Chartered Town Planners - Whittington · 2016-11-04 · Steven Abbott Associates LLP Chartered Town Planners PLANNING STATEMENT Applicant: P.E.C. Limited Proposal: removal of outbuildings,

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Chartered Town Planners

www.abbot t- assoc ia tes .co.uk

PLANNING STATEMENT

Applicant: P.E.C. Limited

Proposal: removal of outbuildings, conversion of barn to single dwelling and 3 No.

new dwellings

Site: Land to the rear of The Dragon’s Head Hotel, Whittington, LA6 2NY

October 2016

PLANNING STATEMENT


Proposal: removal of outbuildings, conversion of barn to single dwelling and 3 No. new dwellings


October 2016

Steven Abbott Associates LLP

Page 2

Ref: AT/LWJ/2644 – Planning Statement

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3

2. SITE DESCRIPTION & PROPOSAL..................................................................................... 4

3. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF), HOUSING NEED & SUPPLY ......... 7

4. LOCAL PLANNING POLICY ............................................................................................. 10

5. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 17

6. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 18

PLANNING STATEMENT




October 2016


Page 3


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. This Planning Statement has been prepared independently by Steven Abbott Associates

LLP in support of a planning application for the erection of 3 dwellings and the

conversion of a traditional barn to a single dwelling to the rear of the Dragon’s Head

Hotel, Whittington.

1.2. The application is a resubmission of that refused under Lancaster City Council planning

reference 16/00238/FUL and responds to the reasons for refusal set out in the decision

notice.

1.3. This statement touches on the site description and the proposal and is then followed by

an analysis of the National Planning Policy Framework and housing need in the area and

the wider Lancaster District. This in turn is followed by an assessment of the proposal

against the Lancaster Development Management Development Plan Document

(DMDPD), which in turn is followed by a conclusion.

PLANNING STATEMENT




October 2016


Page 4


2. SITE DESCRIPTION & PROPOSAL

2.1. The site is approximately 0.18 hectares in size and forms the rear curtilage of the

Dragon’s Head Hotel. There are a number of smaller outbuildings that will be removed to

the rear to accommodate the proposal, but these are small low level storage buildings

and not essential to the running of the public house and neither are they considered to

be essential to the character of the Conservation Area for Whittington in which the site

is located.

2.2. There is one significant building within the rear curtilage on the southern boundary and

this is a traditional stone barn which is proposed to be converted into a single dwelling

using the existing form and footprint of the building. The barn is tight on the boundary of

neighbouring property to the south but the proposal has been designed so that there are

no significant effects upon property to the south or that immediately to the west, the

key elevations facing into the courtyard area and access to the new housing. As a result

of concerns about the original proposal the barn conversion has been redesigned with

the entrance porch removed. It is also our intention to retain the sliding door feature.

2.3. Beyond the conversion the proposal is for 3 dwellings in the form of a terrace of cottages

to the east of the property to land immediately behind the Hotel which has been used as

a touring caravan site.

2.4. The accommodation as a whole consists of:

• 1 No. three bedroom barn conversion;

• 3 No. three/four bedroom units that are designed to be flexible so that the third

bedroom can act either as a bedroom or a study room (terraced).

2.5. Full details of the design and materials for the dwellings, as well as the hard and soft

landscaping for the area, can be seen on D H Design’s drawing 1431.25 as well as the

elevational drawings. In addition drawings are included with this application showing

how the dwellings meet Lancaster City Council’s amenity space requirements.

PLANNING STATEMENT




October 2016


Page 5


2.6. A full Design & Access Statement prepared by D H Design has been submitted in support

of the application.

2.7. A number of submissions of information were made during the original application

process and these are included with the application.

BACKGROUND

2.8. Some pre-application discussions had taken place with Lancaster City Council which

related to a larger development, including a significant number of houses on the land

that was used as a caravan site. However, as a result of discussions with the Parish

Council and local community, as well as concerns that have been raised through

investigation of flood risk issues and recent flooding events, it has been decided to put

forward a much reduced proposal on the land immediately to the rear of the Hotel,

which aligns to a great extent with the advice provided at pre-application stage. A

meeting was held with the Parish Council and this smaller proposal was deemed to be

acceptable by the Council because it would in effect finance the reopening of the public

house to include a café and a shop/post office.

