DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 20 JUNE 2016 Case No: 15/00770/OUT (OUTLINE APPLICATION) Proposal: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUNGALOW, ERECTION OF

6 DWELLINGS AND ALTERATIONS TO ACCESS Location: 161 HERNE ROAD RAMSEY ST MARYS HUNTINGDON

PE26 2SY Applicant: MR P STRATTON Grid Ref: 525633 288376 Date of Registration: 05.05.2015 Parish: RAMSEY

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE This application is reported to Panel because the recommendation is contrary to the views of Ramsey Town Council. 1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION 1.1 The application site is located to the western side of Herne Road

within the centre of the village. The site contains a detached bungalow set within a large residential curtilage. There are a number of outbuildings on the site including a wooden tractor store. The application site is 0.396ha in size comprising of a vegetable patch, parking, grass and various outbuildings. To the north of the site are two residential dwellings, No 169 and 173 Herne Road, and part of the school playing field of Ashbeech Primary School, to the west of the site a ditch with field beyond, and again part of the adjacent school playing field, to the south is a small paddock and No 155 Herne Road, and to the east the highway of Herne Road B1040. The site is bounded by a low brick wall to the front with fencing of various heights and designs around the rest of the site. The site contains a number of trees along part of the northern boundary, with a number of trees adjacent to the site.

1.2 An outline planning application was refused under planning ref:

1301269OUT on the 26th July 2013, as the block plan did not demonstrate that 8 dwellings could be accommodated at the site and the application had failed to demonstrate the disposal of surface water would not impact upon the local water level.

1.3 An inspector at a subsequent appeal dismissed the application on the

21st November 2013, for reasons of impacts upon neighbour amenity, in terms of overbearing and privacy issues, and the impacts on the future living conditions due to overshadowing from the large tree (plots 1 & 5). The issue of the disposal surface water drainage issue had been resolved prior to the appeal decision with the submission of a surface water management plan.

1.4 Outline planning permission is now sought for the demolition of the

existing bungalow, the erection of 6 dwellings and alterations to the access. Due to the reduction in the numbers of dwellings proposed at the site, the plot numbers are annotated accordingly.

1.5 The principle of the development and the access are the only matters

for consideration, other matters relating to the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping are reserved for future consideration.

1.6 The application is supported by a combined planning, design and

access statement, a transport statement, a flood risk assessment and an arboriculture survey. The applicants have submitted a signed undertaking to fund the provision of wheeled refuse and recycling bins.

1.7 There have been two minor amendments to the indicative plan during

the process of this application. 1.8 1. The tree close to plot 4 shown on the indicative site plan submitted

has been felled. The new plan submitted now reflects the situation at the site in terms of the correct location of the trees.

1.9 2. The proposed dwelling noted as plot 5 has been shifted to the west

slightly due to over bearing impacts that the horse chestnut tree would have upon the future occupiers of this property.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE 2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) sets out the three

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

For full details visit the government website https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government 3. PLANNING POLICIES 3.1 Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

• H31: "Residential privacy and amenity standards" • T18: "Access requirements for new development" • T19: "Pedestrian Routes and Footpath" • En18: "Protection of countryside features" • En20: "Landscaping Scheme" • En25: "General Design Criteria"

• CS8: "Water" • CS9: "Flood water management"

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

• HL5 - Quality and Density of Development • HL6 - Housing Density - indicates that housing development

shall be at a density of 30-50 dwellings per hectare 3.3 Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core

Strategy (2009) • CS1: "Sustainable development in Huntingdonshire" • CS2: “Housing Development” • CS3: "The Settlement Hierarchy" • CS4: “affordable housing” • CS10: "Contributions to Infrastructure Requirements"

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

• LP1: "Strategy and principles for development" • LP2: "Contributing to Infrastructure Delivery" • LP3: "Communications Infrastructure" • LP6: "Flood Risk and Water Management" • LP10: "Development in Smaller Settlements" • LP11: "The Relationship between the Built-up Area and the

Countryside" • LP13: "Quality of Design" • LP14: "Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions" • LP15: "Ensuring a High Standard of Amenity" • LP17: "Sustainable Travel" • LP18: "Parking Provision" • LP24: "Housing Mix" • LP25: “Affordable housing” • LP29: “Trees” • LP30: "Open Space"

3.5 Supplementary Planning Guidance:

• Huntingdonshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2007.

• Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework - Developer Contributions SPD 2011 is also relevant with regard to contributions to affordable housing and wheeled bins provision.

Local policies are viewable at https://www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk 4. PLANNING HISTORY 1301269OUT – Outline consent for up to 8 dwellings - refused

26.7.13. A subsequent appeal was later dismissed on the 27th July 2013. The details of the Inspectors decision are set out in the ‘DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION’ section above.

0604029OUT - residential development - application withdrawn 09.02.2008.

4.1 Other relevant Planning History in the vicinity of the site:

0603425FUL - Erection of two semi-detached houses following demolition of existing at 155 Herne Road, - permission granted 08.12.2008.

0403262FUL - erection of three dwellings land rear of 171 to 173 Herne Road - permission granted 11.03.2005.

5. CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Ramsey Town Council - Recommend REFUSAL of the development

stating that it is over development of the site. 5.2 Cambridgeshire County Council Highways – No objection

The details contained within the transport planning technical note - I can confirm that the development accords with all the recommended guidance within manual for streets with regards to vehicle to vehicle visibility and has adequate road and footway width on the access with Herne Road.

Officer response:

Relevant and necessary conditions will be imposed on the decision notice relating to highway safety (if Members agree to approve the scheme).

5.3 Environment Agency – No objection, subject to conditions being

imposed with regards to finished floor levels Officer response:

The relevant conditions would be imposed on the decision notice relating to floor levels & foul water drainage (if Members agree to approve the scheme).

5.4 HDC Housing - no objection subject to S106 to secure provision of

affordable housing Officer response :

See response in the main body of the report for the change in affordable housing policy.

5.5 HDC operations – bin collection would be from Herne Road 6. REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 11 members of the local community have been consulted – 2 letters

of representation have been received in response to the consultation. The issues raised include:

• Access safety issues with the neighbouring property • Lights from vehicles entering and leaving the site becoming

a nuisance • Location of bin storage area has been questioned • Objection to the number of dwellings due to the outlook onto

an ‘estate’ • Concerns raised about the presence of bats • Removal of trees at the site prior to the appeal site visit • Parking and highway safety

• Concerns about a proper drainage scheme addressing the foul and surface water drainage

Officer response: The above issues have been addressed in the section below.

7. ASSESSMENT 7.1 The main issues to consider in with this outline consent are:

• The principle of development • Provision of affordable housing • Highway safety and parking • Neighbour amenity • Tree protection

Principle of the development: 7.2 Paragraph 215 of the NPPF requires that '...due weight should be

given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).

7.3 Paragraph 216 states that '…decision-takers may also give weight to

relevant policies in emerging plans according to: • the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more

advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);

• the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and

• the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies

7.4 The south western part of the site forms part of a 2002 Local Plan

Alteration site allocation for residential development. Whilst this allocation is not proposed to be carried forward within the new Local Plan to 2036 and is likely to fall away, the rear part of the site forms part of this allocation.

7.5 The Core Strategy was adopted in 2009 and therefore forms part of

the Development Plan and offers more up to date policies than the Local Plan (1995). Policy CS3 defines a settlement hierarchy to provide a framework to manage the scale of housing development appropriate on unallocated sites. Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy identifies Ramsey St Mary as a 'Smaller Settlement' where residential infilling (up to three dwellings) will be appropriate within the built-up area.

7.6 For the purposes of the Core Strategy (as stated in para 5.15) the

built-up area is defined as the existing built form excluding: • Buildings that are clearly detached from the main body of the

settlement,

• Gardens and other undeveloped land within the curtilage of buildings on the edge of the settlement, where these relate more to the surrounding countryside than they do to the built-up parts of the village; and

• Agricultural buildings where they are on the edge of the settlement.

