should facilitate the delivery of at least 508,000 net additional dwellings over the period to 2021. District allocations should be regarded as being minimum targets to be achieved, rather than ceilings which should not be exceeded. Within Cambridgeshire the proposed overall minimum dwelling provision is set at some 98,300 new dwellings with the spread of provision being 11,200 for Huntingdonshire, 19,000 for Cambridge City, 8,600 for East Cambs, 11,000 for Fenland, 23,500 for South Cambs and 25,000 for Peterborough.

2.5 The Plan states that all the local planning authorities should plan for the delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption of relevant development plan documents. When bringing forward land for housing, planning authorities should take account of the regional spatial strategy, the need for the co-ordination and consistency of approach between neighbouring authorities and the need to co- ordinate development with necessary transport and other infrastructure provision.

2.6 With regard to affordable housing provision the Secretary of State has clarified the policy position by setting a regional target for 35% affordable housing provision.

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT STRATEGY

2.7 The regional transport strategy encourages a significant change in travel behaviour, encourages a reduction in distances travelled and a shift towards more sustainable modes of travel. The strategy states that demand management measures should be used to tackle congestion. The strategic and regional road network should be improved, managed and maintained and priority should be given to the efficient and sustainable movement of freight.

ENVIRONMENT

2.8 The Plan includes policies to protect the countryside and to promote diversity and the Great Fen Project is defined as being a regionally strategically significant green infrastructure project. Other policies seek to conserve the regions natural and historic environments and encourage high quality built environments.

14 CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

2.9 The Plan strongly outlines that the regional strategy should seek to locate and design new developments in order to optimise its carbon performance and that local authorities should encourage the supply of energy from decentralised, renewable and low carbon energy sources. Proposals for the generation of renewable power should be supported in order to ensure that by 2020 17% of the region’s energy comes from renewable sources. Water efficiency and integrated water management are also advocated.

SUB-AREAS AND KEY CENTRES FOR DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE

The Cambridge Sub-Region

2.10 The strategy for the Cambridge sub-region, as previously defined by the Structure Plan, is carried forward largely unchanged into this RSS. The Plan advocates that a comprehensive approach to growth should be adopted to secure the necessary infrastructure and the previously adopted sequential approach to accommodating growth (within Cambridge, on the periphery of Cambridge, at Northstowe and then within, or on the peripheries of, the sub-region’s market towns) has been reiterated.

Peterborough

2.11 Peterborough is also defined as a Key Centre for Development and Change, at the centre of a sub-region which includes parts of Huntingdonshire, with the aim of the policy being to strengthen Peterborough’s role as a major regional centre and focus for the northern part of the London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough Growth Area.

3. CONCLUSIONS

3.1 The East of England Plan will set the strategic planning framework for this region for the period up to 2021. It will be the fundamental aspect of regional and local policy, it will guide and influence all strategic development and planning decisions, and therefore the application of its policies will have a pronounced material impact on the future character of Huntingdonshire.

3.2 The East of England Plan now forms part of the statutory Development Plan for Huntingdonshire. Accordingly this Council, when acting in respect of its role as the local planning authority, will have to pay due regard to the Plan and its policies in respect of its decision making.

4. RECOMMENDATION

4.1 That the Panel notes that the Secretary of State has now issued the East of England Plan and that this revision to the RSS will form part of the statutory Development Plan for Huntingdonshire.

15 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The East of England Plan – The Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England – May 2008

Contact Officer: Steve Ingram, Head of Planning Services Tel: 01480 388400

16 Agenda Item 4a

AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 16 JUN 2008

OTHER APPLICATIONS (Reports by Development Control Manager)

Case No: 0805007CCM (COUNTY COUNCIL MATTER)

Proposal: VARIATION OF CONDITION 2 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 9601420 TO THE DATE BY WHICH LANDFILLING MUST CEASE FROM 31 DECEMBER 2008 TO 31 DECEMBER 2011

Location: WARBOYS LANDFILL SITE PUDDOCK HILL

Applicant: WOODFORD WASTE MANAGEMENT LTD

Grid Ref: 530913 281798

Date of Registration: 07.05.2008

Parish: WARBOYS

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 This is a County Matter and falls to Cambridgeshire County Council to determine as Waste Authority. In this instance the views of Huntingdonshire District Council are sought as one of several consultees. The application is one of three concurrent applications seeking to extend various operations at the landfill site beyond the present permitted timescale until 31st December 2011.

1.2 The landfill site which covers approximately 26 hectares, is located in a rural setting approximately 650m north of Warboys. It is located on a ridgeline with topography at the site rising from approximately 5mAOD at the northern site boundary to around 22mAOD at the south western boundary, before levelling off on a high plateau across the land to the south of the site. Wistow Fen, which comprises a large area of topographically flat agricultural land to the north of the site, is situated at approximately 1-2mAOD.

1.3 The landfill site is accessed from Station Road and a transport routing agreement is in place to route HGV’s along Fenside Road. The site entrance is purpose built with lockable gates. A number of properties are located along Puddock Road to the north of the site, and several farms and agricultural small holdings are situated within 1km of the site.

1.4 The Warboys Wood and Wistow Woods Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) are located to the west of the site. Warboys Claypit itself is a SSSI affording a rare opportunity to study surface exposures of two upper Jurassic formations of upper Oxford Clay and Ampthill Clay. To the north and south of the site lies agricultural land.

17 To the east is a pond beyond which are a number of dwellings with agricultural land further to the east.

1.5 The restoration of the former clay pit is now substantially complete and is being progressively restored. Cell 6 in the east part of the Warboys Landfill site remains incomplete. This was due to the ban on co-disposal of waste and subsequent changes in ownership which meant the landfill was not operational for a significant period of time. It is estimated that the remaining void is some 300,00m3 and the predicted waste inputs are some 100,000 tonnes per annum and therefore a period of some 36 months will be required to complete the filling. It is possible that with these predictions filling could be completed within a shorter time frame.

1.6 The application proposal seeks to vary condition 2 of a planning permission 9601420 to allow land filling operations to continue and to be completed in Cell 6 extending beyond the present date by which operations must cease, from 31st December 2008 to 31 December 2011.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 National guidance encompasses European Legislation; the Waste Strategy for England May 2007; East of England Plan 2008 and PPS10 - Planning for sustainable waste management.

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

• WM1 – Waste Management Objectives

• WM5 – Planning for Waste Management

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

3.2 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• None saved

3.3 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Waste Local Plan 2003

2 18 • WLP1 -To achieve sustainable waste management all proposals for waste development will be considered in the context of achieving the best practicable environmental option taking into account regional self sufficiency, the proximity principle and the waste hierarchy.”

• WLP4 - Waste development will only be permitted where:

a) The access and the highway network serving the site are suitable or could be made suitable and able to accommodate any associated increase in traffic; and

b) Any associated increase in traffic or highway improvements would not cause unacceptable harm to the environment, road safety or residential amenity.

• WLP7 -Waste development will not be permitted in the countryside unless it can be demonstrated that its impact on the landscape can be assimilated without significantly adversely changing the existing landscape character.

• WLP9 -Waste development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it is compatible with existing or proposed neighbouring land uses and there would be no unacceptable harm to the environment or to human health or safety, visual intrusion or loss to residential or other amenities.

• WLP10 -Waste development will only be permitted where:

a) It has been demonstrated that there would be no likely adverse impact on existing or proposed sites of international importance for nature conservation i.e. Ramsar sites, Special Protection Areas or Special Areas of Conservation;

b) It has been demonstrated that there will be no likely significant adverse impact on sites of national importance for nature conservation, i.e. national nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest; and

c) It has been demonstrated that there will be no likely significant adverse impact on sites of local nature conservation or geological interest, such as county wildlife sites or regionally important geological sites, or any landscape feature that is of major importance for wild flora or fauna unless it has been demonstrated that satisfactory mitigation measures would be put in place.

• WLP11 is concerned with protected species

• WLP15 is concerned with environmental protection, particularly groundwater and surface water protection.

3.4 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

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

3 19 • En23 states - Development within, or which adversely affects, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserve or Local Nature Reserve, or which has a significant adverse effect on the interests of wildlife in an area of Special Importance for Nature Conservation, will not normally be permitted.

3.5 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

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

• None relevant.

3.6 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

• None relevant.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The site has a substantial and significant history culminating recently in an appeal dismissal (and an award of costs to the Council) for a proposal to dispose of hazardous waste by landfill in cell 6 and regularisation of current and historic co-disposal of non hazardous waste.

4.2 In respect of this particular proposal the relevant history is:-

Planning permission No: H/0447/93 for the controlled land filling of waste, given by Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) on 13th April 1993. This permission was for a temporary period up to 31st December 1999.

Condition 2 of planning permission H/0447/93 was varied on 24th February 1997 under Planning Permission No. H/1420/96 to allow land filling operations to continue until 31st December 2008.

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 HDC Environmental Protection Officer comment:-

I am in receipt of the application to vary condition 2 of planning application no. H/1420/96 for the Extension of time for operation of Warboys Landfill Site from Woodford Waste Management Limited. Upon reviewing the report I have no objection to the variation to extend the time for infilling the landfill to 31 December 2011 providing the applicant operates in accordance with an Environmental Permit issued by the Environment Agency.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 Not applicable.

4 20

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 Section 73 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) is a mechanism enabling variation or removal of conditions imposed upon previous planning permissions. In this case, the original permission for land filling has already been varied earlier to allow the land filling operation to continue until 31st December 2008. The proposal does not vary from the originally approved application in any substantive form but merely seeks to extend the period in which filling of the incomplete Cell 6 by can take place and which will then allow restoration of the whole site to a beneficial after use. Conditions imposed upon the initial permission restrict the operating hours and practices on the site and these would be repeated.

7.2 The filling operation will operate in the same way as previously intended and approved and would remain subject to the same planning conditions that were imposed and controls under its Waste Management Licence. This application seeks only to extend the timescale over which the operations at the landfill site are permitted. In this circumstance there is no conflict with Policy En23 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995.

7.3 As the proposal relates solely to the completion for the filling of Cell 6, the protection policies outlined in the County Waste Plan 2003 and the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 have already been addressed in the grant of the initial permission. Those apart, the proposal is compliant with current National and Local Policy and indeed it would be a pragmatic and sensible approach to allow the extended period given the desire/need to complete land filling and enable restoration of the land to a beneficial afteruse (which scheme is currently being prepared to satisfy conditions of the original permission).

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 the County Planning Authority be advised that this Council has no objection to the variation of Condition 2 of planning permission 9601420 to allow land filling of Cell 6 to continue until 31st December 2011, subject to the same operating conditions as previously imposed.

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Geoff Crocker Special Projects Officer 01480 388499.

5 21 This page is intentionally left blank

22 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 16 JUN 2008

Case No: 0805008CCM (COUNTY COUNCIL MATTER)

Proposal: VARIATION OF CONDITION 1 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 9700476 TO EXTEND THE DATE BY WHICH OPERATION OF THE WASTE TRANSFER STATION MUST CEASE FROM 31 DECEMBER 2008 TO 31 DECEMBER 2011

Location: WARBOYS LANDFILL SITE PUDDOCK HILL

Applicant: WOODFORD WASTE MANAGEMENT LTD

Grid Ref: 530913 281798

Date of Registration: 13.05.2008

Parish: WARBOYS

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.2 The landfill site is located in a rural setting approximately 650m north of Warboys. It is located on a ridgeline with topography at the site rising from approximately 5mAOD at the northern site boundary to around 22mAOD at the south western boundary, before levelling off on a high plateau across the land to the south of the site. Wistow Fen, which comprises a large area of topographically flat agricultural land to the north of the site, is situated at approximately 1-2mAOD. The application site lies along the north eastern boundary of the Warboys Landfill Site which comprises a haul road, a weighbridge and site cabin and covers approximately 26 hectares.

1.3 The recycling facility and the landfill site are accessed from Station Road and a transport routing agreement is in place to route HGV’s along Fenside Road. The site entrance is purpose built with lockable gates. A number of properties are located along Puddock Road to the north of the site, and several farms and agricultural small holdings are situated within 1km of the site.