2.9. Prior to this contact was made with the Planning Policy Department at Lancaster City

Council in relation to the potential for housing development at the settlement where

advice was provided on the principle of development and also around evidence that

needed to be submitted to illustrate the housing need in the area.

2.10. The original proposal was first submitted on the basis of providing 5 new dwellings

behind the Hotel. However, after consultation with an Arboriculturalist 2 dwellings

adjacent to the trees have been deleted from the proposal to ensure their protection.

2.11. It is important to note that the Applicant’s expertise is in the leisure industry and he has

owned and managed a number of cafes and licensed facilities. This experience is

particularly crucial and illustrates the serious intention to bring back the Dragon’s Head

as a thriving business to improve the future sustainability of Whittington.

PLANNING STATEMENT




October 2016


Page 6


2.12. This revised submission includes a statement from the Applicant setting out how the

pub/café would be managed.

2.13. Some concern was raised during the previous application that the proposal could result

in a housing development with the pub not opening. However, the proposals clearly

include the construction of a car park for the pub and we would be happy to accept a

condition that the car park is completed prior to occupation of the houses. Bringing the

car park closer to the pub will make it more useable, particularly for disabled customers.

PLANNING STATEMENT




October 2016


Page 7


3. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF),

HOUSING NEED & SUPPLY

3.1. The NPPF provides the most up to date thinking from Government, with particular

regard to the crucial matter of housing supply in England.

3.2. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For

planning applications this means approving development proposals that accord with the

Development Plan without delay. In this instance the proposal is considered to perform

strongly against the Development Plan. The proposal will provide much needed housing

within a rural settlement. Even more crucially the proposals as a whole will enable the

renovation of the Hotel which would once again become a key local facility within the

village.

3.3. The NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to identify a five year supply of deliverable

housing land. Where Authorities cannot demonstrate a five year supply Paragraph 49 of

the NPPF states that policies relating to the supply of housing cannot be considered up

to date and proposals must be determined against the presumption in favour of

sustainable development. Lancaster has a significant undersupply of deliverable housing

land. The Interim Five Year Housing Land Statement from 2015 states that the Council

only has a 3.3 year supply of housing land. We understand from the latest information

that the latest figure is 3.2 years, emphasising the need for more housing approvals to

be forthcoming.

3.4. In the absence of a demonstrable five year housing land supply, as per Paragraph 49 of

the NPPF the Council’s policies relating to the supply of housing land are clearly not up

to date and therefore the application should be judged against the presumption in

favour of sustainable development. For decision taking this means approving proposals

without delay unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and

demonstrably outweigh the benefits when considered against the policies of the NPPF as

a whole or where policies indicate that development should be restricted. In this case

there are considered to be no adverse impacts that would justify resisting the proposal

PLANNING STATEMENT




October 2016


Page 8


and there is nothing within the NPPF that specifically directs against what is a proposal

for housing within a village upon previously developed land. To promote sustainable

development in rural areas Paragraph 55 of the NPPF considers that housing should be

located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. The

proposed dwellings are well located in relation to the village and while it is recognised

that the current services are limited, part of this proposal involves bringing the public

house back into use.

3.5. The National Planning Practice Guidance provides some additional advice in relation to

housing and it states that:

It is important to recognise the particular issues facing rural areas in terms of

housing supply and affordability and the role of housing in support of the broader

sustainability of villages and smaller settlements.

A thriving rural community in a living, working countryside depends in part upon

retaining local services and community facilities such as schools, local shops,

cultural venues, public houses and places of worship. Rural housing is essential to

ensure viable use of these local facilities.

3.6. Again it is important to emphasise that the approval of the proposals will bring forward

the much needed renovation of the Dragon’s Head.

