Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2016/1123 Grid Ref: 325136.19 313261.37

Community Valid Date: Officer: Council: 10/11/2016 Kate Bowen

Applicant: Mr David Haddock, , Suit A Zone 3, c/o Unit 9 Rednall Industrial Estate, , Shropshire, SY11 4HS

Location: Wern View, Varchoel Lane, Pool Quay, Welshpool, , SY21 9LQ

Proposal: Demolition of dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling

Application Application for Full Planning Permission Type:

Reason for Committee determination

The site is partially located within the C2 Flood Zone and as such is a departure from the development plan.

Site Location and Description

Wern View is located approximately 1.7km to the south of the southernmost settlement boundary of Arddleen and 2.9km to the north east of the settlement boundary of and on the south east side of Varchoel Lane (U2201 highway) and to the north of the dwelling known as Rose Villa. The property has prefabricated post war panels to the walls under an asbestos slate roof.

It is proposed to replace the existing dwelling of Wern View with a new detached, two bedroomed, two storey dwelling. The submission indicates that the existing dwelling has a floor area of 108 square metres and a built footprint of 117 square metres. The proposed dwelling would have a combined (ground and first floors) floor area of 132 square metres (measuring approximately 11m x 11m maximum and 7m in height to the ridge). The dwelling would be finished with cream rendered walls under a slate roof. The development would accommodate a parking and turning area, using the existing access off Varchoel Lane.

Consultee Response

Welshpool Town Council

No response received.

PCC Highway Authority

In view of the like for like replacement we have no objection in principle, however if the hedge adjacent to the highway was relocated 2 metres behind the visibility line then that would significantly improve highway safety.

1 In view of the above please attach the following conditions:-

HC6 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development clear visibility shall be maintained above a height of 0.26 metres above carriageway level over the full frontage of the developed site to the U2201 road effective over a bandwidth of 2.0 metres measured from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Nothing shall be planted, erected or allowed to grow on the areas of land so formed that would obstruct the visibility and the visibility shall be maintained free from obstruction for as long as the development hereby permitted remains in existence.

HC8 Prior to the occupation of the dwelling, provision shall be made within the curtilage of the site for the parking of not less than 1 car per bedroom (maximum of 3) excluding any garage space provided together with a turning space such that all vehicles serving the site may both enter and leave the site in a forward gear. The parking and turning areas shall be retained for their designated use for as long as the development hereby permitted remains in existence.

PCC Building Control

Building Regulations application required.

Severn Trent Water (STW)

As the proposal has no impact on the public sewerage system I can advise we have no objections to the proposals and do not require a drainage condition to be applied.

PCC Rights of Way

Public footpath 240 passes close to the proposed planning boundary.

Whilst the footpath is not directly affected by the main proposal we would caution that interference or obstruction (no matter how temporary), during, and after any development is taken seriously. Rubble mounds, building materials, parked vehicles etc. during development and more permanent associated development such as fencing (including electric) will be viewed as an obstruction. This also includes landscaping i.e. changing levels of ground, planting etc.

It is therefore strongly advised that the applicant checks the definitive line of the public rights of way on their land to ensure that they understand where they are located.

The applicants can apply to the Authority to temporarily close the public footpath during development if they feel that they need the space and cannot guarantee the safety of the public.

PCC Land Drainage

Thank you for consulting the LLFA regarding the above mentioned application. The LLFA would make the following comments/recommendation.

2 Land Drainage / Flood Risk:

Comment: The Authority holds no historical flooding information relating to the site, although Varchoel Lane has on occasion been affected by floodwater.

The site is located within the Powysland Internal Drainage District and would therefore recommend Natural Resources be consulted, particularly with reference to flood risk.

Surface Water Run-off:

Observation: Reference to surface water disposal is mentioned under Item 13 Assessment of Flood Risk, where it indicates surface water is to be disposed to soakaway. No further surface water drainage details or drawings have been submitted.