23 To the east is a pond beyond which are a number of dwellings with agricultural land further to the east.

1.5 The application proposal seeks to vary condition 1 of a planning permission 9700476 to allow waste recycling operations to extend beyond the date by which operation of the waste transfer station must cease, from 31st December 2008 to 31 December 2011.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 National guidance encompasses European Legislation; the Waste Strategy for England May 2007; East of England Plan 2008 and PPS10 - Planning for sustainable waste management.

2.2 PPS10 describes how the overall objective of the Government’s policy on waste; states that waste should be managed in accordance with a waste hierarchy so that as much waste as possible is diverted from landfill, and managed in environmentally preferable ways; and that in considering planning applications for waste management facilities, Waste Planning Authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity. It acknowledges that these can also be concerns of the pollution control authorities and there should therefore be consistency between consents issued under the planning and pollution control regimes.

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 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

• WM1 – Waste Management Objectives

• WM5 – Planning for Waste Management

3.2 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• None saved

3.3 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Waste Local Plan 2003

2 24

• WLP1 -To achieve sustainable waste management all proposals for waste development will be considered in the context of achieving the best practicable environmental option taking into account regional self sufficiency, the proximity principle and the waste hierarchy.”

• WLP4 - Waste development will only be permitted where:

a) The access and the highway network serving the site are suitable or could be made suitable and able to accommodate any associated increase in traffic; and

b) Any associated increase in traffic or highway improvements would not cause unacceptable harm to the environment, road safety or residential amenity.

• WLP10 -Waste development will only be permitted where:

3.4 The Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Minerals & Waste Core Strategy -Site Specific Proposals Development Plan -Preferred Options 2006

3.5 The Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Minerals & Waste Core Strategy Site Specific Proposals Development Plan -Preferred Options document, published in November 2006, details the preferred sites for mineral working, waste management uses, minerals and waste safeguarding areas and mineral consultation areas until 2021.

3 25 3.6 The Recycling Facility and Waste Transfer Station at Warboys is specifically mentioned under Preferred Options SSP 10 as a site suitable for mixed waste stream recycling and recovery.

3.7 Preferred Option SSP 14 also states that: The following areas, shown on the proposals Map, are designated as Waste Safeguarding Areas:

a) existing waste management facilities that make a significant contribution in managing Cambridgeshire and Peterborough’s waste; and b) waste allocations made in SSP10, SSP11, SSP13 and SSP15.

3.8 The Warboys Recycling Facility and Waste Transfer Station is covered by both parts of Preferred Option 14.

3.9 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

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

• En23 states - Development within, or which adversely affects, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserve or Local Nature Reserve, or which has a significant adverse effect on the interests of wildlife in an area of Special Importance for Nature Conservation, will not normally be permitted.

3.10 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

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

• None relevant.

3.11 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• None relevant.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.2 In respect of this particular proposal the relevant history is:-

Planning permission for waste recycling operations at Warboys Landfill Site was originally granted by Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) on 13th September 1996 (Planning Permission No:

4 26 H/0560/96). This permission was for a temporary period up to 31st December 1999.

Condition 1 of planning permission H/0560/96 was varied on 12th August 1997 under Planning Permission No. H/0476/97, to allow the Waste Transfer Station to operate until 31st December 2008.

Conditions 8 and 10 of Planning Permission H/0560/96 were varied and additional conditions added on 8th March 2000 to allow for the transfer of special waste under Planning Permission No. H/1226/99.

The recycling and waste transfer operations carried out on site are licensed by the Environment Agency under Waste Management Licence TS202 issued on 29th June 1997, which was subsequently modified on 29th June 1997. This will be converted to an Environmental Permit from 6th April 2008

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 HDC Environmental Protection Officer comment:-

I am in receipt of the application to vary condition 1 of planning application no. H/0476/97, for the extension of time for operation of the Waste Transfer Station at Warboys Recycling Facility from Woodford Waste Management Limited. Upon reviewing the report, I have no objection to the variation of condition 1 to extend the time limit, providing the applicant operates in accordance with an Environmental Permit issued by the Environment Agency.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 Not applicable.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 Section 73 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) is a mechanism enabling variation or removal of conditions imposed upon previous planning permissions. In this case, the original permission has already been varied to allow the waste recycling operation to continue until 31st December 2008. The proposal does not vary from the originally approved application in any substantive form but merely seeks to extend the period in which the waste recycling operation can operate and to coincide with the timescale required to complete the landfill site (the subject of a separate application) by 31st December 2011. Conditions imposed upon the permission restrict the operating hours and practices on the site.

7.2 This recycling and transfer facility is currently allowed to receive up to 160,000 tonnes of materials for processing and recycling per year under its Environmental Permit. However, at the current time it receives between 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes of waste per year for reprocessing as the outdated design of the building restricts the waste throughputs which are realistically achievable.

7.3 The materials processed are predominantly skip waste, generally comprising construction and demolition waste. Generally, the waste accepted at this site includes road planings, builder’s rubble,

5 27 uncontaminated soils, wood, cardboard, plastics, paper and metals. Planning Permission H/1226/99 also allows the site to store drums of waste awaiting sampling, testing or removal from site in a specified area.

7.4 Material is delivered to the site in skips or LGVs either by the applicant’s own vehicles or by third party vehicles. The waste arrives on site from the gated, tarmacadamed access with Puddock Road. All waste vehicles pass over the weighbridge and are directed either straight to the landfill or to the recycling/waste transfer facility depending on the nature of the load.

7.5 Waste vehicles are directed to the appropriate reception area where the waste is discharged and transferred into the recycling building. Separation of recyclable wastes will be undertaken either by manual or mechanical means. Individual storage bins for the different recyclates are positioned nearby to receive the separated materials such as metal, cardboard, paper and plastics. Large items such as concrete blocks will also be segregated during this stage.

7.6 The residual material, mainly comprising soils, rubble and road planings will be separated out into material suitable for use as aggregates or materials suitable for use as soils and stored in easily accessible stockpiles ready for screening.

7.7 Materials entering the recycling facility are regularly checked upon arrival in accordance with routine company procedures and the Waste Management Licence Working Plan. Should any load be found to be non-compliant, the delivering driver is asked to inspect the load with the facility staff. If possible, these materials will be reloaded into the delivering vehicle (if safe to do so) and redirected to an appropriately permitted facility. If it is not possible to reload the non- complying waste immediately, it will either be moved or isolated until appropriate measures can be taken to deal with it. Should the facility inadvertently receive any difficult or hazardous non-compliant wastes, such incidents are dealt with by the Site Manager.

7.8 The proposed extension of time for the Waste Transfer Station at Warboys supports the provisions of the EU Waste Framework Directive by providing a facility for the recovery and recycling of waste in a process that does not pose a risk to the environment and is compliant with current National and Local Policy.

7.9 The facility will continue to operate in the same way as previously approved and would remain subject to the same planning conditions that were imposed and controls under its Waste Management Licence. This application seeks only to extend the timescale over which the operations at the landfill site are permitted. In this circumstance there is no conflict with Policy En23 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 nor those of the County Waste Plan 2003.

7.10 To extend the life of the waste transfer station to run concurrently with the landfill operation is considered to be acceptable.

6 28 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 the County Planning Authority be advised that this Council has no objection to the variation of Condition 1 of planning permission 9700476 to allow the waste transfer station to operate until 31st December 2011 subject to the same operating conditions as previously imposed.

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Geoff Crocker Special Projects Officer 01480 388499.

7 29 This page is intentionally left blank

30 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 16 JUN 2008

Case No: 0805009CCM (COUNTY COUNCIL MATTER)

Proposal: VARIATION OF CONDITION 2 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 0101229 TO EXTEND DATE UNTIL WHICH CLAY OVERBURDEN MAY BE STORED FROM 31 DECEMBER 2008 UNTIL 31 DECEMBER 2011

Location: WARBOYS LANDFILL SITE PUDDOCK HILL

Applicant: WOODFORD WASTE MANAGEMENT LTD

Grid Ref: 530913 281798

Date of Registration: 14.05.2008

Parish: WARBOYS

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

31 1.5 The restoration of the former clay pit is now substantially complete with only Cell 6 in the east part of the Warboys Landfill site remaining incomplete. This was due to the ban on co-disposal of waste and subsequent changes in ownership which meant the landfill was not operational for a significant period of time. It is estimated that the remaining void is some 300,00m3 and the predicted waste inputs are some 100,000 tonnes per annum and therefore a period of some 36 months will be required to complete the filling. It is possible that with these predictions filling could be completed within a shorter time frame.

1.6 The application proposal seeks to vary condition 2 of a planning permission 0101229 to allow the continued storage of overburden in its present position at the northern corner of the site, until the completion of land filling operations from 31st December 2008 to 31 December 2011. Previously imposed and implemented conditions relating to access, surface water drainage and ecological management will be continued to be implemented in full.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 National guidance encompasses European Legislation; the Waste Strategy for England May 2007; East of England Plan 2008 and PPS10 - Planning for sustainable waste management.

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 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

• WM1 – Waste Management Objectives

• WM5 – Planning for Waste Management

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

3.2 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• None saved

3.3 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Waste Local Plan 2003

• WLP4 - Waste development will only be permitted where:

2 32 a) The access and the highway network serving the site are suitable or could be made suitable and able to accommodate any associated increase in traffic; and

b) Any associated increase in traffic or highway improvements would not cause unacceptable harm to the environment, road safety or residential amenity.

• WLP10 -Waste development will only be permitted where:

• WLP11 is concerned with protected species

• WLP15 is concerned with environmental protection, particularly groundwater and surface water protection.

3.4 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

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

3.5 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

3 33 Saved policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002)

• None relevant.

3.6 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• None relevant.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.2 In respect of this particular proposal the relevant history is:-

Planning permission No: H/012298/01 for the temporary storage of overburden was given by Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) on 6th November 2001. This permission was for a temporary period up to 31st December 2008.

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 HDC Environmental Protection Officer comment:-

I am in receipt of the application to vary condition 2 of planning application no. H/01229/01/CW for the extension of time for the retention of a clay stock pile at Warboys Landfill Site from Woodford Waste Management Limited. Upon reviewing the report I have no objection to the variation of condition 2 to extend the time to join the above application time limit.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 Not applicable.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 Section 73 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) is a mechanism enabling variation or removal of conditions imposed upon previous planning permissions. The proposal does not vary from the originally approved application in any substantive form but merely seeks to extend the period in which the overburden can be stored on the site until the completion of land filling operations.

7.2 The filling operation will operate in the same way as previously intended and approved and would remain subject to the same planning conditions that were imposed and controls under its Waste

4 34 Management Licence. This application seeks only to extend the timescale over which the operations at the landfill site are permitted. In this circumstance there is no conflict with Policy En23 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995.

7.3 As the proposal relates solely to the continued storage of overburden the access and protection policies outlined in the County Waste Plan 2003 and the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 have already been addressed by the grant of the initial permission and implemented on site. These will continue to be implemented but any permission that is granted should ensure that this is the case. The overburden is required to enable restoration of the site and it is therefore pragmatic and sensible to allow the extended period given the desire/need to complete land filling and enable restoration of the land to a beneficial afteruse (which scheme is currently being prepared to satisfy conditions of the original permission).

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 the County Planning Authority be advised that this Council has no objection to the variation of Condition 2 of planning permission 0101229 to allow the continued storage of overburden until 31st December 2011, subject to conditions ensuring the continuance of safeguarding conditions as previously imposed.

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Geoff Crocker Special Projects Officer 01480 388499.

5 35 This page is intentionally left blank

36 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 16 JUN 2008

Case No: 0703340FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: ERECTION OF DWELLING

Location: SILVER BIRCHES SOUTH STREET

Applicant: MR AND MRS AUGSTEIN

Grid Ref: 531784 275883

Date of Registration: 08.10.2007

Parish: WOODHURST

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Members will recall that this application was deferred at the meeting held on the 19th May 2008 to allow a formal, accompanied, site visit to be carried out by Members of the Panel. This is scheduled to be carried out, subject to confirmation, on Friday, 13th June 2008. The original report on this application is repeated below.

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

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

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

3. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

3.1 PPS1 - ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (2005)

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

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

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.

4. PLANNING POLICIES

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

4.2 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.

• Non relevant

4.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

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

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

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

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

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

• En18 – important site features should be protected.

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

4.4 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

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

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

2 38 4.5 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• G3 – trees, hedgerows and other environmental features.