3.7. The next section of this statement considers the development plan. However, paragraph

49 of the NPPF considers that housing applications should be considered in the context

of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the

supply of housing (in recent cases relevant policies have been considered as any policy

that has an effect on the supply of housing) should not be considered up to date if the

Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing

sites.

PLANNING STATEMENT




October 2016


Page 9


3.8. This triggers the presumption in favour of sustainable development and in our view

there are no policies in the NPPF that would indicate against the proposal with any

significant weight.

3.9. The application should be seen in the context of the presumption in favour of

sustainable development but we would argue that the proposal is in itself sustainable.

PLANNING STATEMENT




October 2016


Page 10


4. LOCAL PLANNING POLICY

4.1. Policy SC3 of the Core Strategy seeks to locate the majority of development in the main

villages with Whittington not being specifically named. The policy goes on to consider

that any development outside the main settlements will require exceptional justification.

4.2. More recent policy in the form of DMDPD policy DM42, Managing Rural Housing

Growth, identifies in total 8 sustainable rural settlements. However, the policy goes on

to state that proposals for new housing in other rural settlements will be supported if it

can be demonstrated that the development will enhance or maintain the vitality of the

local community.

4.3. The village also has a church and Village Hall. As noted in the pre-application advice

provided, unfortunately the Dragon’s Head is currently vacant but it is the intention of

this proposal to bring it back into use and this has been discussed with the Parish Council

as well as the potentially larger housing proposal which has been abandoned.

4.4. The policy wording is clear in that the addition of housing at this site will help to

maintain the existing vitality of the local community but the proposal also represents a

clear opportunity to enhance that vitality.

4.5. It is the intention to include a shop within the public house but we are aware that a

proposal for 18 houses at the northern end of the village has now been approved and it

is the intention that a subsidised shop is provided as part of that proposal. We are of the

view that generally the two proposals are complementary in that the additional

development to the north of the village will help to enhance the future prospects of

services being viable within the village and also will assist in maintaining the viability of

the Dragon’s Head.

4.6. A number of general requirements are outlined in policy DM42, namely that:

• Development should be well related to the existing built form of the settlement.

PLANNING STATEMENT




October 2016


Page 11


RESPONSE: as set out by the Design & Access Statement and Settlement Analysis the

dwellings are well related to the built form of the settlement and are in part within

the settlement boundary. In terms of their height and scale they are subservient to

the larger Hotel set in front of them on the Main Street and effectively stepped

down the hill slope, and are subservient to the main run of dwellings on Main Street.

• Be proportionate to the existing scale and character of the settlement.

RESPONSE: again, as set out above, the proposals respect the form and character of

the settlement and are subservient to the main run of dwellings along Main Street.

• Be located where the environment and infrastructure can accommodate the

impacts of expansion.

RESPONSE: a Utility Statement is included and the proposals are set within the

curtilage of the Hotel and there is no reason to believe that the environment cannot

cope with this modest expansion.

• Demonstrate good siting and design in order to conserve and where possible

enhance the character and quality of the landscape.

RESPONSE: the proposals are subservient to the main run of dwellings on Main

Street and reflect the general grain and character of the settlement as explained by

the Design & Access Statement and Settlement Analysis.

4.7. In addition to the above policy DM41, New Residential Development, offers support

where proposals represent sustainable development and the first criteria is to ensure

available land is used effectively and in this case previously developed land will

accommodate the additional dwellings, one of which will be through means of

conversion of a traditional barn.

4.8. Despite the above it has to be recognised that because of a lack of a five year housing

land supply any policy that restricts the supply of housing cannot be considered to be up

to date, triggering the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development.

PLANNING STATEMENT




October 2016


Page 12


4.9. Some concern has been expressed by the Applicant that the approval of 18 dwellings

under 16/00397/OUT is inconsistent with the refusal of the previous application given

that one is being considered sustainable while another is not at the same village. This

proposal would result in the reopening of the public house which is crucial in the context

of both applications.