7.7 This application seeks permission for the erection of six dwellings

following the demolition of the existing bungalow. The application site is considered to be within the built-up area of Ramsey St Mary. The emerging Local Plan policy LP10 states that proposals within the built-up area of a Small Settlement will be considered on individual sustainability merits taking into account a range of factors. In this instance, as the policy position has remained unchanged when the application was assessed in 2013, the principle of the development has been accepted by the previous application and in the appeal decision; no objections were raised by officers or the Planning Inspector during the appeal process with regards to the principle of residential on the site.

7.8 Therefore, the residential development is acceptable, in principle and

consistent with the settlement strategy for the district, subject to other material considerations, such as, whether the new proposal has demonstrated that reduced number from 8 to 6 dwellings can be accommodated at the site, the impact on the character and appearance of the area, residential amenity, highway safety and trees.

7.9 The submitted illustrative block plan indicates the plot numbers in

relation to the provision of 6 dwellings as opposed to 8 as dismissed by the inspector in 2015. Member’s attention is drawn to the attached green papers attached to the agenda for ease in drawing comparisons to the proposed layouts. The Inspectors decision report is also a material consideration in the determination of this application, and is also attached in the green papers.

7.10 Herne Road is characterised by a mix of dwelling sizes in different

sized plots giving a varied density within the village. The illustrative layout seeks to provide development fronting Herne Road with development to the rear.

7.11 The Inspector in considering the impacts on the character of the area,

made reference to the various types, sizes and styles of dwellings, as well as existing forms of back land development that already exist. It was considered that due to the amount of different urban forms in the locality, the layout as demonstrated on initiative plan would not fundamentally be incompatible with character of the surrounding area.

7.12 The Inspector did however raise three issues in the consideration of

the indicative plan during the appeal process. 7.13 1. The resultant impacts plot 1 would have on the amenities of

No.155 Herne Road, in terms of the building becoming over bearing and the potential loss of privacy to this property. 2. The overbearing nature of the tree close to the boundary of plot 5, and the impacts the tree would have on the living conditions of the future occupiers of this property.

3. The tree close to plot 7 is likely over shadow/ overhangs the proposed dwelling – the inspector advised that due to the size of the plot the building could be relocated further to the west to alleviate amenity issues.

7.14 The key question is whether the site can accommodate 6 dwellings

based on planning policy, and other materials considerations. 7.15 The position of Plot No. 1 (see green papers) has been amended on

the new indicative plan, and open space is now proposed close to the boundary with No. 155 Herne Road. Plot No. 1 is also indicated on the plan submitted as being positioned to the north of the access road, and 17 metres away from the direct neighbour (No. 155 Herne Road). The omission of plot No. 1 from the boundary has addressed the amenity issues raised previously raised. The new proposed layout is therefore not considered to have any amenity impacts upon No. 155 Herne Road.

7.16 The amended plan received also indicates the current position in

terms of the trees proposed to be removed from the site, and those already removed close to the common boundary with 173 Herne Road. The closest tree to be retained is noted on the plan as being located some 2.5 metres of the plot No. 4 following the removal of three trees. Given the distance of the trees to be retained, the orientation of the proposed dwelling, and the proposed garden size, the two remaining trees are not considered to cause harm to the future occupiers of plot No 4.

7.17 The proposed dwelling noted as plot 7 in the previous application has

been amended, due to the proposed reduction in numbers of dwellings at the site to plot 5 (see green papers). As indicated by the Inspector in determining the appeal, plot 5 is a good size plot, where the tree could be retained, and the impacts of overshadowing reduced if the proposed dwelling were to be re-positioned within the site. The amended plan received on the 3rd May 2016 shows the proposed dwelling repositioned within the plot further forward to the east of the plot, and away from the canopy of horse chestnut tree to the south. The garden size/area, and distances of the dwelling from the tree is considered sufficient to ensure a new dwelling can be accommodated on this plot, without threatening the long term retention of the tree or having undue impacts upon the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling.