• B1 – Design Quality

• B4 – Amenity

• B7 – Listed Buildings

• B8 – Conservation Areas

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

5. PLANNING HISTORY

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

6. CONSULTATIONS

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

7. REPRESENTATIONS

7.1 Neighbours – 3 letters have been received. The following points have been raised:- There will be a loss of amenity to adjacent properties by reason of loss of privacy and light, and overbearing impact. The location of the garage will have an adverse impact on the setting of a pond in an adjoining garden. The position of the garage is contrary to the building lines in the locality. The scale of the proposed development would adversely affect the character of the Conservation Area. The proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of trees in the Conservation Area. The scale of the garage is overlarge, and it will introduce an urban form to the rear of the existing built form. This would be exacerbated by the larger area devoted to car parking and the drive. The proposal would have an adverse impact on the setting of the Listed Buildings. The location of the garage and the car parking area will result in noise and fumes being concentrated close to the rear gardens of the adjacent dwellings.

8. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

8.1 The issues in this case relate to the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting

3 39 of Listed Buildings, the effect on the neighbouring properties, and the implications for the trees.

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

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

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

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

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

4 40 8.7 The access is acceptable and there is ample parking space within the curtilage of the site.

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

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

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

9. RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL, for the following reasons:

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

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

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

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations, 2002 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

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

5 41 This page is intentionally left blank

42 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 16 JUNE 2008

Case No: 0402052S73 (RENEWAL OF CONSENT/VARY CONDITIONS)

Proposal: VARIATION OF CONDITION 2 OF PERMISSION 0100204 TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME FOR SUBMISSION OF RESERVED MATTERS

Location: ROBINSON THE GARAGE THRAPSTON ROAD KIMBOLTON

Applicant: ROBINSONS OF KIMBOLTON

Grid Ref: 509855 267990

Date of Registration: 23.06.2004

Parish: KIMBOLTON & STONELY

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 This application site is located within the village of Kimbolton and is currently in use as a petrol filling station.

1.2 Permission was granted for residential development of the landing 2001(ref 01/00204OUT) and this application is to vary the time limit on this permission for the submission of reserved matters.

1.3 Members may recall that this application was first reported to Development Control Panel on the 17th July 2006 (report attached) with a recommendation of refusal on the grounds that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the lack of provision of affordable housing was as a result of the scheme being unviable if it was to be provided. Members considered that this matter could be discussed further and deferred the item to allow the applicant to provide further information regarding the affordable housing issue.

1.4 The applicant has now submitted a Unilateral Undertaking to provide contribution towards off site affordable housing within the locality.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

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

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

2.3 PPG15: “Planning and the Historic Environment” (1994) sets out Government policies for the identification and protection of historic buildings, conservation areas, and other elements of the historic

43 environment. It explains the role played by the planning system in their protection.

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

3. PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 East of England Plan - Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008)

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

• H1 - “Regional Housing Provision 2001 to 2021” – LPA’s 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.

• 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.

• WAT4 - “Flood Risk Management” – River flooding is a significant risk in parts. The priorities are to defend existing properties from flooding and locate new development where there is little or no flooding.

3.2 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• P6/1 – Development Related Provision – development will only be permitted where the additional infrastructure and

2 44 community requirements generated by the proposal can be secured.

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.

• En2 - “Character and setting of Listed Buildings” - indicates that any development involving or affecting a building of architectural or historic merit will need to have proper regard to the scale, form, design and setting of that building

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

• 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.

• CS9 - ”Flood Water” - indicates that planning permission will be refused for proposals that effect flood water management.

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).

• STR1 – District Hierarchy - Outlines the settlement hierarchy. Group villages are those where housing groups and infilling will be allowed and infill villages where only infilling will be allowed.

• STR2 - Provides definitions for housing development – Infilling: the filling of an undeveloped plot in an otherwise built-up frontage by no more than two dwellings. Subject to other Local Plan policies.

• STR5 – Group Villages – includes Kimbolton

• 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.

3 45 • HL7 – Reusing Brownfield Land and Buildings - indicates that the District Council will seek to maximise the re-use of previously developed land.

• HL8 – Rural Housing - identifies that in group villages groups of dwellings and infilling will be permitted on appropriate sites within the village environmental limits where development is sensitive to the scale and character of the village.

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

• AH4 – District and Site Target – seek to achieve 29% of total number dwellings as affordable: on sites of 25 dwellings or more (or 1ha) in settlements larger than 3000 population.

3.5 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

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

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

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

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

• P6 - Settlement Hierarchy – Key Centres: (Limited Growth) Warboys, Somersham, Buckden and Kimbolton.

• P10 – Flood Risk – development should: not take place in areas at risk from flooding, unless suitable mitigation/flood protection measures are agreed; not increase the risk of flooding to properties elsewhere; make use of sustainable drainage systems where feasible; be informed by a flood risk assessment where appropriate.

• P11 – Infrastructure Requirements – Development proposals should provide or contribute towards the cost of providing infrastructure, and of meeting social and environmental

4 46 requirements, where these are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

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

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

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

• B5 – Energy and Water use – developments should aim to maximise the level of energy efficiency through sustainable design and construction.

• B8 – Conservation Areas - states the criteria against which developments within or affecting a Conservation Area should be assessed.

• H1 – Location of Housing Development - lists the limitations on the location of future housing development to: within the defined limits of Key Centres (Limited Growth): minor housing development and residential infilling.

• H2 – Housing Density - lists the minimum density standards housing developments should achieve. With or adjacent to key centres: 35-55 dwellings per hectare.

• H3 – Mix of Dwelling Sizes – minor housing development or residential infilling should provide for a mix of household sizes and types appropriate to the needs of the local area. Within Key Centres (limited growth) a high proportion of smaller homes should be provided to increase the choice available.

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

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 Planning permission granted for residential development on the land in June 2001.

5. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

5.1 Previously the issue to be considered was whether there had been any significant change in circumstances or policies since the previous decision was made in 2001.

5.2 At the time of reporting the application to Development Control Panel in 2006, there had been a number of new policy documents adopted 5 47 since 2001. (previous report attached) Further to reporting this application in 2006, the Council have adopted the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement in 2007 as interim policy, and the East of England Plan has been published (May 2008). Neither document changes the principle of development in this location and as such it is still considered to be acceptable.

5.3 As previously advised, greater emphasis is now placed on the re-use of previously developed land and making the most efficient use of land and a need for the provision of affordable housing on all sites regardless of their size (more than 3 dwellings in Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement) in settlements of less than 3,000 population.

5.4 Following the advice of an independent consultant the Panel was advised that the provision of affordable housing would not make the scheme unviable. The applicant has now agreed to this and following discussions with the Council’s Housing Needs Officer, a Unilateral Undertaking has been provided, within which the applicant has agreed to pay a contribution towards the provision of affordable housing off site. This contribution is not fixed but dependant upon independent valuations of the site, the viability of the development and net profit made.

5.5 Following consultation with the Council’s Legal and Housing Departments, the proposed Unilateral Undertaking is considered to be acceptable and would overcome the need to provide affordable housing on site.

5.6 It is therefore recommended that the previous recommendation of refusal has been fully addressed and subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions, it is considered that the proposal now accords with the aforementioned Development Plan Policies and it recommended that planning permission be granted.

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

01 014 Details reserved (all reserved)

01 003 Reserved matters within three years

01 006 Dates for commencement

Nonstand Provision of highway.

Nonstand Parking and turning

Nonstand Temporary parking etc during construction

04 003 Surface water only

Nonstand Minimum ground level.

Nonstand Archaeology

6 48

15 001 Contaminated land scheme

15 002 Contamination investigation

15 003 Development not commence

Nonstand Remove Class E of Permitted Development rights

17 001 Levels Building/Site

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application File Reference: 0402052S73 East of England Plan - Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008) Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

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

7 49

8 50 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 16 JUNE 2008

Case No: 0800899FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: ERECTION OF DWELLING

Location: LAND REAR OF 23 AND 24 EAST STREET Applicant: HBSG PARTNERSHIP

Grid Ref: 524507 272144

Date of Registration: 26.03.2008

Parish: HUNTINGDON

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The site is located in the Conservation Area and relates to an area of land to the rear of Nos. 23 and 24 East Street (originally part of these dwellings garden area). The site is currently overgrown and uneven, it is open to Cross Street with fencing to the north west, north east and south of the site.

1.2 The proposal seeks the erection of a 3 bedroom dwelling on the site with the addition of one off street parking space. The dwelling proposed measures a total width of 6.3 metres and has been design so that the main element measures 3.8 metres in width. A two storey side element would then be set back slightly from this front elevation and subservient to the ridge, this would measure approx. 2.6 metres in width. The dwelling would also include the addition of a front lean- to porch and rear single storey extension.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

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

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

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

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

51 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 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.

• ENV6 - In their plans, policies, programmes and proposals local planning authorities and other agencies should identify, protect, conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment of the region including Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings.

• ENV7 - 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.

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.

None relevant

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

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.

• En5 : “Conservation Area Character” - development within or directly affecting conservation areas will be required to preserve or enhance their character and appearance.

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

2 52 • En9 : “Conservation Areas” - development should not impair open spaces, trees, street scenes and views into and out of Conservation Areas.

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

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

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).

• STR1 – District Hierarchy - Outlines the settlement hierarchy. Within Market Towns, housing development up to and including estate scale may proceed.

• STR3 – Market Towns – are Huntingdon; Godmanchester; St Neots; St Ives; Ramsey and Bury.

• 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

• HL7 – Reusing Brownfield Land and Buildings - indicates that the District Council will seek to maximise the re-use of previously developed land.

3.5 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

3 53 adverse impact on water resources and flood risk; curtail pollution; encourage waste reduction and recycling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• B8 – Conservation Areas - states the criteria against which developments within or affecting a Conservation Area should be assessed.

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

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

3.6 Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2007)

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 0700492FUL – erection of dwelling –refused – appeal withdrawn

4.2 0603300FUL - erection of dwelling –refused – appeal dismissed, (Plans and Inspectors report attached)

4.3 0602796FUL – erection of dwelling - withdrawn

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Town Council – NO OBJECTION (copy attached)

4 54 5.2 HDC Highways - NO OBJECTIONS , conditions to be attached

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 FOUR letters received:

23 East Street – Do not wish to object

• Question how it can be ensured that the developer shall stick to the plans submitted • Would subsequent owners need to apply for planning permission if they were to deny back street access? • Option for bins to be stored in the alley as opposed to the access • Question if a fence is to be erected and if so its height • What monitoring processes does the Council have to ensure the development is built as per the planning permission • Development should not be carried our on weekends and bank holidays

25 East Street

• Current design proposal has addressed the majority of concern raised previously • Would request restriction on development times and expresses concern about impact of building works • Concern over parking • No objections if approved as shown on the plans • Suggest a more interactive design consultation in the future

17 Cross Street - No objections

13 East Street

• Site lies within the Conservation Area, has been much infill which has led to overdevelopment and pressure on parking • Photo montage submitted shows a car parked on the pavement, the road is narrow and vehicles on the pavement restrict emergency services; any more development would impact on the character of the area

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

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

Principle

7.2 The site is located within an existing residential area of Huntingdon and the principle of residential development in this location is considered acceptable in terms of the settlement strategy.

7.3 This application is the third application on this site which has been presented to Members of the Development Control Panel. This

5 55 application seeks to overcome Members’ reasons for refusal and the recent appeal decision.

The Appeal Decision

7.4 Of relevance to this application is the appeal decision for the erection of a dwelling on this site, this relates to the previous application 0603300FUL. The appeal decision stated the following issues:

• ‘a two storey dwelling in this location would be prominent, obtrusive and incongruous…bearing in mind that the house would extend to some 12.5m from the back of the narrow footway…it would also be less than 0.4 metres from the north-western side boundary and would dominate, overshadow, overlook and impact adversely on the privacy of nearby gardens, marring the residential enjoyment of neighbouring occupiers’. • Makes no provision for service access from Cross Street to the rear of Nos. 23 and 24 East Street • In the absence of a comprehensive scheme for at least this part of Cross Street the proposed development of this parcel of land in isolation would be likely to prejudice the use and possible future development of property to either side and encourage other piecemeal development raising similar practical problems elsewhere along this frontage

7.5 When considering the current application, it is important to note that whilst the above appeal decision is a material planning consideration, it is necessary to remember that this was a different scheme to the application currently before Members.