HOUSING NEEDS

4.10. The Lancaster District Rural Settlements Report 2011 did not consider housing needs in

Whittington and it is not one of the 8 settlements identified in the Core Strategy, and we

are not aware of any specific Council sponsored survey information with regard to

Whittington. However, since the study has been undertaken the position of the Council

has changed significantly. This is with particular regard to the housing land supply

position and a number of public consultation events have been held by the Council in

relation to how the future housing need in the district can be met. In more recent

consultations and at a number of presentations the housing need in Lancaster is so

significant that the Council have decided to embark upon a review of the greenbelt and

are considering a range of options, including a large expansion to Dolphinholme and

significant allocations to the north and south of the City and along the M6 link road

corridor, as well as land to the north. In presenting their findings the City Council

Officers were of the view that despite previous consultation, they were looking at three

options for development one of which was development throughout the District’s towns

and villages, it has become clear that a combination of options are required to surmount

the scale of the housing land requirement within the District. In the light of such a

pressing situation and the lack of a five year housing land supply the proposed

development will contribute 4 additional dwellings in addition to those approved at

Whittington Farm. Both developments will contribute towards the housing land supply

but, more crucially in local terms, will assist in maintaining and enhancing the local

services available in Whittington in line with the requirements of policy DM42.

4.11. Despite there being no specific housing survey for the area, as a starting point it is

possible to extrapolate the results from the Strategic Housing Market Assessment in

relation to Wray which points to the main type of housing accommodation being

PLANNING STATEMENT




October 2016


Page 13


required by existing households as being semi-detached and detached houses. However,

there is a small need implied for terraced properties and bungalows. It must also be

appreciated that the housing has been creatively designed to reflect the constraints of

the site.

4.12. Since the application was refused it is noted that a survey was carried out as part of

planning application 16/00397/OUT and while this was not conclusive in terms of overall

need there was some indication of a need for three bedroom houses.

4.13. Policy DM38 of the Development Management DPD considers flood risk, which considers

that inappropriate development at areas of risk of flooding should be avoided by

directing development away from areas of highest risk. It was recognised that with a

previous larger proposal elements were located within Flood Zones 2 and 3. However,

this is no longer the case but despite this a Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted

alongside the application which indicates an acceptable solution is found on site and the

dwellings are sited well above the highest risk level, as seen from the submitted cross-

sections.

4.14. With regard to Policy DM39, surface water run-off and drainage, a scheme has been

provided by R G Parkins in support of the application and this shows how run-off will be

dealt with in the remaining land to the east of the site.

4.15. As far as mains drainage is concerned this will be connected to the mains which runs

through the site itself.

4.16. The site is located partially within the Whittington Conservation Area and policy DM31

considers such matters.

4.17. The policy states that only development which preserves or enhances the character and

appearance of the Conservation Area will be permitted. With regard to this, and as set

out in the response to policy DM42 and in accordance with the Design & Access and

Heritage Statement attached, the additional buildings are subservient to the existing

main run of dwellings along Main Street and use materials, including a combination of

PLANNING STATEMENT




October 2016


Page 14


stone, timber and render with a slate roof, all of which are considered to be appropriate

to the area. Overall the proposals are considered to respect the character of the

surrounding built form as well as the wider setting in terms of their design, siting, scale

and massing and the small outbuildings to be lost are not considered to be of any

significance in terms of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

4.18. A number of design and character related policies have been quoted in the reasons for

refusal for the previous application. To address this, the barn conversion has been

redesigned and additional plans show how the proposals meet the private amenity space

guidance. However, it must be recognised that this is only guidance and should be

weighted as such.

4.19. Policy DM27 considers the protection and enhancement of biodiversity. The site consists

of an existing barn and hardstanding to the rear of the Hotel, as well as a small area of

grass sloping down to the larger rear curtilage. It is considered that there are no impacts

upon biodiversity, although a Bat & Barn Owl Survey is supplied with specific regard to

the conversion of the barn and the loss of the small outbuildings to the rear of the site.

The survey shows that there is no evidence of protected species at the site.