7.18 Given that the application is in outline only, full consideration of

impact upon neighbouring dwellings in terms of potential overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impact would be considered at the reserved matters stage. However, it is considered that, based on the information in supporting statements and from the indicative plan submitted, the issues raised by officers and the Inspector in the determination of the appeal for planning ref: 1301269OUT, have been addressed in this submission.

7.19 For the reasons set out above the amended indicative layout plan has

confirmed the issues raised by the Inspector during the appeal in 2013 have been addressed, and officers are satisfied that the site can accommodate 6 dwellings. Having said this, conditions should be

imposed to ensure the trees are protected during the construction stages of the approved reserved matters application.

7.20 The application is therefore considered to accord with policies En25

and En18 of the Local Plan, CS1 of the adopted Core Strategy, LP13 and LP29 of the Local Plan – 2036.

Affordable housing: 7.21 Policy CS4 requires the provision of affordable housing in new

residential development. In order to address the identified local need for additional affordable homes a proposal which includes housing development should seek to deliver a target of 40% affordable housing where the scheme is located within any of the defined small settlements and includes 3 or more homes or 0.1ha or more of land for housing development. In this instance the net increase of dwellings on the site is 5.

7.22 Members may recall that on 28th November 2014, the Department for

Communities and Local Government (DCLG) published the results of proposed changes to the threshold for affordable housing contributions. There was a shift in the affordable housing provision due to the burden of developer contributions on small scale developers. The threshold for the provision of affordable housing was raised from a development of 3 units or more in smaller settlements to 10 units or more. This policy has recently been subject to a High Court Judgement. The Court of Appeal decision restores the past Government policy which means affordable homes contributions will fall to those bigger developers building the largest sites. Therefore the policy for the threshold for affordable housing now stands at any development of 10 or more units from immediate effect.

7.23 Therefore the LPA can no longer secure affordable housing at this

site which hope to provide for up to 8 dwellings in the smaller settlement of Ramsey St Marys.

Access arrangements: 7.24 A new access into the site is proposed to serve the development

which is considered acceptable in principle. Five of the new dwellings are proposed to be served off a new access road into the site, with plot 2 having its own private access from Herne Road. Cambridgeshire Highway Authority have reviewed the details contained within the transport statement and have confirmed that the development accords with all the recommended guidance within manual for streets with regards to vehicle to vehicle visibility and has adequate road and footway width on the access with Herne Road.

7.25 Due to the access to these properties being indicated as a "shared

private drive" there will need to be a Bin Collection at the entrance to the site from Herne Road because HDC refuse vehicles would not be able to access the site without an indemnity. It is considered that there is sufficient space up to a maximum of 20 metres away from where the new access way meets Herne Road to accommodate a refuse collection point, and this level of detail will be considered at the

reserved matters stage (if Members resolve to approve the application).

7.26 The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in this regard subject

to conditions to include a scaled plan illustrating parking provision, road layout, visibility splays, and turning areas.

Flooding and drainage: 7.27 The site is located within flood Zone 2 and 3 as illustrated on the

Environment Agency flood maps. The site is however located within Flood Zone 1 (low probability) as illustrated on the Councils Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2010. This zone comprises land assessed as having a less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river or sea flooding. The NPPF Technical Guidance states that all uses of land are appropriate in this zone.

7.28 The Huntingdonshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA)

shows no reports of flooding on the site from any source. As such the principle of development within this area is acceptable in flood terms.

7.29 The Environment Agency have not objected to the scheme, subject to

a condition being imposed to ensure the finished floor levels are set no lower than 300mm above the existing ground levels.

7.30 The proposal is therefore contrary to advice within the NPPF and

policy CS8, CS9, CS1, and LP6. Energy efficient homes: 7.31 The Design and Access Statement does not include a range of

sustainability features that could be included within the development such as solar panels, high levels of insulation and water saving / recycling features.