7.6 In this instance the proposed dwelling is more modest in scale, the dwelling would measure 10.6 metres in depth and set back approx. 0.5 metres from the back of the footway (from the front elevation of the porch). The overall depth of the two storey element of the dwelling measures approx 5.7 metres in depth, the dwelling now only measures approx. 7.7 metres back from the footway. This alteration would see a significant reduction in the footprint of the dwelling and built form on the site. The application that went to appeal, 0603300FUL, had an approx. footprint of 60m sq and the current application has been reduced to approximately 50m sq, this has resulted in a reduction of approximately 17% in the overall footprint.

7.7 When considering the siting of the dwelling, it has been brought closer to Cross Street, 0.7 metres from the common boundary to the north west and 1.1 metres from the boundary to the south east. This gives more space around the dwelling and as such ensures the development would not appear cramped on the site.

7.8 Whilst the dwelling has only been moved an additional 0.3 metres from the boundary to the north west, the rear two storey extension has also been omitted. It is considered that the omission of this accommodation would ensure that the proposed development would not ‘dominate, overshadow, overlook or impact adversely on the privacy of nearby gardens’. The removal of the rear gable extension ensures that there is a substantial distance between the main rear elevation of the proposed dwelling and those along East Street.

6 56 Given that the sites adjoining the application site form amenity space with existing outbuildings present, it is not considered that this would unduly impinge on the occupier’s enjoyment of this private space.

7.9 In addition to this the revised site layout allows rear access for Nos. 23 and 24 East Street to ensure they are able to put their wheelibins out for collection. This provision of access would now overcome the Inspectors concern about this issue.

7.10 The proposal seeks the erection of a 3 bedroom dwelling. The building measures approx 6.3 metres in width and 10.6 metres in depth, the main element of the dwelling measures approx.3.8 metres in width, the secondary element would be set back slightly from the front elevation and set down from the main ridge height of the dwelling. This secondary element would be open at ground level to allow a car to be parked on site. To the rear of the dwelling a single storey extension is proposed, to accommodate a lounge.

7.11 Although the Inspector stated that a two-storey dwelling in this location would be prominent, obtrusive and incongruous, having regard to the reduction in the massing of the building, it is considered that the proposed dwelling would not appear dominant in the streetscene, nor would it appear ‘obtrusive and incongruous’. The dwelling is more modest in scale and has been presented in a style similar to a recently approved dwelling at land rear of 12 East Street, 0703042FUL (plan attached). In addition to this it must be said that the development along Cross Street has taken place in a piecemeal fashion with a mix of dwellings ranging from the Victorian era to the present day. Whilst the Inspector highlighted in the decision that, in the absence of a comprehensive scheme, the development of this site may prejudice the use and possible future development of property either side of the site and encourage other piecemeal development, the character of the area is that of relatively piecemeal development. There is no indication that the land adjacent the site may become available in the future for the development. It would seem unreasonable for the Local Planning Authority to refuse development of this site when it is considered that this current scheme is acceptable and there is no reasonable indication that the land around this application site would become available for ‘comprehensive development’. In addition to this the applicant has sought to ensure that there is sufficient space around the dwelling that should any further development occur to the other sides of the site then this would not impede on its potential development.

7.12 It is considered that the applicant has overcome the Inspector’s concerns when dismissing the previous appeal. However it is also important to consider the detailed design of the dwelling and impact on the character of the area.

Design

7.13 As discussed above the revised design of the dwelling is considered to be acceptable. It is accepted that there are a mix of architectural styles in the vicinity, from Victorian cottage style dwellings to more modern gable fronted dwellings. The proposed dwelling has sought a more traditional appearance with the addition of a porch. Whilst the porch may not be the most sympathetic addition to this dwelling it

7 57 does assist in ensuring the internal arrangements of the dwelling can function and is not dissimilar to other recent developments within the locality. The porch is not considered a detail that would warrant refusing the application, as it is a relatively common feature along Cross Street.

Conservation Area

7.14 The proposal is not considered to adversely affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The scale and form of the development is acceptable, it is recommended that a condition is imposed for materials and joinery details are submitted. It is not considered that this proposed development would impair views into and out of the Conservation Area.

Residential amenity

7.15 In light of the Inspectors appeal decision the issue of residential amenity has already been discussed and it is not considered that this proposal would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity.

Highways

7.16 It is not considered that the proposal would adversely affect highway safety, there are no objections to the development, however conditions are to be attached. The proposal allows for parking off street for one car. Whilst the site is not located in the town centre, the maximum car parking standards, as outlined in the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement indicate that up to two car parking spaces should be provided. The applicant has provided one space, in the appeal decision the Inspector concluded that given the location of the site one space would be sufficient.

Neighbour concerns

7.17 Four letters were received in respect of this application and these issues are considered in turn. There are concerns that the development may not be built in accordance with the plan, however if this application is approved then any development which does not accord with the approved details would not be authorised.

7.18 Neighbours have expressed concern about development taking place at the weekends and on bank holidays and have asked for construction times to be restricted. Given that this development would be for a single dwelling only it would not be reasonable to place such a condition on the developer.

7.19 Concern has been raised over the potential impact of the development on the area and pressure on parking, particularly as vehicles park on the pavement and may restrict emergency vehicles. This concern is noted, however it is already been considered that adequate parking would be provided for the proposed dwelling. Issues of vehicles parking on the footway are not a matter that the Local Planning Authority can resolve and instead this concern should be directed to the Highways Authority/police.

8 58 7.20 With regards to the site boundaries it is considered that these details should be conditioned. As such, confirmation cannot be given as to the proposed height of any fencing should this be erected.

7.21 One neighbour has questioned whether subsequent owners would need to apply for planning permission if back street access were denied. The proposed provides for access to the rear of properties in East Street. Its availability is a civil matter between the parties.

7.22 In conclusion the proposal is considered to be acceptable and its recommended that the application should be 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:

02 003 Time Limit (3yrs)

Nonstand Materials

Nonstand External appearance

Nonstand Access

Nonstand Parking

Nonstand No gates

Nonstand Visibility splays

Nonstand Landscape details

06 012 Hard and soft landscape implementation

06 015 Boundary treatment

17 001 Levels Building/Site

13 003 Permitted Development (Extensions)

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application File Reference: 0800899FUL East of England Plan - Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008) Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2007)

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Michelle Nash Development Control Officer 01480 388405 `0

9 59 This page is intentionally left blank

60 Agenda Item 4b

AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 16 JUN 2008

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

Case No: 0701390FUL and 0701391CAC (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION AND CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT )

Proposal: ERECTION OF FOUR HOUSES AND CONVERSION OF OFFICES INTO FOUR FLATS FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL UNITS

Location: 23A TO 27 WEST STREET

Applicant: MR AND MRS F A RULE

Grid Ref: 531144 271491

Date of Registration: 23.04.2007

Parish: ST IVES

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 This is a joint report considering the applications, firstly for Conservation Area Consent to demolish the light industrial buildings on this site (0701391CAC), and, secondly, a full proposal for the erection of four dwellings, and the conversion of the office block into four flats (0701390FUL).

1.2 This site is located close to the centre of the town, and is occupied by an office block, light industrial/storage buildings, open storage and car parking. The buildings vary in scale and design, and are typical of the light industrial buildings found in town centres. The site is not attractive, and does not enhance the Conservation Area. The site is presently used by a plumbing contractor. Development in the vicinity is also mixed in character and land use, although new building in recent years has introduced more residential accommodation into the area. There are two accesses into the site from West Street.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1 - ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (2005)

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

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

61 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 The site is within the town centre of St Ives, and within the Conservation Area. It is adjacent to a number of Listed Buildings, and the land is liable to flood.

3.2 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

• ENV6 - the historic environment

• ENV7 – quality in the built environment.

3.3 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• None

3.4 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

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

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

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

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

• En8 – Conservation Area Consent may be withheld until acceptable plans for new development have been approved.

• CS9 - Flooding

3.5 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

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

2 62

• 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.

• HL10 – housing development should contain a mix of dwellings to reflect the needs of the community.

• STR3 – St Ives is a market town where housing development up to estate scale may proceed.

3.6 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.

• B1 – Design Quality

• B4 – Amenity

• B8 – Conservation Areas

• H1 – Location of Housing Development

• H3 – Mix of dwelling sizes

• P10 – Flood Risk

• P11 – infrastructure requirements

• T2 – Car and Cycle Parking

3.7 The SPD Design Guide, the SPG Market Housing Mix and the St Ives Conservation Area Statement are material considerations.

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 0602561FUL – erection of 4 dwellings and conversion of office building to 4 flats. Withdrawn 30/10/06

4.2 0602918 – demolition of buildings. Withdrawn 01/11.06

4.3 0701391CAC – demolition of light industrial units. To be determined.

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 St Ives Town Council – NO OBJECTION both applications.(copies attached).

5.2 Police Architectural Liaison Officer – crime reduction measures should be incorporated into the scheme.

5.3 Cambridgeshire County Council Chief Financial Planning Officer – a contribution to provide additional school places is required.

3 63

5.4 Environment Agency – NO OBJECTIONS subject to conditions.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 Two letters have been received. A neighbour has raised the following points:

1. There will be a loss of privacy due to overlooking

2. Demolition of one of the existing buildings would adversely affect the structure and integrity of an adjoining summer house. A garden wall could be similarly affected.

6.2 A local Councillor has written in support of the proposal.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The principal issue in this case is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

7.2 There are no objections to the demolition of the light industrial buildings as these are of no merit, and do not enhance the character of the locality. However, consent for the demolition of buildings in Conservation Areas should not normally be granted in advance of the granting of planning permission for the redevelopment of the site. This advice is contained in PPG15, and is to prevent the creation of unsightly gaps in the street scene which result from demolition, and to prevent the visual blight which will occur if the site remains undeveloped for any length of time.

7.3 The principle of residential development is acceptable on this site, and the number of units proposed is consistent with the level of development envisaged for St. Ives. There is no requirement for affordable housing in this instance, and the mix of units is in general conformity with the SPG.

7.4 The design and layout of this proposal have been the subject of numerous discussions with the applicant, and the current proposal follows the withdrawal of the previous application for the development of this site. The applicant was advised that the earlier scheme was unlikely to receive planning permission, but has not amended the plans in the light of the advice given.

7.5 Whilst building along the street frontage would be acceptable in principle, the morphology of development in this area suggests that this should not be continuous, but should be irregular, and should allow views through the site to the backs of the properties along the Broadway. The pattern of development in this locality has developed over many years and reflects a hierarchy of buildings - the principal ones being along the Broadway, with ancillary, or smaller scale ones, located along West Street. As a result of this, West Street has a “secondary” character and it is not dominated by any one particular building style. In conservation terms, it is important to retain its particular characteristics, and to ensure that its place in the context of the Conservation Area is maintained.

4 64 7.6 The creation of a large, continuous, terrace would be contrary to the historical pattern of development in this part of the town, as referred to above. The scale of the proposed terrace, both in length and height, is unacceptable, and does not reflect the subordinate and ancillary nature of development along West Street. The proposal would dominate the street scene and would adversely affect the long established relationship between the buildings along West Street and those along The Broadway.

7.7 Notwithstanding the overall scale of the terrace, the use of a mansard roof, and a long asymmetrical roof form on the rear of the building, are not typical of the form of established buildings in the locality. A building of this height and scale will block views along West Street, and will, at the same time, be unduly dominant where views through the site remain, e.g. from George Street.

7.8 The conversion of the office building is basically acceptable, but the fenestration is overly domestic, and such features as the Juliet balconies should be deleted. These are relatively minor points and would need to be considered if the whole scheme was acceptable in principle.

7.9 Ten parking spaces are provided within the curtilage of the site. This number is acceptable, given the nature of the accommodation being provided, and the location of the site close to the town centre. An existing drive will be used to provide access to the parking spaces.

7.10 There are no objections to this proposal with regard to any flooding issues.

7.11 The proposal will not have a significant impact on the amenities of the immediate neighbours, who, generally, will benefit from the improvements to the site. There should not be a substantial increase in noise and disturbance as a result of this development but consideration should be given to the use of obscure glazing to limit overlooking if consent is granted for the development.

7.12 The redevelopment of this site can be supported in principle, but any development needs to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area. The present proposal does not achieve this, and the application should be refused. As a corollary to this, Conservation Area Consent should not be granted for the reasons given above.