Comments: Proposed surface water flows should be equivalent to existing Greenfield run-off in accordance with the principles of TAN15 – Development and Flood Risk and good practice drainage design. The use of soakaways should be investigated in the first instance for surface water disposal. Porosity tests and the sizing of the soakaways should be designed in accordance with BRE Digest 365 to cater for a 1 in 100 year return storm event plus an allowance for climate change.

No surface water run-off shall flow onto the existing public highway. The Applicant will need to demonstrate how surface water will be prevented from flowing on to the public highway.

Recommendation: No development shall commence until a scheme for the surface water drainage of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be completed before any dwelling is occupied.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed drainage system for the site is fully compliant with regulations and is of robust design.

Natural Resources Wales (NRW)

Thank you for consulting Natural Resources Wales (NRW) about the above, which was received on 21/11/2016.

We recommend that you should only grant planning permission if you attach the following conditions. These conditions would address significant concerns that we have identified and we would not object provided you attach them to the planning permission.

Summary of requirements: Condition 1 – The finished floor levels must be raised to at least 600mm above existing ground levels.

Flood Risk:

The application site lies within a ‘dry island’ of DAM Zone C2 as defined by the Development Advice Map (DAM) referred to under Technical Advice Note 15: Development and Flood Risk (TAN15) (July 2004). Our Flood Map information, which is updated on a quarterly basis, confirms the site to be within/part within the 1% (1 in 100 year) and 0.1% (1 in 1000 year)

3 annual probability fluvial flood outlines of the and its tributaries, primarily the Guilsfield Brook.

In accordance with TAN15, the development category is regarded as highly vulnerable. The TAN states that such developments should not be permitted within zone C2.

However, given the nature of the proposed development, i.e. like for like replacement (and in the absence of a flood consequence assessment) we consider the risk could be acceptable subject to the developer being made aware of the potential flood risks, and advised to install additional flood-proofing measures as part of the development.

We acknowledge the intention to raise floor levels at least 600mm above existing ground levels and greater than this in the case of the lounge area. We endorse the opportunity to achieve betterment in this instance, recognising that there is a current dwelling in place which has an established use.

A suitably worded condition ensuring the minimum finished floor level is at least 600mm above existing ground level should be imposed as part of any approval. This is to help protect the proposed development during severe flood events.

The proposed does not increase the number of units and there does not appear to be an intensification of use.

Natural Resources Wales holds flood level data for the confluence area. However, detailed information does not extend beyond the canal and so no suitable information is available which could further inform setting of floor levels, say.

Additional guidance on flood proofing measures and insurance advice can be found at http://naturalresources.wales/flooding/?lang=en

We suggest the Planning Authority consults other professional advisors (e.g. Emergency Planners, Emergency Services, Building Control) on the acceptability of proposals and on matters we cannot advise on, such as, emergency evacuation plans, procedures and measures to address structural damage that may result from flooding. Please note, we do not normally comment on or approve the adequacy of flood emergency response and procedures accompanying development proposals, as we do not carry out these roles during a flood. Our involvement during a flood emergency would be limited to delivering flood warnings to occupants/users.

With regards to assessment of residual risks, including impacts on access, NRW is not the appropriate body to comment upon the operational effectiveness of access routes. It is for the LPA, in consultation with other appropriate bodies, to satisfy themselves that escape/evacuation is feasible.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require further information or clarification on any of the above.

Our comments above only relate specifically to matters that are included on our checklist “Natural Resources Wales and Planning Consultations” (March 2015) which is published on our website: (https://naturalresources.wales/planning-and-development/planning-and-

4 development/?lang=en). We have not considered potential effects on other matters and do not rule out the potential for the proposed development to affect other interests, including environmental interests of local importance.

The applicant should be advised that, in addition to planning permission, it is their responsibility to ensure that they secure all other permits/consents relevant to their development.

PCC Environmental Health

Response received 07/12/2016:

Could the agent forward the detail relating to the foul drainage plant and location of the soakaway area with confirmation that it complies with the requirements of the Building Regulations in relation to distances from buildings, watercourses and Private water supplies.