7.32 However as the application is in outline only, the detailed information

on measures to be implemented are not for consideration at this stage. A condition could be imposed to secure that development incorporates sustainable design, renewable energy / energy efficiency and water saving measures. The proposed development is considered to be compliant with national and local policy in this regard.

Residential Wheeled Bins: 7.33 The applicants have submitted a signed undertaking to fund the

provision of wheeled refuse and recycling bins. Other matters: 7.34 Response to representations

• The issues raised within the two representations received on the planning application have been addressed within this report. The issue of neighbour amenity will however be fully considered when the full details of layout, scale and design are received during the reserved matters application.

Conclusion: 7.35 The NPPF has at its heart the presumption in favour of sustainable

development. To be sustainable, development must, as noted in paragraph 6 of the NPPF, strike a satisfactory balance between the economic, the environmental and the social considerations. Whilst it is acknowledged that there is a level of local opposition to the development, having fully assessed all three dimensions of sustainable development; economic, social and environmental within this report it is concluded that the development of this site residential development of 6 dwellings is acceptable at this time.

7.36 In summary:

• the illustrative block plan has demonstrated that 6 dwellings with a curtilage, parking, tree protection, safeguarding of neighbouring amenity and sustainable urban drainage is acceptable / deliverable

• the proposed vehicular access into the site is acceptable in highway safety terms

• the development can provide for appropriate infrastructure to meet the needs generated by the development - affordable housing and bins

7.37 For these reasons, the proposal is considered to constitute

sustainable development and is in accordance with the development plan. Outline planning permission can therefore granted.

8. RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL subject to conditions to include

those listed below:

• Time limits • Materials • Floor level • Full details of: siting, visibility splays, parking provision, and

turning. • Development to be in accordance with the drainage

management plan • Remove Permitted Development Rights • Full Details of refuse collection strategy • Bin collection points and bin storage areas

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs. CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Linda Walker Development Management Officer 01480 388418

CLOSE

OAK W

AY

LION CLOSE

POPPY CLOSE

CLOVER CLOSE

FOXGLOVE WAY

HERN

E ROA

DBLUEBELL CLOSE

PRIMROSE CLOSE

ASHB

EACH

ROA

D

ASHBEACH DROVE

Application Ref: 15/00770/OUT© Crown copyright and database rights 2016

Ordnance Survey HDC 100022322

1:2,500Scale = Date Created: 01/06/2016

Development Management Panel

Location: Ramsey St Mary's

KeyThe SiteListed BuildingConservation Area

GREEN PAPERS FOLLOW

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 January 2015

by Louise Phillips MA (Cantab) MSc MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 13 February 2015

Appeal Ref: APP/H0520/A/14/2216506

Land at 161 Herne Road, Ramsey St Mary’s, Cambridgeshire PE26 2SY

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.

• The appeal is made by Mr P Stratton against the decision of Huntingdonshire District Council.

• The application Ref 1301269OUT, dated 26 July 2013, was refused by notice dated

21 November 2013. • The development proposed is the demolition of the existing bungalow and the erection

of eight dwellings (including two affordable) and alterations to access.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Preliminary Matters

2. The application is made in outline with all matters reserved except for access.

The proposed layout plan and associated floor areas are marked as indicative

and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

3. The decision notice refers to policies in the emerging Huntingdonshire Local

Plan to 2036. However, this plan has not been adopted by the Council and

there is no information before me about either the stage of preparation

reached, or the nature of any objections which might have been made.

Therefore, in light of the advice at paragraph 216 of the National Planning

Policy Framework, I give these policies very limited weight in my decision.

4. The decision notice includes two reasons for refusal. The second concerns the

failure of the proposal to demonstrate that surface water could be satisfactorily

disposed of. However, since the application was determined, the appellant has

prepared a Surface Water Management Plan1 (SWMP) which satisfies the

Council that the reason for refusal is overcome (paragraphs 2.9 of the Council’s

Statement).