7.13 Having regard to applicable national and local planning policies, and having taken all relevant material considerations into account, it is considered that neither planning permission nor Conservation Area Consent 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 – REFUSAL OF 0701390FUL, for the following reason:

8.1 The proposal would be contrary to the provisions of policy ENV6 of the East of England Plan, policy HL5 of the Huntingdonshire Local

5 65 Plan Alteration 2002, policies En5, En6 and En25 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 and polices B1 and B8 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007, in that the development, by reason of its location, scale and massing would have an adverse impact on, and would not preserve or enhance, the character and appearance of the St Ives Conservation Area. The proposal would result in an unduly intrusive and over-dominant feature in the street scene and it would not adequately respect the form, layout and historical development of the site and the locality in general.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL OF 0701391CAC, for the following reason:

8.2 The proposal would be contrary to the provisions of policy En8 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 in that Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of buildings in Conservation Areas will not normally be granted until acceptable plans for the new development have been approved. The demolition of these buildings would result in an unsightly and damaging gap in the street scene, which would adversely affect the visual amenities and character of the site and the Conservation Area in general.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: East of England Plan – Revision to the Spatial Strategy (May2008) Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations, 2002 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

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

6 66 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 16 JUNE 2008

Case No: 0800575OUT (OUTLINE APPLICATION)

Proposal: ERECTION OF DWELLING

Location: LAND AT 16 BARFORD ROAD, EYNESBURY

Applicant: MR S BYGRAVES

Grid Ref: 518523 259069

Date of Registration: 27.02.2008

Parish: ST NEOTS

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The site is located within the built up framework to the south of St Neots Town Centre, the Leisure Centre and Community College are located to the south west of the site. The site is currently the side garden area for No. 16 Barford Road which is sited on a large corner plot. There are a number of established trees surrounding the site to the south and some close to the access. The site sits reasonably close to a large roundabout and there are traffic-calming measures to the north east of the site.

1.2 This outline application proposes the erection of a dwelling and seeks approval for means of access, layout and scale; a street scene has been submitted with the proposal.

1.3 The submitted street scene drawing shows the proposed dwelling in relation to No.16. The existing access would be repositioned and shared with the existing dwelling, No16. The application states three parking spaces are to be provided for the new dwelling and this includes parking in the garage and parking on a hard standing area; garaging will be retained for No.16 Barford Road.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS 1 – ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (2005) contains advice on delivering sustainable development.

2.2 PPS 3 - 'Housing' (2006) aims to make good use of land and comments on development in urban areas.

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

67 2.4 PPS25 – ‘Development and Flood Risk’ (2006) sets out Government policy on development and flood risk.

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

3. PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 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

• 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.

• SS4 - “Towns other than Key Centres and Rural Areas” – Local Development Documents should define the approach to development in towns. Such towns include selected Market Towns and others with potential to increase their social and economic sustainability.

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

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

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

2 68 • 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.

• En18 - Protection of countryside features – Offers protection for important site features including trees, woodlands, hedges and meadowland.

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

• CS9 – Flood water management.

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

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

• STR1 – District Hierarchy - Outlines the settlement hierarchy. In Market Towns, housing development up to and including estate scale may proceed

• STR2 - Provides definitions for housing estate development – housing group infilling.

• STR3 – Market Towns – are Huntingdon; Godmanchester; St Neots; St Ives; Ramsey and Bury.

• HL5 – good design and layout in all new housing developments to achieve an efficient use of land, respect townscape, appropriate dwelling mix, incorporate landscaping, create an attractive distinctive place and promote energy efficiency.

3.4 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

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

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

3 69 • P5 - Settlement Hierarchy – Market Towns: St Neots, Huntingdon, St Ives, Ramsey and Bury.

• P10 - Flood Risk – development should: not take place in areas at risk from flooding, unless suitable mitigation/flood protection measures are agreed; not increase the risk of flooding to properties elsewhere; make use of sustainable drainage systems where feasible; be informed by a flood risk assessment where appropriate.

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

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

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

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

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

3.5 SPD – Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2007

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 0601499FUL – Extension to dwelling (16 Barford Road) - Withdrawn.

4.2 0702638OUT – Outline application for a dwelling, on land at 16 Barford Road - Withdrawn.

5. CONSULTATIONS

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

5.2 County Highways – NO OBJECTION , subject to conditions being appended to any decision. (copy attached)

5.3 Environment Agency – NO OBJECTION , subject to a condition be appended to the decision notice, and notes being forwarded to applicant

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 No third party representations have been received in response to this proposal

4 70 7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues to be considered here are the principle of an additional dwelling, access and parking, design, scale and the effect upon the amenities of surrounding properties.

Principle

7.2 The site is located within the built framework of the town; there is general encouragement for making the best use of land on sites such as these and the principle is therefore be acceptable subject to no conflict with other policies.

Access and Parking

7.3 The County Council Highways Officer is satisfied that vehicle speeds from the roundabout are low enough, and has not objected to the proposal providing the header wall is relocated to allow for a good visibility splay to the southwest of the site. The existing site access has been widened; No 16 and the proposed new dwelling would share the new access. A number of conditions relating to highway safety have been suggested which should be appended to any decision. The information submitted as part of the application confirms that the Environment Agency has given permission for the relocation of the headwall to allow for better visibility to the southwest. St Neots Town Council have raised an objection as they are concerned about school children using the road and the site being in close proximity to the roundabout and traffic calming. The proposal has been considered in relation to highway safety and refusal could not be sustained for this reason.

Amenities of Surrounding Properties

7.4 The site is located on a corner plot at the end of residential properties. Barford Road runs parallel to the front of the site and Cromwell Road to the rear. There are no issues relating to neighbour amenity, mainly due to the location of the site.

Flooding issues

7.5 The Environment Agency has not objected to the proposal but has advised the new dwelling needs to sit 300mm above the crown of the road. The street scene plan shows this can be achieved. The minimum floor level of the building should be at least 16.55 metres above ODN; a condition should be appended to the decision notice.

Layout and character of the area

7.6 The dwellings in this part of Barford Road are set on reasonably large plots with deep rear gardens, there are differing roof heights and designs and most properties use the full width of their plot. The street scene plan shows the new dwelling sitting slightly higher in the street scene than No.16 Barford Road, however, the difference in height is minimal and it is considered the proposal would not harm on the street scene or the wider character of Barford Road. While the Town Council’s comments relating to size of the building within the plot have been noted, a dwelling on this plot will not appear cramped. The

5 71 new developments fronting Cromwell Road have similar built form on similar size plots, and a refusal could not be sustained in this case.

Trees and landscaping

7.7 Whilst landscaping will be considered with the Reserved Matters Application, it is appropriate that landscape conditions should be appended to the decision. A tree survey, including tree protection measures should be provided along with soft and hard landscaping.

Conclusion

7.8 A new dwelling on this site will not have an adverse impact on the character of the area or on the amenities of the neighbouring properties and the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of highway safety. Therefore having regard to applicable national and local planning policies, and having taken all relevant consideration into account, it is recommended that planning permission should be approved in this instance.

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

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

Nonstand - Reserved matters approval Nonstand - Reserved matters within three years Nonstand - Dates for commencement Nonstand - External appearance Nonstand - Ungated access Nonstand - Access 5 metres minimum for 10 metres Nonstand - Access provided before dwelling occupied Nonstand - Visibility splays to maintained free Nonstand - Per space reserved for turning and park Nonstand - Visibility splay provided before dev Nonstand - Tree survey Nonstand - Hard and soft landscaping Nonstand - Protection of tree and hedges during development Nonstand - Floor level - 16.55 ODM

Background Papers:

Planning Application File Reference: 08005756OUT 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 Mrs L Morse, Development Control Officer ( 01480 388411.

6 72 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 17 JUNE 2008

Case No: 0801197FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: ERECTION OF A PAIR OF SEMI-DETACHED DWELLINGS

Location: LAND AT 24 CHAPEL END

Applicant: MR K ROBINSON

Grid Ref: 517211 283728

Date of Registration: 07.04.2008

Parish: SAWTRY

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The application site is within the village of Sawtry, to the east of the village centre. Chapel End is a narrow road. The site is within the settlement boundary of Sawtry which is identified as a Key Centre (Potential Growth) within the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 (HIPPS). The site itself comprises part of the curtilage of 24 Chapel End, a two storey, end of terrace dwelling. To the north and east of the site there is open agricultural land separating Sawtry from the A1. To the west and south are residential properties of a range of scales. Notably, Ivy Cottage at No.25 Chapel End is a Grade II listed late 17th century thatched cottage.

1.2 This application is a re-submission of 0800166FUL (a copy of the decision notice and plan are attached as Green Papers) which was refused on design and unacceptable impact on the nearby listed building grounds. Design advice has been subsequently offered to improve the appearance of the dwellings.

1.3 The proposal is for the erection of two semi-detached dwellings with associated garden areas and parking.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1: "Delivering Sustainable Development" (2005) sets out the Government's overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system.

2.2 PPS3: “Housing” (2006) underpins the delivery of the Government’s strategic housing policy objectives and the goal to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to live in a decent home, which they can afford in a community where they want to live.

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

73 2.4 PPG15: “Planning and the Historic Environment” (1994) sets out the Government policies for the identification and protection of historic buildings, conservation areas, and other elements of the historic environment.

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

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

3. PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 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.

• ENV6: “The Historic Environment” - Within plans, policies, programmes and proposals local planning authorities and other agencies should identify, protect, conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment of the region including Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings.

• 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.

• WAT4: “Flood Risk Management” – River flooding is a significant risk in parts. The priorities are to defend existing properties from flooding and locate new development where there is little or no flooding.

3.2 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

No relevant policies

2 74 3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

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.

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

• En2:“ Character and setting of Listed Buildings” - indicates that any development involving or affecting a building of architectural or historic merit will need to have proper regard to the scale, form, design and setting of that building.

• 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.

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).

• STR1 – District Hierarchy - Outlines the settlement hierarchy. Group villages where housing groups and infilling will be allowed and infill villages where only infilling will be allowed.

• STR5 - designates Sawtry as a group village.

• 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.

• HL7 – Reusing Brownfield Land and Buildings - indicates that the District Council will seek to maximise the re-use of previously developed land.

3.5 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

3 75 • P1 – Sustainable Development – development proposals should contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development.

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

• P7 – Settlement Hierarchy – Smaller settlements

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

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

• B7 – Listed Buildings - lists the criteria against which development proposal affecting the fabric or setting of a listed building should be assessed.

• H1 – Location of Housing Development - lists the limitations on the location of future housing development to: within the defined limits of Market Towns and Key Centres (Potential Growth): major and minor housing development and residential infilling.

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

3.6 Huntingdonshire District Council – Supplementary Planning Documents: Huntingdonshire Design Guide - 2007

Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment – 2007

4 76 4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 0800166FUL - Erection of two dwellings - REFUSED - 17/03/2008

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Sawtry Parish Council - OBJECT (copy attached) for the following reasons:

• The re-submitted plans have only been altered slightly from the original plans that the Parish Planning Committee recommended be refused • The original objection raised by District Council over the effect on the listed building opposite and parking have not been addressed • The land is outside of the village and therefore would be ‘outfill’ • The lane is too narrow for cars to park/turn around – inadequate provision on site • Permission has already been granted for a development on the corner of Chapel End and Fen Lane which will increase traffic in Chapel End. Any more development would make the traffic situation impossible • The impact on neighbouring properties • Drainage issues have not been addressed in the plans

5.2 Middle Level Commissioners – Site is within the catchment area of the Sawtry Internal Drainage Board for which the Middle Level Commissioners act as engineering consultants. The Board’s system downstream of the site is close to capacity during high rainfall events. Therefore the restriction of surface water discharge from this site to the Greenfield rate of run-off will be required.

5.3 Highways – Whilst it is noted that the vehicular access is narrow, the level of vehicular traffic generated, particularly in relation to the existing flows on Chapel End would mean that we would be unable to sustain a refusal on highway grounds. A condition is recommended requiring visibility splays to be provided on either side of the access.