Response received 12/12/2016:

Following the additional information provided by the agent I have no objection to the application.

Response received 16/12/2016:

Given the information provide by Ms Harvey is informed and that she pays for the electric for the Private Treatment Plant I am of the opinion that the information given by the agent was incorrect.

Dear Kate. Following a conversation with Carwyn on Friday and a site visit yesterday may I confirm the following. A. The septic tank and soak away has no private bore hole or spring or well with in 50m. B. The Entec super septic tank 6000lt has the capacity for 12 people, which is for Rose Villa and Wern View. The number of bedrooms for the proposal is not increasing and remains two. C. The Soak away to the septic tank appears to be to the S.W. and from my site visit is not within 10m of any water course. I hope this helps to answer your questions. Kind regards Justin Shirra.

In light of this new information I object to the planning application until such time that sufficient proof has been provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority demonstrating what foul drainage will be used to serve the proposed dwelling.

Response received 10/01/2017:

It appears that the plant that is currently used has been in place for a number of years and the capacity of the tank is sufficient for the proposed use.

I note that the size of the property is increasing but the population (number of bedrooms) is not. Therefore as this system has been working when the old house was occupied, I have no reason to doubt why it cannot be used for the proposed dwelling.

I have no objection to the planning application.

5 Any issues relating to maintenance costs would be a private matter between the two parties sharing the tank.

Public Representations

Following display of a site notice, three public representations of objection from one source have been received and are summarised as follows:

Size and volume of proposed dwelling

 Submission is not accurate in that the stated size and volume increases are not accurate.  Visual impact.

Impact upon amenities enjoyed by occupiers of neighbouring dwellings

 Overlooking over the neighbouring property (driveway, entrance, two sections of garden and down stairs windows of dwelling) known as Rose Villa from the first floor window on the south west elevation causing privacy concerns.

Foul drainage

 The existing sewage treatment plant has the capacity to cope with foul discharge for six persons (not 12) but not at an unremitting rate. Rose Villa has accommodation for three plus and the connection of the property to the system by wayleave in 2000 requires that the amount of discharge must not exceed its provision. Concern over the capability of the system to cope with foul drainage from both properties.

Surface water drainage

 Concern over how rain water from a larger roof will be managed. No percolation tests have been carried out for soakaways. Climate change will need to be accounted for.

Flood risk

 Substantial flood risk mitigation to neighbours has not been included and the proposal is not of strategic importance.  Flooding cuts off the access lane and surrounding area and it is relatively common.  Concern over relocation of dwelling which may alter the ground flow exacerbating existing problems.  The current Wern View bungalow’s soakaway is to the neighbouring property Rose Villa’s land by informal consent and it must not be assumed that this will be case in the future.

Local needs

 The proposed development is not in accordance with the local needs hierarchy.

Planning History

6 M21453 – Installation of a septic tank. Conditional consent 1991

Principal Planning Constraints

Open countryside; Powysland Internal Drainage Board Area; U2201 unclassified highway; Public right of way travels along the north eastern boundary of the site; C2 Flood zone; and  The proposed development is within 500m of Montgomery SSSI and SAC.

Principal Planning Policies

National Planning Policy

Planning Policy Wales (Edition 9, November 2016)

TAN 5 - Nature Conservation and Planning (2009) TAN 12 – Design (2016) TAN 15 – Development and Flood Risk (2004) TAN 23 – Economic Development (2014)

Welsh Office Circular 10/99: Planning requirements for non mains sewerage Welsh Government Circular 016/2014 – The Use of Conditions in Development Management

Local Planning Policy

Powys Unitary Development Plan (March 2010)

UDP SP3 – Natural, Historic and Built Heritage UDP SP5 – Housing Developments UDP SP14 – Development in Flood Risk Areas

