DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 18 SEPTEMBER 2017 Case No: 17/00706/FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION) Proposal: PROPOSED NEW DWELLING & CHANGE OF USE FROM

AGRICULTURAL TO RESIDENTIAL. Location: YELLING WINDMILL TOSELAND ROAD YELLING PE19

6SD Applicant: MR REED Grid Ref: 524869 262548 Date of Registration: 04.04.2017 Parish: YELLING

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE This application has been referred to committee because Yelling Parish Council’s recommendation to approve the application is contrary to the Officers’ recommendation to refuse the application. 1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION 1.1 The site is in the countryside approximately 0.2 miles west of the

western edge of Yelling village on the south side of Toseland Road. The site is approximately 4.5miles drive from the centre of St Neots where there are shops and services.

1.2 The site is approximately 0.2acre, 0.7ha and it is approximately

circular in shape and is bounded by a combination of shrubs, hedges, trees and fences and gates of varied materials including a hoarding to the gateway. The vehicular access and gateway are currently obstructed by earth, debris and vegetation. There are two large trees on-site: a tall Poplar and an Ash tree. There are two buildings on the site: a store understood to date from the mid-1970’s and a small unused pre-fabricated mobile unit. The site appears to be unused and vegetation separates the store and mobile unit.

1.3 The surrounding area is predominantly flat arable land with large

fields with perimeter hedges and trees. There is scattered development in the area.

1.4 The proposal is ‘Proposed new dwelling & change of use from

agricultural to residential’. The accompanying statement indicates that the site was last used as a builders yard or B8 storage and distribution, rather than agriculture, but no evidence for those uses has been supplied.

1.5 The proposed dwelling includes an integral double garage with a

kitchen/ living space /vaulted dining area and shower-room, larder and utility on the ground floor and, on the first floor 3 ensuite bedrooms and a snug and on the second floor, a master suite.

1.6 The proposed dwelling would lie close to the eastern boundary (the projecting snug is closest at approximately 1.7m from the boundary). The proposed layout on the landscape strategy does not match the other layout as it shows the new building closer to the eastern boundary. Therefore, it is considered that the layout on drawing 004_100 rev A should be assessed and the detail of the landscape strategy layout should be treated as indicative only.

1.7 Part of the northern 3-storey building would be approximately 8.1m

from the back edge of the highway and part of the southern wing would be only 1.9m from the southern boundary. The proposed building includes two pitched roof wings at slight angles to each other with 2-storey flat-roofed projections to the west and east. The building is accompanied by a hardstanding for turning and two additional parking spaces, a deck to the south-western and south-eastern end of the building and a proposed pond. The northern ridge of the pitched roof building would be approximately 7.6m high and the southern ridge would be approximately 9.1m high.

1.8 The building materials are of metal sheet roofing with solar panels to

the south-east elevation and timber clad walls with contemporary detailing including a corten steel porch and composite timber & aluminium windows set against a backdrop of blackened timber cladding.

1.9 The application is accompanied by a Planning Statement, Design and

access statement, Tree and impact survey and landscape strategy by Tree in Planning Ltd dated May 2017, Greenwillows Associates Ltd Building Inspection-Ecological Appraisal dated June 2017, a supplementary letter from Greenwillows Associates Ltd dated 4 June 2017 and a satisfactory Unilateral undertaking for Wheeled Bins.

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.

2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012), with particular

reference to paragraphs 17, paragraph 55, section 7 requiring good design and section 11: conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

2.3 BS5837:2012 ‘Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and

Construction’

2.4 BS42020:2013 ‘Biodiversity. Code of practice for planning and development’ August 2013.

2.5 Natural Environment Guidance 21 January 2016. 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)

• En17: Development in the Countryside • H23: Housing development outside environmental limits • H31: Residential Amenity and Privacy Standards • T18: Access Requirements for New Development • En18: Trees and hedges. • En20: Landscaping • En22: Nature conservation • En25: General Design Criteria

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

• HL5: Quality and Density of Development • HL10: Housing Provision

3.3 Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core

Strategy (2009) • CS1: Sustainable development in Huntingdonshire. • CS3: The Settlement Hierarchy • 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 • LP11: The Relationship Between the Built-up Area and the