6 REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 THREE neighbour representations received raising the following concerns: -

• Changes made do not make any difference to the reasons given for refusal of the last application • The design changes make the houses even smaller when they were ridiculously small before • Scale is laughable • Parking inadequate – most households have two cars and there is no visitor parking • Visitors and additional cars would clog up the narrow lane • Previous removal of a substantial hedge and on-site trees • Drainage ditch has been filled with an inadequate pipe creating a flood risk

5 77 • Noise from the A1M is significant so external environment for residents is substandard • Disruption through the building period due to nature of the road • Drawings are ambiguous and would be unsuitable for family dwellings • Lack of adequate play areas for children • Red line of the site is incorrect • Overdevelopment of the site • Access point is already hidden by the front wall and is dangerous • No mitigation of the effect of the proposal on the listed thatched cottage opposite

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues to consider in relation to this application are the principle of residential development in this location, design, impact on the Listed Building, impact on residential amenity, access and parking and flood risk.

Principle of development

7.2 This site is within the ‘Key Centre’ of Sawtry. PPS1 and PPS3 and Development Plan policies support the better use of existing residential land, particularly within sustainable locations. The site is considered to be within the Built Framework of Sawtry as defined by the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007. As such, the principle of two dwellings in this location is therefore acceptable provided all other planning issues can be satisfactorily addressed.

Design

7.3 The dwellings have been designed as a pair of symmetrical cottages, reflecting some of the architectural characteristics of the cottages to the south. The rear of the dwellings have a traditional gable projection and single storey lean-to. A chimney is proposed for each dwelling and a date stone for the front elevation.

7.4 Our policies require that new development should respond to and reinforce locally distinctive patterns of development. Amendments were therefore sought to alter the proportions of window to brick mass on the front elevation with the potential for additional windows to the first floor. Amended plans were received on 22/08/2008 which detail the amendments requested.

7.5 It is considered that the design of the two proposed dwellings is now in keeping with the surrounding character and patterns of development and reinforces locally distinctive patterns of development. Although these are small dwellings the proposal is compliant with policy H3 which states a high proportion of smaller homes should be provided to increase the choice available.

7.6 The design is therefore considered to be compliant with both national and local planning policy and the Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2007.

6 78 Impact on Listed Building

7.7 The submitted application makes reference to the impact of the proposal on the setting of the listed building of Ivy Cottage (25 Chapel End) whereas the previous proposals failed to make any reference to the listed building.

7.8 Historically (circa 1900) Chapel End existed as a rural lane to the east of Sawtry and well outside the village. At that time only the thatched cottage and the orange brick row of cottages (20-24 Chapel End) existed along the lane. Since the 1960’s Sawtry has expanded significantly and Chapel End is now on the edge of the settlement and further properties have been built along Chapel End. While it is acknowledged that there has been residential development either side (north and south) of the listed thatched cottage it has still maintained a connection with its rural context by virtue of the fact that it faces fields opposite. The undeveloped nature of the land opposite the listed building and the rural connotations associated with this positively benefits the setting of the listed cottage.

7.9 The scheme has revised the design of the proposed dwellings and specifically the design and detailing of their front elevation. In view of this it is felt that the proposed dwellings will now sit more comfortably within the street scene as their appearance fits better with the existing row of adjacent cottages and is more sympathetic to the rural context of this locality. While there remains a concern that development of this site impinges on the open land in front of the listed cottage, it is felt the improved design of the dwellings now mitigates the impact they will have on the listed building’s setting.

7.10 In this case, it is considered extremely important to ensure the highest standard of materials is selected for the construction of these cottages if they are going to sit subtly within the setting of the listed buildings. Details should be agreed by condition and ensure that details including an appropriate orange brick is selected and windows are set back within their reveals.

7.11 On balance, it is considered that the proposed development will not be significantly detrimental to the setting of the listed building and is therefore in accordance with both national and local planning policy in this regard.

Residential amenity

7.12 The only property that is considered to be affected by the proposed dwellings is that of No.24 Chapel End. This is the end of the row of three terraced cottages to the south-west of the site. The facing side elevation of No.24 appears to have a kitchen window at ground floor and an obscured glazed bathroom/wc window and a landing window at first floor. The proposals show a window on both the ground floor and first floor of the north elevation both obscure glazed. As such there is considered to be no overlooking issues.

7.13 The new dwellings are separated from No.24 by approximately 3.5 metres. To the rear, the new dwellings project 3 metres further out than the rear elevation of the cottages and at first floor is set in from the edge by a further 1 metre. Due to the location and positioning of

7 79 the new dwellings in relation to No.24 there is considered to be no overbearing impact or loss of light issues.

7.14 The noise from the A1M raised through the neighbour representations is not considered to afford a significant detrimental impact to the proposed dwellings as the relationship is very similar to that which already exists between the cottages and the A1M.

7.15 As such the proposals are considered to cause no detrimental impact to residential amenity by virtue of overbearing impact, overlooking or loss of daylight/sunlight.

7.16 Due to the proximity of the neighbouring dwellings to the site a condition restricting the working hours for construction is suggested to help mitigate the impact on nearby residents during the construction period.

Access and Parking

7.17 The proposed access is stated as a minor modification of the existing access. On-site parking is provided to the rear of the properties at a level of 1 per dwelling. The standards within Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 states that for any new dwelling outside of town centres, 2 car parking spaces should be provided per dwelling. As the standards within HIPPS are maximum standards in compliance with PPG13 and 1 car parking space is proposed for each dwelling, the parking provision is considered acceptable.

7.18 The concerns raised in the representations regarding the existing problems due to parking and access along Chapel End are acknowledged. However, as a highway there are no restrictions on who can use or park on this road at the current time. It is not considered reasonable to restrict this development due to these existing problems when the proposed car parking meets the required standards.

7.19 It is not considered reasonable to restrict certain sizes of vehicles as the existing properties will all be serviced by large delivery vehicles from time to time.

Flood Risk

7.20 The site does not lie within an area identified by the Environment Agency as being at risk from flooding. The site is within the catchment area of the Sawtry Internal Drainage Board. The Board’s system downstream of the site is close to capacity during high rainfall events. Therefore the restriction of surface water discharge from this site to the Greenfield rate of run-off will be required. A condition is therefore recommended for submission and approval of the surface water drainage details.

Response to representations

7.21 The concerns raised within the neighbour representations have been addressed in the report above.

8 80 Conclusion

7.22 In conclusion, it is considered that this amended proposal has overcome the original reasons for refusal and is now in accordance with Development Plan policy and therefore my officer recommendation is one of conditional approval.

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:

02 003 Time Limit (3yrs)

Nonstand Materials

Nonstand Hard and soft landscaping

Nonstand Soft landscape details

13 007 Permitted Development (Windows)

04 003 Surface water only

03 018 Access laid out

03 022 Parking

Nonstand Visibility splays

Nonstand Hours of work on site

13 003 Permitted Development (Extensions)

Nonstand Obscure glazing

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application File Reference: 0801197FUL East of England Plan – Revision to the Spatial Strategy (May2008) Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations, 2002 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2007 Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment 2007

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Ms Louise Platt Planning Officer 01480 388460

9 81 This page is intentionally left blank

82 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 16 JUNE 2008

Case No: 0800750FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: CONSTRUCTION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS

Location: LAND ADJACENT 55 STATION ROAD

Applicant: KIMBOLTON SCHOOL (FAO MR E VALLETTA)

Grid Ref: 508135 269315

Date of Registration: 03.04.2008

Parish: TILBROOK

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The site relates to a field located to the east of 55 Station Road. Its current use is for horse grazing. Opposite the site is Public Footpath FP11; this is located along the front of the site and continues down past The Old Barn which is sited further down the track. The field is currently accessed from an access point which is located at the opposite side of the field, further down the track.

1.2 The application seeks to move the existing vehicle access to the site from the access point located down the public footpath to a new one which can be accessed off Station Road. This new access is proposed as the existing one is very awkward to negotiate and could block the public footpath. The construction of the access requires the clearance of a 6 metre wide section of the hedge approximately 2 metres in from the western boundary of the site. The gate is to be approximately 2.5 metres wide with post and rail fencing on each side.

1.3 An amended plan has been received (1.5.08) which shows that the access is to be constructed to Cambridge County Council (CCC) specification.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

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

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

83 2.3 PPG13: “Transport” (2001) contains objectives to integrate planning and transport at the national, regional, strategic and local level and to promote more sustainable transport choices for carrying people and for moving freight.

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 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.

3.2 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• No specific policies from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) are relevant to this application.

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

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

• Policy En5 - Development within or directly affecting conservation areas will be required to preserve or enhance their character or appearance.

• Policy En6 - In conservation areas, high standards of design are required, with careful consideration being given to the scale and form of development in the area and to the use of sympathetic materials of appropriate colour and texture.

• Policy En9 – Development will not normally be permitted if it would impair important open spaces, trees, street scene and views into and out of Conservation Areas.

2 84 • Policy En18 – Important site features including trees, woodlands, hedges and meadowland will be protected.

• Policy En20 – Wherever appropriate, the grant of planning permission for development will be subject to conditions requiring the execution of an approved landscaping scheme. The planting of particularly of native trees, shrubs and hedges will be required in suitable situations.

• Policy H34 - Development should have regard to the amenity and privacy of adjoining neighbours.

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).

• No specific policies from the Local Plan Alteration (2002) are relevant to this application.

3.5 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

• Policy G2 – The introduction of incongruous or intrusive elements into views (by virtue of the development’s siting, scale, form, colour or use of materials) should be avoided.

• Policy B8 - Development within a conservation area should seek to preserve and enhance the character or appearance of that conservation area.

3.6 Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment (2007)

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 7800970OUT – erection of one detached dwelling – refused

4.2 7801587REFUSL – erection of one detached dwelling - dismissed at appeal

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Tilbrook Parish Council OBJECT for the following reasons:

• The application is not clear in its intention; application is for relocation of the gateway but the applicant does not propose to alter the current entrance. This will result in an additional gateway and not the relocation of an existing one; the Parish Council requests that applicant confirms that the original gateway will be closed and a hedge planted.

3 85 • The proposed new gateway will be immediately adjacent to the highway on a blind and sharp bend. The Parish Council are concerned that the incoming traffic will, in part, be stationary on the bend whilst the gate is being opened in order to effect access and also whilst the gate is being closed having exited the field. This bend has already been the site of accidents in the past. (copy attached)

5.2 HDC Transportation Officer – NO OBJECTIONS subject to conditions.

5.3 Environment Agency – NO OBJECTIONS to the proposal but wish to draw the attention to the Land Drainage Act 1991/Water Resources Act 1991.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 TWO letters of OBJECTION received; both contain concerns over highway safety which include:

• Obstruction of the highway • The access is blind to approaching traffic • It is felt that the existing access is satisfactory and does not block the public footpath as the access is wider than any horsebox • The bend has been the source of accidents in the past • Provision of an additional access – one access is appropriate • The land is low lying and frequently floods along the boundary which makes it foolhardy for road vehicles to try and gain access • Speed of approaching vehicles over the bridge • Visibility over the bridge is impaired by the curve of the road and the hump of the bridge • The road is used by heavy multi-axle vehicles (reduced in frequency recently)

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues to consider are the impacts on highway safety, on the character and appearance of the area and on the residential amenity of the surrounding neighbours.

Highway Safety

7.2 The proposed access is to be located in close proximity to a junction and a bend in the highway. However, in this instance, it is felt that in view of the quiet nature of the local network and the limited traffic implication of the associated land use, highway safety will not be unacceptably impacted upon as a result of the new access. The amended plan shows the access is to be constructed to CCC specification; the works should be conditioned to ensure that the access is constructed in accordance with these plans. A condition should also be attached which ensures that existing access is closed up. CCC has not commented upon this proposal because they decreed in 1999 that they no longer wish to be consulted up to a

4 86 specified threshold of application type. Highways advice has therefore been provided by the HDC Transport Team for this application due to the nature and scale of the proposed works.

Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area

7.3 Tilbrook lies within the landscape character area defined by the Southern Wolds in the Landscape and Townscape Assessment, and is characterised by a well wooded landscape with hedged fields. The landscape has generally retained a well-vegetated appearance and Station Road has a soft green character. The insertion of an access into this field is not considered to harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area owing to the short section which is to be removed. Boundary treatments should take into account the rural character of the area; the proposed gate and post and rail fence are characteristic of a rural environment and are not considered to be out of keeping with the locality. It is therefore felt that the proposed conforms with the Landscape and Townscape Assessment of the locality. A condition should be attached for details of the proposed additional planting to be submitted. With the construction to the CCC specification, there will not be unsightly scarring of the verge which was a neighbour concern.