5. The Procedure Guide for Planning Appeals in England, 1 April 14, states at

Annex M that if an amended proposal is necessary to overcome a reason for

refusal, a fresh planning application should be made. At Annex B, it states that

during an appeal, new evidence will only be exceptionally accepted where it is

1 Surface Water management Plan and Addendum to Flood Risk report, by Nimbus Consulting, dated February

2014.

Appeal Decision APP/H0520/A/14/2216506

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2

clear that the party could not have provided the evidence with its full

statement of case.

6. Whilst it would appear that the SWMP was submitted to the Planning

Inspectorate after the appellant’s full statement of case, the evidence suggests

that the Council was in possession of it on 27 February 2014, before the appeal

was lodged. The Council has clearly been able to consider the SWMP and reach

a view on it and so, while the manner of its submission is irregular in respect of

the Procedure Guide, I will accept it as part of the appellant’s evidence. As the

document has been available for some considerable time, I am satisfied that

the interests of third parties would not be prejudiced by my doing so.

7. In light of the above, and on the basis that the Council confirms at paragraph

3.2 of its Statement that it does not wish to pursue the second reason for

refusal further, the matter of surface water drainage is not a main issue for my

decision.

Main Issues

8. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character

and appearance of the area, including its effect on trees; and its effect on the

living conditions of existing and future occupiers.

Reasons

9. The appeal site lies on the east side of Herne Road, which comprises dwellings

of various types, sizes and styles. There are numerous examples of individual

new houses in the area, as well as properties constructed in a backland position

or as part of a more comprehensive development of a larger site.

10. The appeal site itself consists of a detached bungalow on a large plot, which is

both wide and deep by comparison to others nearby. The proposal is to

demolish the bungalow and construct six detached and two semi-detached

houses to be accessed via a shared drive off Herne Road. The semi-detached

units proposed would be affordable housing. Given the variety in the existing

urban form, a redevelopment of the type proposed would not be fundamentally

incompatible with the character of the surrounding area. However, several of

the plots are contentious for the parties and I consider them in turn below.

11. Starting with Plot 1, the indicative layout shows the proposed dwelling set back

from Herne Road. However, as housing away from the frontage is not unusual,

this would not necessarily harm the street scene. Conversely, in respect of

neighbouring living conditions, the dwelling as shown would have an awkward

relationship with No 155 Herne Road to the south by virtue of being very close

to the shared boundary. Because the new dwelling would be set back and have

a long, narrow plot, its rear elevation would run parallel to much of the garden

of the existing house. This garden is very narrow, and so a new building of any

significant size in this location would be overbearing, even if it were to be

single storey.

12. Moreover, any windows required at the back of the new house would be likely

to overlook both the garden and rear-facing rooms of the neighbouring

dwelling. The effect would be enhanced should the Goat Willow tree (identified

Appeal Decision APP/H0520/A/14/2216506

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3

as NT1 in the appellant’s Tree Survey2) be harmed by the construction works.

Whilst the tree does not make a significant contribution to the character and

appearance of the area, and the appellant concludes that it would be

preserved, it would then be so close to the proposed dwelling on Plot 1 that it

would very likely require some form of reduction.

13. I acknowledge that layout is a reserved matter, but both the shape of Plot 1

and its relationship to the (unreserved) access would make it difficult to

reorient the building significantly. Consequently, while this aspect of the

proposal would not harm the street scene, I consider that it would be seriously

detrimental to the outlook and privacy of neighbouring occupiers at No 155

Herne Road.

14. Turning to Plot 5, this would accommodate a semi-detached house adjacent to

No 173 Herne Road, a bungalow in a backland position. Like that proposed on

Plot 1, the new dwelling on Plot 5 would be very close to the shared boundary

and its rear elevation would be to the west of the rear of the neighbouring

property. A wide and tall building in this position, such as a pair of semi-

detached houses, would overshadow the small back garden of No 173 and its

rear facing bay window to a degree which would be harmful to living

conditions.

