Meeting documents

DECISIONS

From Area B Development Control Committee

5^TH April 2006

ITEM NO:02

APPLICATION No. 05/02984/VARTYPE Application for Variation of Condition

EXPIRY DATE 28^th Oct 2005

WARD Farmborough

PARISH Compton Dando

APPLICANT: Kelston Sparkes Ltd

PROPOSAL: Variation of conditions 20 and 23 of planning permission 97/02620/MINW to allow importation of waste until 31 August 2006 and extended period of restoration to 31 August 07 (re-submission)

SITE LOCATION: Queen Charlton Concrete Works Charlton Field Lane Queen Charlton BS31 2TN

Members are asked to note that the details provided in relation to Decisions made on 5^th April 2006 meeting of the Area B Development Control Committee in respect of the above item are to be updated to incorporate the matters discussed in the minutes of that meeting. Officers have written to the applicant to clarify the land ownership of the application site and await a response.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS:

CONSERVATION OFFICER: The terraces appear to date from the late 19^th century and I understand were originally constructed to provide housing accommodation for workers of the brewery which was based in Radstock, with them subsequently also being used to provide accommodation for miners working in the local coal mines.

The terrace is therefore of interest because of the importance that coal mining plays in the history of Radstock and also because of its association with the former brewery industry.

Also of interest are the small outbuildings, wash houses (which also appear to have bread ovens) at the rear of the terrace, and the long rear gardens, which appear as an original feature of the development.

At present the site does not lie within the Radstock Conservation Area, the boundary is located further to the North West, however, it will be considered for inclusion in any future review/appraisal of the Radstock Conservation Area.

We are at present considering a programme for the review /appraisal of the Conservation Areas in the District.

The terrace has been included in a tentative list of locally important buildings. However on the recent site inspection to evaluate present proposals a more detailed inspection has been made of the terrace and unfortunately it has been found to have had a number of in appropriate alterations which detracts from its character and interest and therefore I regret I do not intend to confirm its addition to the local list.

The alterations to the terrace include such works as replacement of original windows, probably attractive timber sash windows on the front elevation, with inappropriate UPVC, replacement of original doors, lowering of the original heights of the chimney stacks (in some cases their complete removal), and inappropriate boundary treatments.

Some of the out buildings also appear to have lost their chimney stacks, in one case half a wash house has been demolished, and in some locations poorly detailed modern garages have been erected.

At the rear of the terrace there are also some poorly detailed outbuildings and boundary walls.

Bearing in mind the unsympathetic alterations already undertaken, modern development in the vicinity of the site, and the fact that the site is not at present in a Conservation Area, on balance, I would not wish to object to the proposals.

I note that the design of the development has already been discussed at some length but suggest the following would merit further thought and clarification:-

The use of natural slate for the roof. I note natural stone is being used for external walls.

Clarification on window and door details which should be in timber and painted and not UPVC. Traditional detailed sliding sash windows should also be used not mock top opening lights which try and give the appearance of sash windows.

I would question, where proposed, the use of rendered boundary walls. I suggest natural stone walls, perhaps spot bedded to give a dry stone wall appearance.

I feel the appearance of the scheme and its impact on the character of the area would be improved if the rear car parking area and rear access drive was also removed from proposals and the development had long rear gardens to reflect the subdivisions of those already present on the site.

06/00277/FUL North Hill House, Wells Road, Westfield, Radstock

ARBORICULTURAL OFFICER: Does not support the proposal due to the impact moving the wall to improve highway access would have on significant trees within the Radstock's Conservation Area.

If it is not possible to amend the access so that the wall does not need to be moved, then an objection is raised to this scheme.

HIGHWAY OFFICER: ``I can confirm that should it not be possible to carry out the improvement to the existing access, due to the concerns of our arboriculturalist, I would recommend a highways reason for refusal as follows:

`Any increased use of the existing sub-standard access generated by the proposed development would be prejudicial to road safety contrary to policy TP.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and policy T.24 of the Bath and North East Somerset Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan'.

In addition, reason for refusal no. 3 should be omitted as there appears to be ample space to manoeuvre a vehicle to the forefront of the dwellinghouse.

OFFICER COMMENTS: The proposal as proposed incorporates alterations to the existing access which is required to achieve adequate visibility splays (to the west) and is considered, by the Highway Authority, to be crucial in being able to create a safe access.

These proposed alterations to the existing access would bring the wall from 0.5m tight up to the trunk of a significant tree within the Conservation Area which would provide no space for future growth and would have a significant impact on its root zone.