UDP DC11 - Non-mains Sewage Treatment UDP DC13 – Surface Water Drainage UDP DC14 – Flood Prevention Measures UDP ENV2 – Safeguarding the Landscape UDP ENV3 - Safeguarding Biodiversity & Natural Habitats UDP ENV4 – Internationally Important Sites UDP ENV5 – Nationally Important Sites UDP ENV6 – Sites of Regional and Local Importance UDP ENV7 - Protected Species UDP GP1 - Development Control UDP GP3 – Design and Energy Conservation UDP GP4 - Highway and Parking Requirements UDP HP11 - Replacement of Habitable Dwellings UDP HP4 - Settlement Development Boundaries and Capacities UDP TR2 - Tourist Attractions & Development Areas

Powys Residential Design Guide (2004)

7 RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

Officer Appraisal

Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Members are advised to consider this application in accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that, if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Principle

The key policy for replacement of habitable dwellings is UDP Policy HP11 whereby three criteria are used to assess proposals to replace existing habitable dwellings. The criteria include the resistance of the loss of a building of special architectural and/or historic or local vernacular character and encouraging proposals to lie within or adjacent to the footprint of the existing dwelling with a volume increase not exceeding 15% of that of the original dwelling.

Members will note that public representations have referred to planning policy requiring the dwelling to be for ‘local needs’. As advised above, the key policy, UDP Policy HP11 does not require the dwelling to be for an ‘affordable local need’. Therefore, in terms of principle, the key consideration is whether the proposal complies the principle of UDP Policy HP11.

During the site visit it was noted that the slates have been removed from the roof of the dwelling and therefore the dwelling is currently unoccupied. The submission indicates that the dwelling was occupied until August 2016. The dwelling is still recognisable as a dwelling and historic satellite imagery and Google Streetview images support this position. In addition, Council Tax records indicate that council tax is payable on the property. Taking these factors into account, it is considered that the dwelling is recognisable as a dwelling under Class C3 of the Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended) and has not been abandoned and therefore the proposal complies with criterion 1 of UDP Policy HP11.

The existing dwelling is a prefabricated build and as such, the proposal would not result in the loss of a building of special architectural and/or historical merit or local vernacular character. Therefore, the proposal complies with criterion 2 of UDP HP11.

In terms of criterion 3, the submission indicates that the size of the new dwelling would be under a 20% increase. Public representations have referred to inaccuracies and contradictions within the submission over the size of the dwelling, however Development Management is satisfied that the drawings adequately illustrate the size of the proposed dwelling in comparison with the existing.

As advised above, UDP Policy HP11 requires the new dwelling to be sited within or adjacent to the footprint of the existing dwelling and any increase shall not exceed 15% of the volume of the original dwelling unless a change in orientation, position or size would represent an

8 improvement in highway safety, landscape and visual amenity or in solving a particular problem. The 15% volume increase appears to have been included within the policy because that is what would have been available to existing dwellings for extensions under previous permitted development rights.

Whilst the proposed dwelling would be sited partially within the footprint of the existing dwelling and partially adjacent to it, the proposal would represent an increase in volume from the original dwelling with an increase in the footprint and floorspace. However, taking into account the nature of the existing dwelling, it is considered that the proposed development would represent an improvement in terms of a dwelling which is better in design and with raised floor levels creating betterment in terms of flood risk and compliance with current Building Regulations. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would comply with criterion 3 of UDP Policy HP11.

Impact upon character and appearance of locality

The site is located within open countryside and somewhat isolated from any settlement. Therefore, the character of residential development in the area is one of dispersed residential properties and agricultural holdings. The site sits within a landscape which is characterised by flat, open farmland being within the River Severn Flood Plain Visual and Sensory Aspect Area of LANDMAP which is evaluated as moderate. The site is visible from various receptors including the public highway of Varchoel Lane as well as other public highways in the locality, the public right of way which travels to the north eastern boundary of the application site and from neighbouring residential properties. Residential properties in the locality are mixed in design and materials with the nearest neighbouring dwelling, Rose Cottage being a nineteenth century traditional mono ridge red brick dwelling house.