4.20. Policy DM20, Enhancing Accessibility and Transport Linkages, considers a wider range of

highway related issues. The site is in an accessible location for the village. An access

report has been provided by R G Parkins and this considers the access to be suitable for

the small amount of traffic that will use it. It must be recognised that this access has also

been used by touring caravans over the years (see the photograph at Appendix A and

evidence of Council Tax for this use at Appendix B). There have been no recorded

problems. In addition my client has the agreement of his neighbour to the south to

reduce the boundary height and this could be dealt with via a Grampian condition that

no development should be commended until satisfactory works have taken place.

4.21. The access is in the centre of the village with a number of differing access arrangements

that in themselves make up the character of the village. With regard to the NPPF it is the

case that development should only be prevented on transport grounds where the

PLANNING STATEMENT




October 2016


Page 15


cumulative impacts of a development are severe. This is not the case. Consequently the

proposal is considered to be compliant with Policy DM20.

4.22. Some concerns have been raised by the Conservation Officer and I submit a letter from

Dave Hacking, the Architect for the scheme, responding to these concerns. (See

Appendix C).

4.23. I note that a letter was received from a neighbour who has some concerns but does wish

to see the pub renovated. The point I would make in regard to this is that the Applicant

is not a developer but is actually someone who is an experienced publican and food &

drink business owner/manager.

4.24. Policy DM29, protection of trees, hedgerow and woodlands, considers that the Council

will support the protection of trees and hedgerows which positively contribute either as

individual specimens or as part of a wider group to the visual amenity and/or

environmental value of the location. This is set out in detail by the Arboricultural

Statement.

4.25. I would point out that we have changed the proposal significantly since our pre-

application approach and the initial submission of the application because of a direct

concern about the trees. We would wish to protect the trees on site and will be

sympathetic to them. It must also be appreciated that the main elevation is facing down

the plot and not directly towards the boundary with the trees. There appears to be a

concern about something that might happen rather than what is actually proposed and

the way that we would propose to manage it.

4.26. In terms of the concerns of the Tree Officer please see the submitted correspondence at

Appendix D from Antony Wood of Yew Tree Gardens, which points out that in relation to

the status of the surveyed trees they are not within the Whittington Village Conservation

Area. There is one possible exception to this, which is T1, but even this appears to be just

outside the Conservation Area boundary.

PLANNING STATEMENT




October 2016


Page 16


4.27. With regard to this the number of dwellings has been reduced by 2 on what was first

submitted and an Arboricultural Statement is also submitted alongside this application.

The proposals have changed significantly to take account of the protection of trees to

the rear of the site and on the northern boundary of the site. This is set out in more

detail by the Arboricultural Statement.

4.28. In the light of the changes made to the proposal, together with the submitted

statement, it is considered that the proposal fully complies with policy DM29.

PLANNING STATEMENT




October 2016


Page 17


5. CONCLUSION

5.1. As before the proposal is considered to provide two very clear benefits. The first relates

to the contribution towards the five year supply of housing land within the District,

where there is an acute shortage.

5.2. The second key aspect is that the proposal, regardless of the five year housing land

supply issue, is considered to comply with Lancaster City Council’s Development

Management Development Plan Document key policy DM42 in that it demonstrates that

this proposal will enhance the vitality of the local community by the refurbishment and

the reopening of the Dragon’s Head. However, in the context of the NPPF presumption

in favour of sustainable development, this policy and all others within the Development

Plan that affect the supply of housing cannot be considered up to date.

5.3. Overall, the proposals should be seen as sustainable development in the context of the

presumption outlined in paragraph 49 of the NPPF but the proposal also, in real terms,

represents a significant enhancement to the housing supply and the local culture and

facilities within Whittington, and for this reason alone the proposal should be supported.