RECOMMENDATION: As main agenda report but with the omission of reason for refusal no. 3 (which reads as follows):

3. "The proposal does not incorporate adequate turning facilities to enable a vehicle to enter and leave the parking area without excessive manoeuvring , which is essential in ensuring parking is used efficiently to avoid the prejudicial to highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy TP.18 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and policy T.24 and T.26 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) 2003''

REASONS FOR REPORTING THE APPLICATION TO COMMITTEE

At the 6 April 2006 Committee, this application was deferred at the request of Members in order to allow for a more detailed planning history for the site to be added to the report.

This application is being reported to committee at the request of Councillor Wilcox.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

The application site is located along the northern side of King Lane in Clutton. The site presently accommodates a single pitched, single storey building which contains three one-bedroom self contained living units, two ancillary storage areas and three units as stables and ancillary storage. (The latter do not fall within the application site). The building ranges in height from 2metres along its rear elevation and 3.6metres along the front, with door and window openings in the south elevation. The building is 26.2metres long and 8.7metres deep. When viewed from King Lane, the building is significantly screened by a hedge running along the boundary of the application site. A bungalow and a detached garage adjoin the site to the west, and a two storey dwelling with a hipped roof to the east. On the opposite side of King Lane King Lane is a complex accommodating various commercial enterprises.

The site is prominent within the Green Belt, and is visible from the open countryside to the south.

This application seeks permission to replace the existing building with a chalet style dwelling. The main body of the dwelling would be approximately 15 metres wide with a depth of 6 metres and with a single storey rear projection measuring 6 metres by 2.4 metres. The existing access would be used for vehicles with parking and turning accommodated on site. The proposed dwelling would be closer to the boundary with King Lane than the existing building by approximately 1.9 metres. Most of the primary windows would be located along the south elevation towards the views of the hills and open countryside beyond. Natural stone would be used for walls, timber joinery details and double roman roof tiles for the roof.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

PARISH COUNCIL raise an objection in principle. It previously objected in principle and sees no reason to amend their opinion.

HIGHWAYS: recommends refusal of the application given that in highways terms the application is the same as 05/01941/FUL (previous application) and is not compliant with current views on sustainability in terms of PPG13.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: no objection subject to inclusion of conditions restricting noise on construction site, no burning of materials on site and controlling dust during the construction of the development.

PARTIES:

NEIGHBOURS: none received.

PLANNING ISSUES

POLICY CONTEXT:

PPG2 and PPG13

Policies GEN.1, GEN.2, WGB.1, HO.4, HO.11, HO.12 and TP.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan, 1995.

Policies D.1, D.2, D.4, HG.4, HG.7, HG.7a, HG.15, GB.1, GB.2 and T.24 of the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan, (Revised Deposit Draft) 2003.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:

97/02646/FUL Conversion of stables to residential use. Refused (24.7.1997)Enforcement notice was served but the subsequent appeal allowed subject to the following conditions:

A second dwelling was deemed to be immune from enforcement.

05/01941/FUL Detached dwelling after demolition of existing chalet. (Refused 1 August 2005)

IMPACT ON THE GREENBELT:

The proposed chalet dwelling would replace the existing single storey building accommodating two residential units and storage area. The original stable block appears to have been built without express consent (possibly as permitted development relating to agricultural development.) In 1998 an appeal was allowed for residential use. The use of unit 4 as a dwelling was found to be immune from enforcement; the remaining unauthorised two units (5 and 6)were allowed for residential purposes subject to conditions which restricted its occupation by persons solely or mainly employed in the business of Hartley Wood Riding Centre, and for any further enlargement or external alteration to the building to require prior written approval from the Local Planning Authority. As the applicant is no longer associated with the riding centre, she is in breach of the occupancy condition.

The proposed development is no longer associated with the Hartley Wood Riding Centre therefore does not represent an exceptional circumstance to support this development. In addition, if this accommodation is lost to the riding centre, there could be pressures for additional accommodation to be required for the benefit of the centre which in turn would have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

The proposals are therefore contrary to the Green Belt policies where the principle of a new dwelling in the Green Belt cannot be supported.

In addition, the proposed dwelling is significantly higher than the existing building which is screened from the highway by a hedge running along the front property boundary. The proposed dwelling would also therefore be visually more prominent when viewed from the open fields beyond and from both directions along King Lane. The proposed massing of the dwelling is inappropriate and would have a detrimental impact on the openness of the greenbelt. It would also be contrary to the reasons for including this land within the green belt. For these reasons, the proposals are considered unacceptable.

DESIGN, SCALE & HEIGHT

The proposed dwelling would be sited between a bungalow to the west and a two storey dwelling to the east.

The design approach for the proposed dwelling is relatively simple with most of the major openings orientated towards the south to benefit from open country views of the hills and valleys beyond. Along the north elevation, closest to the highway, the dwelling does not contain any significant openings. Whilst it is unlikely, therefore, that amenity issues relating to traffic noise would arise, this façade appears very solid. The proposals therefore do not address the streetscene positively, and the visual bulk of the dwelling is further exacerbated due to the high solid to void ratio along the north elevation.