The Council’s Residential Design Guide and TAN12 acknowledge that within the countryside, design issues will vary according to the landscape and topography and also that many buildings in rural Wales occupy visually prominent locations and as such it is important that isolated dwellings fully respect their landscape setting and avoid impacting upon distinctive rural landscapes. Conversely, parts of the countryside may offer unique opportunities for innovative design which maintains aesthetic quality.

As referred to within the public representations the proposal would represent a visual change in the locality from the existing single storey dwelling to a two storey dwelling which would be larger. In addition, the land is raised above the highway and the surrounding agricultural land. The design of the front elevation of the dwelling facing Varchoel Lane is relatively traditional in appearance, being double fronted with a horizontal emphasis, however the rear and side elevations are more contemporary. Taking into account the mixed building styles and materials within the locality, overall, the proposed design is not considered to be out of character in the locality.

Overall, whilst the proposal would result in visual change in the locality, taking into account the design, it is considered that the proposal including materials, fenestration, gable features, proportions and roof pitches would not have an unacceptable visual or landscape impact, subject to the use of conditions.

Impact upon public right of way

9 Public footpath 240 passes close to the north eastern boundary of the application site. The route of the public right of way would not be directly affected by the proposed development. Therefore subject to the inclusion of an informative relating to the prevention of interference or obstruction of the right of way, it is considered that the public right of way would not be physically affected by the proposal. Furthermore, whilst the proposed development would represent a visual change in the locality, given that there is an existing dwelling at the site, users of the right of way currently view residential development at this location and given that the design is considered acceptable, it is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the environmental setting of this established tourist attraction in accordance with UDP Policy TR2.

Flood zone and surface water drainage

Public representations have raised concern over increased flood risk as a result of the development. The application site lies within a ‘dry island’ of Zone C2 as defined by the Development Advice Map (DAM) referred to under Technical Advice Note 15: Development and Flood Risk (TAN15) (July 2004). NRW has advised that their Flood Map information, which is updated on a quarterly basis, confirms the site to be within/part within the 1% (1 in 100 year) and 0.1% (1 in 1000 year) annual probability fluvial flood outlines of the River Severn and its tributaries, primarily the Guilsfield Brook. The site is also located within the Powysland Internal Drainage Board area.

In accordance with TAN15, the development category (residential development) is regarded as highly vulnerable. The TAN states that such developments should not be permitted within zone C2. TAN15 goes on to say that all other development (other than highly vulnerable development including residential) must be justified to assist with a local authority strategy and that the consequences of flooding can be appropriately managed. A Flood Consequences Assessment does not accompany the application, however the submission indicates that floor levels would be raised at least 600mm above existing ground levels and greater than this in the case of the lounge area. As such, given that there is a dwelling in existence and the number of units would not be increased and that the raising of floor levels would result in a betterment, NRW have considered that the risk could be acceptable subject to the developer being made aware of the potential flood risks, and advised to install additional flood-proofing measures as part of the development. In addition, they have recommended the inclusion of a suitably worded condition ensuring the minimum finished floor level is at least 600mm above existing ground level to help protect the proposed development during severe flood events.

Therefore, whilst the contents of TAN15 and UDP Policy SP14 have been taken into account which state that residential development shall not be approved in the C2 Flood Zone, given that there is an existing dwelling at the site and that NRW have advised that the proposal represents betterment, it is considered that the location is acceptable. Whilst the concerns within the public representations are noted in terms of impact of flood risk upon neighbouring properties, on the basis of the advice from NRW, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of flood risk subject to the use of a condition relating to floor levels.

In terms of flood emergency response (for example procedures for exiting the site during times of flood), no information on this matter has been included within the application. Therefore, procedures for flood emergency response have not been agreed. However, taking

10 into account that a dwelling currently occupies the site, it is considered that this matter cannot be included as a reason for refusal.