PLANNING STATEMENT




October 2016


Page 18


6. APPENDICES

6.1. Appendix A: aerial photograph of the site.

6.2. Appendix B: council tax evidence re: caravan site.

6.3. Appendix C: DHDA letter 14.07.16.

6.4. Appendix D: Antony Wood additional tree comments.



APPENDIX A: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH



APPENDIX B: COUNCIL TAX EVIDENCE RE CARAVAN SITE



APPENDIX C: DHDA LETTER 14.07.16

LTR/1434/2/J 14 July 2016 Eleanor Fawcett Lancaster City Council PO Box 4 Town Hall Lancaster LA1 1QR Dear Ms Fawcett Planning application no. 16/00238/FUL. Proposed Housing Development, at Dragons Head Hotel, Main Street, Whittington, LA6 2NY We respond to the conservation officer’s report as follows: Quite clearly and as shown on our settlement analysis there are a proliferation of styles and finishes which gives Whittington its unique sense of 'place‘. Conservation areas are not preserved in aspic and should reflect its on-going historical, archaeological and architectural evolution. Dealing with the outbuilding there are five new modest openings included, the remainder are existing, hardly many. These windows are included to habitable rooms with one small simple window lighting the stairwell. All existing apertures either face directly north or else directly over the neighbouring property. The north facing elevation looks directly onto the car park of the public house. No new windows are permitted on shared boundaries for both amenity reasons and for unprotected areas in the case of fire. We consider therefore that it is a basic human right to permit this modest increase in fenestration to the gable end to allow both privacy and the infusion of sunlight. We note your policy DM8 makes no reference to fenestration. With regard to the porch, this is a replacement which currently is attached to this portion of the building. A ‘one solution fits all’ results in mediocrity and we consider that this new porch is a 21

st Century addition which is totally

appropriate to this building and would certainly not confuse any future conservation study. It is quite clear from the settlement analysis that the majority of buildings within the village have associated porches, again creating the uniqueness of this place. We are simply following the existing pattern. The new houses are outside the conservation boundary and have a minimal link to the existing streetscape. With regard to the new dwellings the proposals are an unapologetic contemporary set of buildings specifically designed to fit into the site landscape. There is no reference to ‘Tudor Buildings’. These buildings are suitably remote from the existing streetscape to create an identity which responds to the site landscape conditions. Notably, the site is set between a public sewer and the settlement boundary, on a steep slope, set between extensive, overgrown landscaped boundaries. The buildings have turned their back on the pub car park with limited apertures facing this potentially noisy activity. The inclusion of a contemporary glazed screen to the east enable the deep plan to enjoy

the light and views in an easterly direction. We make reference to NPPF 60 which quite clearly states that ‘particular tastes should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms of styles.’ Quite clearly, this proposal tidies up a run-down area of Whittington which will help sustain and important Public Amenity and provide much needed additional housing. We refer to a section in your core policy, ‘New development is of a quality which reflects and enhances the positive characteristics of surroundings including the quality of the landscape, results in an improved appearance where conditions are unsatisfactory. Complements and enhances the public realm….’. We consider that this proposal satisfies these principles and respectfully suggest that the scheme is recommended for approval. Yours sincerely David Hacking Director DH Design North West Ltd



APPENDIX D: ANTONY WOOD ADDITIONAL TREE COMMENTS

15/07/16 Ref Dragon’s Head

arboriculture – tree care

Yew Tree NW Ltd trading as Yew Tree and Gardens Registered in England No. 09425318

Antony Wood RFS Cert Arb

Yew Tree & GardensYew Tree HouseHale Milnthorpe

Cumbria LA7 7BJ015395 6352707813 897631

[email protected]

Planning Application Number: 16/00238/FUL

Site: Land to rear, Dragons Head Hotel, Main Street, Whittington, LA6 2NY

Re Tree Officer Comments dated 07/07/2016

Whilst the comments are generally positive with regards to the layout of the scheme, proposed use of reduced digsurfaces and below ground impacts we note that comments have been made in respect of the status of the treeswithin the survey area and also in respect of the juxtaposition of the development with tree canopies.

We would like to make the following observations on these comments.