In terms of massing, the proposed building is significantly higher and therefore more prominent than the existing building. This would detract from the rural character of the area. The proposed design of the dwelling is therefore further considered to be unacceptable.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY:

The proposed design and orientation of the dwelling would provide adequate amenity for future occupiers. The upper floor windows in the side elevations would however overlook neighbouring properties, to the detriment of the occupiers. The proposals therefore do not meet key residential amenity criteria.

HIGHWAYS SAFETY AND AMENITY

The proposals make provision for sufficient on site parking and turning to ensure that all vehicles leave and enter the site in forward gear. Concern however is raised about the remote location of the site which would require heavy use of private vehicles. For this reason, the proposed dwelling would not meet sustainability objectives as outlined in PPG13 and reflected in policies T.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan, 1995 and T.24 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan, (Revised Deposit Draft), 2003. For this reason, the proposals do not meet key highway amenity criteria.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the proposals are considered to be inappropriate within the Green Belt, and harmful to the openness and the rural character of the area. In the absence of very special circumstances the development would conflict with the reasons for including this land within the Green Belt. In addition, the proposed dwelling would overlook and be harmful to the amenity of the adjacent residential occupiers. The design and massing of the dwelling would result in a building which would be a dominant feature within this rural setting and would therefore be harmful to the appearance of the area. Finally, the location is unsustainable and would require heavy reliance on private vehicles, contrary to sustainability objectives.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reasons:

Footnote:

This decision relates to drawing no's 25.232/01A, 25.232/02, 25.232/03, 25.232/04 and 25.232/05 date stamped 27 January 2006.

This decision has been made having particular regard to policies GEN.1, GEN.2, WGB.1, HO.4, HO.11, HO.12 and TP.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan, 1995 and policies D.1, D.2, D.4, HG.4, HG.7, HG.7a, HG.15, GB.1, GB.2 and T.24 of the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan, Revised Deposit Draft 2003.

The decision to refuse the application has taken account of the Development Plan, relevant emerging Local Plans and approved Supplementary Planning Guidance. All other material considerations, including the views of third parties, have been considered, and they do not outweigh the reasons for refusing this application.

The applicant has also submitted a building sustainability summary, which sets out a list of low energy measures to be employed in order to reduce the carbon footprint of the development. These include design to minimise solar gain and maximise natural ventilation; insulated roof and wall cladding; high efficiency, low energy heating systems; day light sensing controls on internal lighting; occupancy sensing light controls in the office village buildings; and sustainable drainage proposals.

Conditions:

Add to the end of all conditions where the submission of details is required: "or in accordance with details otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority".

Condition no. 2 first sentence to be amended to replace `all' with `any scheme of ` on site alarm and CCTV etc.

Plot E proposed office village

The comments above with respect to lighting and building sustainability also apply to this proposal.

Regarding the outstanding issues identified in the report, with respect to the revised layout and design of the courtyard, this has been improved by removing the proposed vehicular through access. Additional tree planting is also proposed, which is welcomed. The buildings have been slightly re-aligned to pick up the vista along the main site road (Foxcote Avenue). However, the design of the courtyard space is not fully resolved and the design of the entrance features to two of the office buildings are still considered to be overly large and at odds with the appearance of the buildings. Given that there are no in- principle concerns about the proposal, officers consider that in order to determine the application within the statutory time period, it is recommended that these outstanding issues be resolved by condition (to be added as no.13 below) and that the recommendation be amended to Permit the application rather than Authorise the Head of Planning to determine the application.

The revised recommendation is to PERMIT, subject to the conditions in the report and including:

Add to the end of all conditions where the submission of details is required: "or unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local planning Authority".

Condition no. 2 first sentence to be amended to replace `all' with `any scheme of `on site alarm and CCTV etc

Condition no.10 first sentence, `not' to be added after `shall'.

New condition:

13. Prior to the commencement of development at the site full details of the design, layout and external appearance of the proposed courtyard space to the front of the office units and the proposed entrance stair/lift tower features to buildings E1 and E3, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details so approved shall be only be implemented at the site or in accordance with details otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of external appearance.

Amended plans showing a revised parking layout have been submitted and have been considered by the Highway Development Officer. He takes the view that while these represent an improvement on the original layout, the amendments made are not sufficient to make all the parking spaces easily accessible and that further amendments are required.

Plans showing amendments to the design of the street frontage of the site of the proposed new flats building at the rear of the site have also been submitted.

The proposals for the Temple Street frontage of the site are now acceptable.