In terms of surface water drainage, public representations have raised concern over the lack of detail in relation to proposed surface water disposal. The submission indicates that surface water would be disposed to soakaway. No further surface water drainage details or drawings have been submitted. The Council’s Land Drainage Engineer has advised that proposed surface water flows should be equivalent to existing Greenfield run-off in accordance with the principles of TAN15 – Development and Flood Risk and good practice drainage design. The use of soakaways should be investigated in the first instance for surface water disposal. Porosity tests and the sizing of the soakaways should be designed in accordance with BRE Digest 365 to cater for a 1 in 100 year return storm event plus an allowance for climate change. In addition, the applicant will need to demonstrate how surface water will be prevented from flowing on to the public highway. Therefore, subject to the condition recommended by the Council’s Land Drainage Engineer to ensure that the proposed drainage system makes adequate provision for surface water disposal in accordance with UDP Policy DC13.

Foul drainage

Government and local planning policy encourages foul drainage to the mains system where feasible. In this instance, given the location, it is accepted that mains disposal is not feasible. It is proposed to connect to an existing sewage treatment plant which is shared between Rose Villa and Wern View and public representations have raised concern over the capacity and access to the plant. Whilst the size of the proposed dwelling will be increased in size (footprint and floor area) from the existing, the number of bedrooms will not increase and given that it has been clarified that the plant has a capacity for up to 6 people, the Council’s Environmental Health department have removed their objection.

Public representations have also raised concern over the age of the treatment plant. As advised by the Environmental Health department, any issues relating to maintenance costs would be a private matter between the two parties sharing the tank.

On the basis of the information submitted within the application, and during processing of the applicant from the applicant’s agent and within the public representations together with the advice from the Environmental Health department, it is considered that the proposal complies with UDP Policy DC11.

Impact upon amenities enjoyed by occupiers of neighbouring property

The north eastern (side) elevation of the nearest neighbouring property is Rose Villa, located approximately 32 metres to the south west of the side elevation of the proposed dwelling. Public representations have raised concern over the impact of the proposal upon the amenities enjoyed by Rose Villa including the impact upon the garden area and the inclusion of a first floor window facing toward Rose Villa.

Taking into account the guidance contained within the Residential Design Guide, given the distance between the elevations is more than 20 metres and that the elevations are not directly facing rear elevations but side elevations, it is not considered that there would be any

11 unacceptable adverse impacts upon privacy for the occupants of Rose Villa or the proposed dwelling.

In terms of avoiding unnecessary overshadowing, the Residential Design Guide advises that where new development is less than 40 metres from the nearest habitable room and where the main front or rear (and not flank) elevations of existing development is affected, new development should be set below a line of 25 degrees taken from the nearest habitable room of adjoining existing property at a height of 2 metres. Therefore, whilst Rose Villa is within 40 metres of the proposed dwelling, the main front or rear elevations are not affected and as such it is not considered that there would be any unacceptable adverse impacts from unnecessary overshadowing for the occupants of Rose Villa.

Whilst the comments within the public representations are noted, on the basis of the guidance contained within the Residential Design Guide and the characteristics of the proposed development, it is not considered that that the proposal would have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling or the proposed dwelling in accordance with UDP Policy GP1.

Highway access and parking

It is proposed to use the existing access off Varchoel Lane which is an unclassified highway. Given that the proposal is not likely to substantially increase traffic movements from the existing or historical levels, the proposed use of the existing access is considered acceptable and the Highway Authority have not objected to the proposal subject to the inclusion of conditions. The conditions would require the hedgerow along the frontage of the property to be removed to improve visibility from the access and the provision and retention of parking. These conditions are considered to be reasonable in order to improve the existing access and ensure adequate parking to ensure adequate provision for highway access and parking in accordance with UDP Policies GP1 and GP4.

Ecology

At pre planning application stage, the Council’s Ecologist advised that following a review of the proposal and aerial photos of the area as well as local records of protected and priority species and designated sites within 500m of the proposed development, this data search identified 17 records of protected and priority species within 500m of the proposed development but there were no records for the site itself. Therefore, given that the roof appeared to be offering limited opportunity for bats to roost it was advised that a bat survey would not be required to support the proposed planning application. It was noted during the site visit for the planning application that the slates had been removed from the roof.