Residential Amenity

7.4 Number 55 Station Road and The Old Barn are the closest residential properties. The application is solely for the insertion of an access and does not include a proposed change of use for the land. As a result, whilst the proposed access is to be sited approximately 20 metres closer to number 55 than the existing, it is not considered that the use will be intensified and entry to the field should be easier and quicker owing to the more convenient location for horseboxes. It is therefore felt that the access will not have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of these residents.

Concerns of Neighbours and Tilbrook Parish Council

7.5 It is considered that the highway concerns have been addressed above. The applicant has confirmed by email (22.05.08) that the proposal is for the relocation of the existing access and not the construction of an additional point of access. The applicant has also confirmed that a hedge will be planted to fill in the gap where the existing access is.

Conclusion

7.6 It is considered that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact upon highway safety, on the residential amenity of the surrounding neighbours or on the character and appearance of the area. 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.

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.

5 87

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

02 003 Time Limit (3yrs)

Nonstand Existing access closed 21days

Nonstand Access laid out

06 002 Trees details of planting

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application File Reference: 0800750FUL East of England Plan – Revision to the Spatial Strategy (May 2008) Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations, 2002 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment 2007

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

6 88 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 16 JUNE 2008

Case No: 0800971FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: ERECTION OF DWELLING

Location: LAND ADJACENT 24 STATION ROAD

Applicant: MR AND MRS R DEAN

Grid Ref: 507880 269244

Date of Registration: 03.04.2008

Parish: TILBROOK

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The site relates to a plot of land located on the western side of Station Road and is raised up from the ground height of the highway by approximately 1 metre. Station Road is a narrow country lane which has a variety of residential properties lining both sides of the road; there is a strong linear form which has a spacious, rural and well landscaped character. The dwellings in the area vary from sizeable dwellings located at the southern end of the road to smaller dwellings set in smaller plots at the northern end. The application site is located in the middle of this spectrum; it abuts number 24, a detached dwelling set back from the highway and number 30, a modest chalet bungalow located close to the highway edge. The boundary of the Tilbrook Conservation Area lies opposite the application site, The Croft and Croft Cottage are listed buildings sited approximately 25 metres from the northern boundary of the application site on the eastern side of the road. To the rear of the site is open countryside, the site frontage is defined by an established hedgerow.

1.2 The application seeks the erection of a dwelling; this is proposed to have a frontage width of approximately 28 metres, the depth of the main part of the house is approximately 6.7 metres and it has a ridge height of approximately 7.8 metres. In addition there is a forward projection proposed, this element is to provide for an open garage with two vehicle spaces, a garage/garden store and an area of covered parking, it is to be approximately 7.1 metres wide and 15.3 metres deep. The garage element is to be approximately 2.9 metres high to the eaves and 6.7 metres high to the ridge; the covered parking area is to have an eaves height of 2 metres and a ridge height of 6 metres. A lobby area is also proposed as a forward projection approximately 5.9 metres wide, 3.5 metres deep, 2.1 metres high to the eaves and 5.2 metres high to the ridge. There is an additional single storey addition to the rear to provide a living room, this is approximately 6.8 metres deep, 5.4 metres wide, 2.4 metres

89 high to the eaves and 5.1 metres high to the ridge. The total footprint of the proposed dwelling is approximately 353.6 square metres.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

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

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

2.3 PPS7: “Sustainable Development in Rural Areas” (2004) sets out the Government's planning policies for rural areas, including country towns and villages and the wider, largely undeveloped countryside up to the fringes of larger urban areas.

2.4 PPG13: “Transport” (2001) contains objectives to integrate planning and transport at the national, regional, strategic and local level and to promote more sustainable transport choices for carrying people and for moving freight.

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

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 East of England Plan - Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008)

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.

2 90

• 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.

• ENV6: In their plans, policies, programmes and proposals local planning authorities and other agencies should identify, protect, conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment of the region including Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings.

• ENV7: 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.

3.2 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• No specific policies from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) are relevant to this application.

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

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

• Policy 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.

• Policy En5: Development within or directly affecting conservation areas will be required to preserve or enhance their character or appearance.

• Policy En9: Development will not normally be permitted if it would impair important open spaces, trees, street scenes and views into and out of Conservation Areas.

• Policy En 17: Development in the countryside is restricted to that which is required in connection with an identified land use need.

• Policy En18: Important site features including trees, woodlands, hedges and meadowland will be protected.

• Policy En25: New development will respect the scale, form, materials and design of established buildings within the locality.

3 91 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).

• STR1: Huntingdonshire settlement hierarchy

• STR2: Defines the scale and form of housing development across the District

• STR6: Identifies Tilbrook as an Infill Village

• HL5: States that good design and layout will be required for new housing development which makes efficient use of land, respects the townscape, provides an appropriate mix, incorporates landscaping, creates safe places and promotes energy efficiency

• HL6: Requires densities of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare.

• HL7: Support will normally be given to the re-use of previously developed land, the re-use of empty properties, and the conversion of underused dwellings or other buildings, for housing.

• HL9: Infill Village Housing – will be restricted to infilling, where suitable sites exist within the village environmental limits.

3.5 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007

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

• Policy P2: Development should contribute to the efficient use of natural resources by:

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

• Policy P3: Development should contribute to the social and economic well-being of the district by preserving diversity and distinctiveness; conserving buildings, sites and areas of

4 92 architectural or historic importance; creating attractive places; contributing to social cohesion; and, limiting the need to travel.

• Policy P4: Defines the Settlement Strategy

• Policy P7: Settlement Hierarchy – Smaller settlements

• Policy P8: development in the countryside is restricted to that which is essential to agriculture

• Policy G2: The introduction of incongruous or intrusive elements into views (by virtue of the development’s siting, scale, form, colour or use of materials) should be avoided.

• Policy G3: Development proposals should minimise risk of harm to trees, hedgerows, or other environmental features of the visual, historic or nature conservation value.

• Policy B1: Development should demonstrate a high quality of design.

• Policy B2: Proposals should make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of streets and public spaces.

• Policy B4: States development should not have an unacceptable impact upon amenity in terms of:

- Access to daylight and sunlight - Privacy - Noise and disturbance - Air quality, light spillage and other forms of pollution - Safety and security - The resultant physical relationships would be oppressive or overbearing

• Policy B8: Development within a conservation area should seek to preserve and enhance the character or appearance of that conservation area.

• Policy H1: Location of Housing Development - lists the limitations on the location of future housing development to: within the built up framework of Smaller Settlements: residential infilling.

• Policy H2: Housing Density - lists the minimum density standards housing developments should achieve. Within smaller settlements and the countryside: 30-40 dwellings per hectare.

3.6 Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2007)

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 9901571OUT – erection of two dwellings and garaged – approved

5 93 4.2 0300120OUT – erection of two dwellings – approved. All matters reserved. This permission lapsed on the 17th February 2008. (site layout plan attached reference 0600630REM).

4.3 0600630REM – approval of siting, design, external appearance, means of access and landscaping for the erection of two dwellings and garages – details approved.

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Tilbrook Parish Council - NO OBJECTION – they “do not consider that the proposal will have a negative impact upon the street scene and the property would not be excessively large in relation to the size of the plot. The council is also mindful that the impact on traffic flow may be reduced as a result of the development being a single property rather than two” (copy attached).

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 ONE letter from No. 24 Station Road which states that the neighbour does NOT OBJECT to the application.

6.2 Following a letter raising the Local Planning Authorities concerns with the application, the applicants have submitted a representation supporting the scheme (copy attached).

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues to consider are the principle of development, the acceptability of the proposed design, impact on the character and appearance of the area including the Conservation Area, the impact on the setting of the listed building, impacts on the residential amenity, highway safety, and other matters.

Principle of Development

7.2 The part of the site proposed for development is within the environmental limits, as defined in the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995), whilst the proposed garden is considered to be outside the environmental limits. It is not considered that there has been any material change in Development Plan Policy since the consideration of the recently lapsed 2003 scheme; as such it is considered that the principle of residential development is acceptable.

7.3 In line with PPS3 (Housing), Policy H2 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement seeks that a proposal for housing development should achieve either a minimum net density of 30 dwellings per hectare or, the maximum densities possible with i) the character of the site and its surroundings, and ii) the need to accommodate other uses and residential amenities such as open space and parking areas. The application site is approximately 0.296 hectares in size; the one dwelling put forward therefore provides a very low density of 3.3 dwellings per hectare. Whilst considerably lower than the desired 30-40 dwellings per hectare within smaller settlements and the countryside, it is considered that the previous permitted scheme for two dwellings which gave a density of 6.7 dwellings per hectare provided better use of the land without having

6 94 an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area, on the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties and without compromising highway safety. The concept of ‘best use of the land’ is not a phrase that is considered out of date as has been put forward by the applicants, Policy ENV7 of the East of England Plan (2008), a new document published in May 2008 that has a key role in contributing to sustainable development of the region, states that development should “make efficient use of land”. Whilst it is accepted that the applicants feel that the provision of one dwelling on this site is more sustainable in terms of provisions of the village, Tilbrook has been identified as an infill settlement and therefore development on this site is welcomed. It is considered that this development should provide efficient use of the land and, as the previous permission suggests, two dwellings are achievable. The applicants put forward other schemes in Hatchet Lane, Stonely and Common Lane, Hemingford Abbots that are examples of substantial dwellings on large plots capable of accommodating more dwellings. These applications are determined on their own merits and are not considered to have an impact on the outcome of this proposal. In this instance it is therefore felt that the proposal does not make the best use of the site.

Acceptability of the Proposed Design

7.4 The Design Guide states that infill development should “aim to make good use of a site”; this objective must be balanced with the need for the “layout and form of infill developments to harmonise with their surroundings“. The dwellings within the locality, whilst varied in size and style, are all traditional in character; the fenestration and form of the surrounding properties do not appear out of place along the semi- rural country lane. It is not considered that the proposal put forward with its sprawling mass and fussy detailing is characteristic of a large detached dwelling and as such is not in keeping with the regularity of the surrounding properties. The proportion of window openings does not reflect other properties and does not aid in breaking up the large massing created by the longhouse design. As such it is felt that the proposal will dominate the streetscene which will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

7.5 The proposed dwelling, as a result of the wide frontage and shallow plan, is not considered to be of a scale and massing that reflects the urban grain of Station Road. Within the Design and Access Statement, the applicants state that the dominance of the main linear built form is paramount to the design intent. This dominance across the majority of the site frontage and the resultant massing of such a linear building is considered to be out of keeping with the built form and is therefore not suitable in these surroundings. This element of the proposal may potentially lead to the loss of the hedgerow due to damage to the roots.

7.6 The forward projection of the garage element is proposed to be approximately 0.4 metres from the front boundary of the site. Whilst there are some examples at the southern end of Station Road of garages projecting forward, these are located together and are sited within smaller plots in terms of frontage width of the site. The pattern of development of dwellings and garages closest to the application site do not generally have this arrangement with number 20, which is

7 95 a single storey dwelling with a flat roof garage located in front of the dwelling, providing an exception; however the scale of the bungalow is such that it does not have a profound impact on the street scene.

7.7 The use of water below the overhang of the entrance hall with the lobby posts coming out of a pond is noted however, this aspect of the proposed is not clear from the submitted details. It is an interesting feature of the proposal; however, it does not overcome the underlying concerns with the design of the scheme put forward. 7.8 The use of gravel for the surfacing of the forecourt is considered to be suitable to the rural environment of the site. The submitted application form states that the boundaries to the site are to be defined by timber and hedges to match the existing, due to the open countryside to the rear of the site it is felt that any boundaries materials should be controlled.

Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area, Including the Adjacent Conservation Area

7.9 The scale of the dwelling with its massing and lack of coherent openings does not complement the rhythm and form of the locality and therefore is not considered to enhance views out of the Conservation Area. The application site and other plots on the western side of Station Road are raised above the highway; the proposed ridge height is to be lower than number 24 and higher than number 30. The height of the proposal will not dominate the street scene; however, it will obscure views both from and into the Conservation Area. The previous scheme for two dwellings allowed gaps within the site through the use of the detached single storey garage structure; this reduced the bulk of the frontage width whilst allowing views from the Conservation Area and countryside. Owing to this, it is considered that the current proposal will have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the Tilbrook Conservation Area.