15. In respect of trees, the Council expresses concern about a Walnut (NT8 in the

Tree Assessment) near to the parking area of Plot 5, but this had been

removed by the time of my visit. However, the canopy of a tree within the rear

garden of No 173 (Group B Bullace C2) would overhang much of the small

garden area proposed for the dwelling on Plot 5. Indeed it might well touch the

rear elevation of the building. Therefore, if the tree were not regularly pruned,

it would significantly compromise the quality of (at least) the private garden

space of the new dwelling. Again, while this would not harm the character and

appearance of the area, it is indicative of an unduly close relationship with the

neighbouring land.

16. The rear garden of the dwelling proposed on Plot 7 would likewise be affected

by the overhanging canopy of a mature Horse Chestnut tree (NT3) in the

grounds of Ashbeach Primary School to the west of the site. In this case

however, the garden as shown would be relatively large and there appears to

be no particular reason why it could not be extended to the west to provide an

unaffected area. I therefore consider that it would be possible to achieve a

layout providing satisfactory living conditions at reserved matters stage.

17. The Council has suggested that the Horse Chestnut would be at risk from

pruning and maintenance rather than from the construction itself, but it is

nevertheless now subject of a Tree Protection Order (TPO). The TPO is yet to

be confirmed and so the implications of the final decision on this matter would

need to be assessed in due course. However, it is my own view that some

modest pruning would not cause any significant harm to the character and

appearance of the area and, given my findings above, future occupiers should

not exert undue pressure to cut it back substantially.

18. I therefore find that the proposed development on Plot 7 would both provide

satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers and be accommodated

2 Tree Survey, Arboricultural Implications Assessment report and Arboricultural Method Statement, by Andrew

Belson, dated 21 August 2013.

Appeal Decision APP/H0520/A/14/2216506

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4

without detriment to the character and appearance of the area. However, this

neither outweighs nor alters my concerns above in respect of Plots 1 and 5. By

virtue of their proximity to the boundaries of the site, and their position relative

to existing dwellings, the properties on these plots would be significantly

harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in respect of outlook

& privacy and overshadowing respectively. Without regular maintenance of the

tree in the neighbouring garden, Plot 5 would also fail to provide satisfactory

living conditions for future occupiers by virtue of poor quality private garden

space. Thus the development would conflict with Policy H31 of the

Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995, which seeks to maintain appropriate

standards of privacy and amenity.

19. I have considered the Council’s specific concerns about the effect of the

proposed development upon various trees and its relationship to the Herne

Road frontage. In these respects, I conclude that it would not be harmful to

the character and appearance of the area. Nevertheless, the concerns I have

in respect of living conditions derive in large part from the quantum of

development proposed, which would leave little space at the boundaries of the

site. The development itself would be likely to appear cramped as a result and

there would be limited scope to improve this situation at reserved matters

stage. However, this would have a very limited impact on the wider street

scene and so I find no significant conflict with Policies En18 and En25 of the

Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995; Policy HL5 of the Huntingdonshire Local plan

Alteration, 2002; or Policy CS1 of the Huntingdonshire Core Strategy, 2009 in

this regard.

Other Matters

20. Notwithstanding that the Council can demonstrate a five year supply of land for

housing as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (the

Framework), the additional housing proposed, including the affordable housing

units, would be a benefit of the scheme. I also acknowledge that the appellant

has provided an executed unilateral undertaking, pursuant to Section 106 of

the Act3, to make a financial contribution towards the wheeled refuse bins

required by the Council. I am not required to reach a finding as to whether this

obligation meets the tests set out in paragraph 204 of the Framework, but it

represents a commitment to mitigate the effects of the proposal. However,

neither of these matters outweighs my findings in relation to living conditions.

21. In reaching my decision, I have had regard to the concerns raised by interested

parties, including in relation to disruption during construction; the effect of the

development on wildlife at the adjacent school; the capacity of the foul

drainage system; highway safety on Herne Road; parking for the village shop;

and strain on local infrastructure. However, given my overall conclusions, my

decision does not turn on these other matters.

Conclusion

22. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Louise Phillips

INSPECTOR

3 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.