In addition, the Ecologist advised that the proposed development is within 500m of Montgomery SSSI and SAC. At pre planning application stage, the Council’s Ecology reviewed the proposal and topography and it was advised that the proposal is unlikely to have any negative impact on any of these sites or their associated features.

On the basis of the advice from the Ecologist, it is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon any protected species or sites in accordance with UDP Policies ENV4, ENV5 and ENV7. In addition, whilst the Highway Authority’s requirements would result in the loss of the mixed species hedgerow at the front of the site along Varchoel

12 Lane, it is recommended that a condition should be attached to any consent granted to ensure that a replacement hedgerow is planted to ensure no net loss of biodiversity in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.

RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons given above, the proposal is considered to comply with UDP Policy HP11 for replacement dwellings and whilst the site is partially located within the C2 Flood Zone and that TAN15 and UDP Policy SP14 state that residential development within the C2 Flood Zone should be refused, taking into account the existing dwelling and that the development would represent betterment in terms of raised floor levels, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable is flood risk terms. Therefore, the recommendation is one of conditional consent as set out below.

Conditions

1. The development to which this permission relates shall be begun no later than the expiration of five years from the date of this permission. 2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans stamped as approved on XXXX (drawing no's: 489.01.a, 489.02, 489.03a, 489.04a). 3. No development shall commence until a scheme for the surface water drainage of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be completed before any dwelling is occupied. 4. Within 5 days from the commencement of the development clear visibility shall be maintained above a height of 0.26 metres above carriageway level over the full frontage of the developed site to the U2201 road effective over a bandwidth of 2.0 metres measured from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Nothing shall be planted, erected or allowed to grow on the areas of land so formed that would obstruct the visibility and the visibility shall be maintained free from obstruction for as long as the development hereby permitted remains in existence. 5. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling, provision shall be made within the curtilage of the site for the parking of not less than 1 car per bedroom (maximum of 3) excluding any garage space provided together with a turning space such that all vehicles serving the site may both enter and leave the site in a forward gear. The parking and turning areas shall be retained for their designated use for as long as the development hereby permitted remains in existence. 6. The finished floor levels must be at least 600mm above existing ground levels.

Reasons

1. Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. To ensure adherence to the plans stamped as approved in the interests of clarity and a satisfactory development. 3. To ensure that adequate provision is made for surface water drainage in accordance with Planning Policy Wales (2016), Technical Advice Note 15: Development and Flood Risk (2004) and Policy DC13 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010). 4. In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with the provisions of Powys UDP Policy GP1 and GP4. 5. In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with the provisions of Powys UDP Policy GP1 and GP4. 6. To assist in protecting the development during severe flood events in accordance with Policy DC14 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010).

13 Informatives

Please note the advice from Natural Resources Wales (NRW):

The application site lies within a 'dry island' of DAM Zone C2 as defined by the Development Advice Map (DAM) referred to under Technical Advice Note 15: Development and Flood Risk (TAN15) (July 2004). Our Flood Map information, which is updated on a quarterly basis, confirms the site to be within/part within the 1% (1 in 100 year) and 0.1% (1 in 1000 year) annual probability fluvial flood outlines of the River Severn and its tributaries, primarily the Guilsfield Brook.

Additional guidance on flood proofing measures and insurance advice can be found at http://naturalresources.wales/flooding/?lang=en

Please note the advice from the Council's Countryside Services department:

Public Footpath number 240 passes very close to the development. Whilst the footpath is not directly affected by the main proposal we would caution that interference or obstruction (no matter how temporary), during, and after any development is taken seriously. Rubble mounds, building materials, parked vehicles etc… during development and more permanent associated development such as fencing (including electric) will be viewed as an obstruction. This also includes landscaping i.e. changing levels of ground, planting etc.

It is therefore strongly advised that the applicant checks the definitive line of the public rights of way on their land to ensure that they understand where they are located.

The applicants can apply to the Authority to temporarily close the public footpath during development if they feel that they need the space and cannot guarantee the safety of the public. ______Case Officer: Kate Bowen- Planning Officer Tel: 01938 551268 E-mail:[email protected]

14