Firstly, the statement within the officer comments relating to the status of the surveyed trees and their locationwithin the Whittington Village Conservation Area. Based upon the available mapping information we are of theopinion that no surveyed trees are actually within the conservation area (with the possible exception of T1 whichnever the less appears to be 3m to the East of the conservation area boundary).Please see attached copy of the Lancaster City Council reference Constraints map 41 and also an overlay of theLancashire County Council Mario Maps data overlaid by ourselves onto the Tree Constraints Plan.

The overlaid plan clearly indicates that the trees in the proximity of the development are located at a significantdistance from the conservation area boundary, with the tree indicated for crown reduction, T4, being locatedapproximately 22 metres from the Eastern boundary of the conservation area.

This inaccuracy in the comments regarding the status of the trees also invalidates the later comment in thepenultimate paragraph regarding the established common law right to prune back encroaching branches to theboundary.

15/07/16 Ref Dragon’s Head

arboriculture – tree care

Yew Tree NW Ltd trading as Yew Tree and Gardens Registered in England No. 09425318

Secondly, with regards to the officer comments in relation to the conflict between the proposed dwellings andboundary trees. We are unclear as to where this conflict is.

To summarise:T2 has previously been trimmed back to the boundary and is likely to be removed in the development

T3 is located in the proximity of the rear access / patio and all growth on this tree is to the North, away from thedevelopment.

T4 is the most significant tree in the proximity of the development, this tree has a crown which extends into the siteand is currently estimated to be approximately 1 to 1.5 metres prop the position of the North east corner of thedevelopment. We have recommended that this tree has an overall reduction of 2 metres which would give aminimum separation in excess of 3 metres. It should be noted that the crown of T4 is not extensive, is open in formand does not contain branches of significant diameter, we would further note that due to the ground levels withinthe site the dwelling will not be overshadowed by T4 due to being level or higher than it.T5 is a Lawson Cypress with a small canopy spread and suppressed form, this tree has no impact upon thedevelopment or vice versa.

All other trees along the Northern boundary are located at a significant distance from the proposed dwellings andthe car parking area is located outside of the canopy spread, we also note that T4 and G2 have a significant height tofirst branch of between 4 and 5 metres thus further reducing potential conflict.

Thirdly, with regards to overall comments regarding shading / light loss from trees along the Northern and Southernboundary.As can be seen from the shadow plots within the Tree Constraints Plan there is a very limited amount of shadingwithin the proposed development area. This is demonstrably the case for trees along the Northern boundary, theirrelative position to the North and North East of the development means that they will not reduce light levels ordirect sunlight within the development area. Similarly, trees along the Southern boundary are located in excess of 10meters from the development and of these trees, tree reference T7 is the largest and is only 13 metres in height withall other trees being Hawthorns from a lapsed hedge. The site is therefore largely free of significant shadowconstraints, occupies an elevated position in relation to adjacent trees and has open aspects to both the East andWest.

Finally, as we have stated within the AIA conclusions, the development proposal has already responded to potentialtree constraints. The original design layout was significantly amended prior to planning submission to reflect thefindings of our initial tree survey with a reduction in numbers of dwelling units and a redesign of the parking areas.

In conclusion, we are unclear as to the basis of the officer comments regarding above ground constraints and thestatus of the trees in regard of the Whittington village Conservation Area.

Antony Wood

Conservation area boundary

Mario map overlay

33.86 m

23.99 m

Broadsword House, 2 Stonecrop, North Quarry Business Park, Appley Bridge, Wigan, Lancashire WN6 9DL T 01257 251 177 F 01257 251 555 130 Highgate , Kenda l , Cumbr ia LA9 4HE T 01539 724 766 F 01539 740 951 Peter House, Oxford S t reet , Manchester M1 5AN T 0161 209 3770 F 0161 209 3771 www.abbot t-assoc ia tes .co.uk

Documents

Chartered Town Planners - Whittington · 2016-11-04 · Steven Abbott Associates LLP Chartered Town Planners PLANNING STATEMENT Applicant: P.E.C. Limited Proposal: removal of outbuildings,