7.10 There are dwellings in the vicinity which are located close to the edge of the highway; these are traditional dwellings that include the listed building of The Croft and Victorian/Georgian terraced properties located on the eastern side of Station Road. The western side of the lane is characterised by detached properties that have a subservient relationship with the open countryside to the rear through the scale and massing of these properties. The proposed dwelling has an excessive amount of glazing to the rear which when combined with the sprawling mass of the building is considered will result in a prominent building on the boundary of the environmental limits and the open countryside which in this instance is considered unacceptable.

7.11 The relationship of dwellings and their plot size along Station Road follows the trend that the dwelling is located with space to the side and the dwellings do not dominate the plot. This is not the case with the proposed scheme; the site is one of the largest plots within Station Road and the proposed dwelling will still dominate the plot with its linear design and additional bulk of the projections. Whilst this is to be set back from the highway with some space to the side, the design will result in a harsh arrangement which is detrimental to the spacious character of the properties on the western side of the lane.

8 96

Impact on the Setting of Listed Buildings

7.12 Whilst there are listed buildings sited to the north east of the application site, it is considered that the area of separation of approximately 25 metres from the northern boundary of the application site is sufficient to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on the setting of the listed buildings.

Impacts on Residential Amenity

7.13 The main one and a half storey element of the proposal is to be sited in line with the adjacent dwelling to the south and level with the rear boundary of the dwelling to the north; the area of separation between the proposed dwelling and these sites is approximately 4.6 metres and 6.2 metres respectively. There is a first floor window on the northern elevation of number 24; this is to be approx. 5.4 metres from the proposed dwelling, it is considered that the gable elevation of the proposed dwelling will not have an unduly oppressive or overbearing relationship with the adjacent dwelling owing to the shallow plan of the main structure and the area of separation between the two buildings. It is not considered that there will be any significant detrimental impacts on the residential amenity as a result of the proposed new dwelling that would warrant refusal.

Highway Safety

7.14 Station Road is an unclassified road; the current application is for one dwelling with the previous approval for two dwellings. It is therefore, considered that highway safety will not be harmed by the addition of this proposed dwelling.

Other Matters

7.15 Whilst it is recognized from the Design and Access Statement that the proposal looks to reach level 3 standard (very good) with an aim of achieving level 4 (exemplary) when assessed against the Code for Sustainable Homes and it is understood that this aim to create a sustainable dwelling has led to some of the adopted design elements, i.e. the fenestration and materials; this is not considered sufficient to justify the unacceptable scheme put forward in terms of its impact upon the adjacent Conservation Area, on the street scene and upon the relationship of this dwelling with the plot size. It is felt that the applicant has failed to provide sufficient information to justify going against the Development Plan Policies that seek development to be of a good design that reflects the scale and form of the locality.

7.16 It is considered that a number of the comments raised by the applicant in the representation have been addressed above.

7.17 The applicants refer to scheme 0602665REM (copy attached), this scheme for a detached four bedroom dwelling that has utilised the options to have solar panels. It is considered that this approved scheme has simple detailing and the appearance of an outbuilding which is sympathetic to its location.

9 97 Conclusion

7.18 The proposed dwelling is out of keeping with the traditional built form of Station Road. Whilst it is accepted that modern features can be incorporated in the right setting, it is felt that in this instance the sensitive location of the site adjacent to the Conservation Area and backing onto open countryside requires that the style of development reflects that of its close neighbours, which this scheme for a new dwelling does not afford and it is not considered that the aim to achieve code 4 on the Code for Sustainable Homes in this instance is sufficient to go against the relevant planning policies.

7.19 In this instance it is felt that the proposal does not make the best use of the site, the proposal is therefore contrary to national guidance and local policy. When assessing all aspects, the design of the proposal is not considered to be consistent with the character of the site and its surroundings and therefore, there is no good sense to contravene policy which seeks to make the most efficient use of the land.

7.20 Therefore having regard for applicable national and local policies and taking all relevant material considerations into account, it is considered that planning permission should be refused in this instance owing to the inefficient use of land, unacceptable impacts on the character and appearance of the area including the adjacent Conservation Area and the design of the proposed dwelling.

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 dwelling would, by virtue of its bulk, scale, massing and design have a poor physical relationship with the adjacent built form and will obscure views into and out of the Conservation Area. This would be detrimental to the existing character and urban grain of the locality. The proposal is therefore contrary to PPG15, Policies ENV6 and ENV7 of the East of England Plan (2008), Policies En5, En9 and EN25 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995), Policy HL5 of the Local Plan Alteration (2002) and Policies G2, B1, B2, B8 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement (2007) and the Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2007).

8.2 The proposed dwelling would, by virtue of its size and location within the plot, achieve a density of 3.3 dwellings per hectare and would not provide efficient use of the land. This level of housing density does not enable the best use to be made of the development site and does not safeguard the countryside from unnecessary development. The proposal is therefore contrary to PPS3, Policies HL5 and HL6 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration (2002), Polices P2 and H2 of the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement (2007) and the Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2007).

10 98

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Planning Application File Reference: 0800971FUL East of England Plan - Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008) Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002 Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement 2007 Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2007)

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

11 99 This page is intentionally left blank

100 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 16 JUN 2008

Case No: 0801280FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: ERECTION OF DWELLING

Location: WEST VIEW MARINA HIGH STREET

Applicant: MR AND MRS L FIDLER

Grid Ref: 538117 274756

Date of Registration: 17.04.2008

Parish: EARITH

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The application site lies to the rear of properties on the southern side of High Street. It currently forms part of the garden of ‘The Bungalow’, a backland dwelling associated with Westview Marina. The Bungalow is an extended chalet bungalow with a garden which leads down to the marina moorings. There is a driveway around the northern edge of the site leading from the High St to the marina. It also serves a small group of modern dwellings at Marina Views. The northern edge of the site is currently screened by hedges, other boundaries are open.

1.2 The proposal is for the erection of a detached, two storey dwelling with three bedrooms.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

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

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

2.3 PPS25 - ‘Development and Flood Risk’ (2007) sets out Government policy on development and flood risk. Its aims are to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas of highest risk. Where new development is, exceptionally, necessary in such areas, policy aims to make it safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, reducing flood risk overall.

101 2.4 PPS3 - ‘Housing’ (2006) sets out how the planning system supports the growth in housing completions needed in England.

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 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

• ENV6 : “The Historic Environment” – Local planning authorities should conserve and where appropriate enhance the historic environment.

• 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.

3.2 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

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

• None relevant

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

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

• 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.

• CS9 – “Flooding” – states that planning permission will normally be refused for development that prejudices flood water management.

• En5 - development within Conservation Areas will be required to preserve/enhance character or appearance

2 102 • En6 - in Conservation Areas careful consideration should be given to scale, form and sympathetic use of materials, colour and texture

3.4 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

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

• STR5 – Earith is selected as a group village

• 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.

• HL7 – Reusing Brownfield Land and Buildings - indicates that the District Council will seek to maximise the re-use of previously developed land.

3.5 Policies from the 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.

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

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

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

• B8 – Development within or affecting a Conservation Area should seek to preserve and enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

• H1 – Location of Housing Development - lists the limitations on the location of future housing development to: within the built up framework of Smaller Settlements: residential infilling.

• P7 – Settlement Hierarchy – Smaller settlements - Earith is selected as a smaller settlement.

3 103 • P10 – Flood Risk – development should: not take place in areas at risk from flooding, unless suitable mitigation/flood protection measures are agreed; not increase the risk of flooding to properties elsewhere; make use of sustainable drainage systems where feasible; be informed by a flood risk assessment where appropriate.

3.6 SPG Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2003

4. PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 0701075 – erection of a dwelling with new access drive to the marina was withdrawn in 2007.

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Earith Parish Council – OBJECTION due to flood area (Copy attached)

5.2 Environment Agency – NO OBJECTION subject to conditions with regard to: Floor levels; scheme for a safe access and egress route for pedestrians; no further building in garden area; details of boundary fencing and walls.

5.3 CCC Highways – NO OBJECTION in principle to the development providing the vehicular access is ungated and parking spaces are surfaced and marked out.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 Representations have been received from the occupiers of 110, 108 and 106 High Street raising concerns regarding the disposal of excess and displaced water, flood risk to adjacent properties, loss of amenities of the garden belonging to dwellings on High St and loss of views.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

7.1 The main issues in this case related to the principle of the scale of housing development in this location; the impact on the character and appearance of the area which is a proposed conservation area; the impact on neighbours; the suitability of the access and flood risk.

Principle of the development

7.2 The site is previously developed land within the meaning of PPS3 and its more efficient use would be consistent with one of the major thrusts of this guidance and with a number of policies referred to above. However, making the more efficient use of land is only one of a number of considerations and PPS3 also lays stress on securing development that is appropriate in other respects, including design quality. The site is inside the village limits as defined in the Huntingdonshire Local Plan. It is also considered to be in the ‘built framework’ which is the criterion in the Huntingdonshire Interim Planning Policy Statement. The erection of a single dwelling would be compatible with the status of the village in the settlement hierarchy.

4 104 Impact on the character and appearance of the area

7.3 The site is not in the designated conservation area but it is within the proposed extended area that has been the subject of public consultation. It is therefore appropriate to consider the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the proposed conservation area. The Bungalow and Marina Views are both modern backland developments and this proposal would sit between them. The dimensions of the site are restricted due to the roadway to the Marina but the scale of the building is not excessive and would not appear cramped in its setting. There is also adequate spacing between the proposed dwelling and the existing dwelling . It is therefore considered that the character and appearance of the area and proposed Conservation Area would be preserved/unharmed.

7.4 The design of the dwelling follows the advice in the design guide and is sympathetic to the overall pattern of development in the vicinity. Part of the hedging to the north east of the site is to be retained.

Impact on neighbouring properties

7.5 The development would not have a significant impact on the neighbouring properties. The concerns regarding loss of amenities of the dwellings to the north of the site would be minimised as there are garages to the rear of these dwellings on the High Street, which would screen the rear gardens of these properties.

Access

7.6 The amount of traffic generated from one dwelling would not be significant in terms of the existing use of the access by existing dwellings and the marina.

Flood Risk

7.7 The site is approximately 200m from the bank of the river and 60m from the water’s edge at the marina. The land level where the dwelling is proposed is shown on the survey plans as varying between 5.6 and 5.9m. The 1947 flood level was 5.33m and this has not since been exceeded. Following up to date modelling of flows the Environment Agency has confirmed that it now considers the 1 in 100 year level to be 5.47m ODN and it requires floor levels to be 0.6m higher. The Environment Agency is satisfied with the applicants’ flood risk assessment and with the principle of building the dwelling on a dry island above the flood plain subject to the imposition of conditions to secure a safe route for pedestrians; removing permitted development rights to erect garden buildings in the flood plain and ensuring that any boundary treatments allow the flow of water.

7.8 Having regard to the 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.

5 105

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

02003 Time Limit (3yrs)

05001 Buildings

Nonstand Floor Levels

Nonstand Pedestrian Access Route

Nonstand Permitted development

Nonstand Fences

13006 Permitted Development (Fences)

Nonstand Soft landscaping

Nonstand No ground raising

Nonstand Permanent space

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

6 106 AGENDA ITEM NO.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL 16 JUN 2008

Case No: 0801280FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

Proposal: ERECTION OF DWELLING

Location: WEST VIEW MARINA HIGH STREET

Applicant: MR AND MRS L FIDLER

Grid Ref: 538117 274756

Date of Registration: 17.04.2008

Parish: EARITH

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.2 The proposal is for the erection of a detached, two storey dwelling with three bedrooms.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

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

107 2.4 PPS3 - ‘Housing’ (2006) sets out how the planning system supports the growth in housing completions needed in England.

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 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

• ENV6 : “The Historic Environment” – Local planning authorities should conserve and where appropriate enhance the historic environment.

• 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.

3.2 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

• None relevant

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

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

• 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.

• CS9 – “Flooding” – states that planning permission will normally be refused for development that prejudices flood water management.

• En5 - development within Conservation Areas will be required to preserve/enhance character or appearance

2 108 • En6 - in Conservation Areas careful consideration should be given to scale, form and sympathetic use of materials, colour and texture