In respect of the flats building, the amendments made to the design are broadly in line with the recommendations made to the applicant, and will cause the building to fit better into the local landscape. However, the Council's Urban Designer wishes to reduce the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties by seeking to achieve a lowering of the eaves line of the new proposal.

The applicants have indicated that they are willing to make such amendments to the design as are practicable, and it is expected that satisfactory amendments to the parking layout and the design of the flats building will be achieved.

It is therefore recommended that the Head of Planning Services be authorised to permit, subject to receipt of further amended plans, and subject to the conditions set out in the Agenda report.

CORRECTIONS TO REPORT

REVISED PLANS: Revised plans have been received indicating a change to the access which now includes the widening of the first 5 metres of the access road.

In addition the adjustments have been undertaken to the dwelling and the proposed plan now proposes the inclusion of a small third bedroom to two of the dwellings.

KEYNSHAM TOWN COUNCIL: Reservations concerning the narrowness of the access road to the site.

THE HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT TEAM: Additional observations based on the revised plans have been received. The Highway Officer has indicated `I remain concerned over the 'vagueness' of Somer's intention in respect of displaced parking. The visit I had from the resident of 169 Park Road has shown there is at least one dwelling which hasn't been taken account of. She was not notified that her garage would be lost, or offered an alternative. I'm going to need their 'garage occupancy study' revisited, with a firm indication of where these people will be relocated, so that I can be satisfied that these arrangements are convenient to them. Without that I am tempted to offer a recommendation for refusal on the basis that the proposal will lead to on-street parking.'

Further information concerning the displaced parking is anticipated from the applicant.

I confirm that the following schedule of garage/parking displacements supersedes the schedule and spider diagram submitted with the planning application. The new schedule, albeit the same as the previous, does allow for a replacement garage for no 196 Park Road.

Total number of garages 19

Void garages 11

Alternative garages locally available

Displaced parking 3

The Highway Development Team have indicated that it remains concerned that the provision of alternative parking in Compton Green or Stirling Way would provide alternative parking that would be used by the occupier of 169 Park Road. As a result this would be likely to result in on street parking. There would still remain a shortfall of 2 spaces.

KEYNSHAM TOWN COUNCIL: Reservations concerning potential access issues, particularly in relation to the route used by residents going to and from school.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The Agent has provided information (letter dated 19 April 2006) regarding health and safety issues associated with the proposed construction stage:-

BBA ARCHITECTS -`In response to a local resident, you have asked for comment as to measures being undertaken concerning the health and safety of the local community, and indeed the construction site and workers, during construction of the proposed scheme.

You ask if The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have been consulted. In fact, the HSE take an active role in promoting safe working practices on building sites. For example, the Construction Design and Management Regulations (CDM) 1994 places legal duties on clients (in this case Somer community Housing Trust), designers (such as architects or engineers) and contractors.

Under the CDM regulations, the client has responsibility to appoint a Planning Surveyor, who acts as the client's representative in co-ordinating health and safety matters.

Somer Community Housing Trust has appointed an independent consultancy, Welling Partnership, to act as Planning Supervisor and they have been actively involved in this scheme.

The Planning Supervisor's responsibilities include notifying the HSE of the upcoming project and liaising with designers to prepare a Pre Tender Health and Safety Plan.

In response to this, the main contractor is to supply the Planning Supervisor with information as to how health and safety will be managed and produce the Construction Stage Health and Safety File.

Negotiations are now being undertaken with a locally based contractor, Halsall Construction Ltd, and this includes matters pertaining to health and safety, including the cul-de-sac location, adjoining properties and public footpath.

Once works are underway, the Planning Supervisor's role continues and the HSE themselves can visit site to undertake spot checks.

The success of this preparation will largely depend on proper site management and from previous experience we are aware that Halsall Construction appreciate this. It is common practice that their Site Manager personally introduces themselves to local residents so as to maintain communication about site operations that may temporarily affect them.

You also ask if the local Police have been consulted. It is noteworthy that Somer Housing Community Trust's design brief calls for Secured by Design Certification.

This is a scheme both owned and ruby the police force. It seeks to limit the opportunity for crime through good design, along with the use of high security doors/windows and the like. This means that over and above their usual duties in the local community, the police will visit site during the construction as part of their assessment to ensure Secured by Design accreditation is achieved.

We trust this gives you an overview of hose health and safety, along with police liaison, is managed.'

The Agent has also provided supporting information regarding car parking issues associated with this proposal (Letter dated 20 April 2006). The Highway Officer has indicated no objection to the proposed development or parking arrangements associated with this proposal.

1. The area allocated for parking and turning on the submitted plan shall be kept clear of obstruction and shall not be used other than for the parking and turning of vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and road safety.