Countryside • LP13: Quality of Design • LP15: Ensuring a High Standard of Amenity • LP17: Sustainable Travel • LP18: Parking Provision • LP24: Housing Mix • LP26: Homes in the Countryside • LP28: Biodiversity • LP29: Trees, Woodland and Related Features

3.5 Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036: Consultation Draft 2017

• LP1: Strategy for Development • LP3: Contributing to Infrastructure Delivery • LP8: The Countryside • LP10: Design Context • LP11: Design Implementation • LP13: Amenity • LP15: Sustainable Travel • LP16: Parking Provision

• LP30: Biodiversity and Geodiversity • LP31: Trees, Woodland, Hedges and Hedgerow • LP33: Rural Buildings

3.6 Together with the 2013 Stage 3 Consultation this document is now a

material consideration. This is because the 2017 Consultation Draft is the latest Council position, and subject to public consultation in July and August 2017. Whilst the 2013 Stage 3 Consultation is clearly older, it was subject to public consultation in 2013 and the LPA do know the number of unresolved objections to the policies in that Plan.

3.7 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) and Guidance:

• Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPD 2017 • Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment

SPD 2007. • Developer Contributions SPD 2011. • Housing Land Supply Position document August 2017.

Local policies are viewable at https://www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk 4. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 7600134FUL – change to residential caravan site – refused 4.2 7601220FUL – planning permission for the erection of shed and

storage of agricultural equipment for a store to east side of site with an approximate footprint of 9m x 4.5m with a monopitch roof rising from 2.5m (east) to 3m (west).

4.3 The applicant advises that the shed was originally used to store a

tractor & gardening equipment for the allotments that existed north of the site but that the site has been used for approximately 40 years as a builders yard for storage of building materials, site cabins, containers & machinery such as JCB diggers, dumper trucks, cement mixers & site generators. However, the applicant has not submitted evidence about the use or a certificate of lawful existing use.

4.4 1307340PENQ – Preliminary enquiry for the erection of a 4

bedroomed detached dwelling on the site – Objections –2013. 4.5 15/70147/PENQ Preliminary enquiry for the erection of a 4

bedroomed detached dwelling on the site – Objections –2015. 5. CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Yelling Parish Council: - 1. Original response (copy attached):The Parish Council noted that:

* the use of the site as a builder’s storage facility has fallen into disuse and the site is now derelict and unsightly; * the proposal provides for the restoration and re-use of the land; * the proposal may be considered to be an exception to the policy limitations intended to avoid the creation of isolated residential properties in the countryside; and recommends approval of the application subject to the following conditions:

(a) that the hedging and trees screening the site be retained and augmented with additional planting; (b) that the provision of services to the site should be underground to avoid the creation of any obtrusive features such as masts, pylons, etc.; (c) that the 40mph speed limit at Yelling should be extended to connect to the 30mph limit in Toseland for safety reasons. 2. Parish Council revised response (copy attached): The Council is mindful that its recommendation to approve the proposal to build a two and a half storey property at the site appears to be at variance with both elements of the National Planning Policy Framework and HDC’s Local Planning policies concerning the construction of isolated residential properties in agricultural landscapes. However, the proposal would provide for the regeneration of the site from its current derelict, unsightly condition which is unlikely to be achieved by other means. As a result, the Council concluded that this proposal merits approval as a singular and exceptional case but in reaching that conclusion arrived at the three conditions as previously advised to protect and enhance the site location and wellbeing of the wider village community. The Council encourages a 40 mph speed limit as a safety measure given the site’s access to the carriageway and proximity to the known accident ‘black spot’ at the Toseland cross roads remains necessary but it is acknowledged that, as this is beyond the applicant’s control, it would be unreasonable for it to be retained as a condition of approval. The Council has reviewed conditions (a) and (b) and I would confirm that its recommendation for approval would be altered to one of refusal if either: (a) the applicant would not undertake to retain the hedging and trees screening the site or to replant it if its removal was considered unavoidable during construction or; (b) the services to the site required the extension of services from the existing village boundary and could not be provided underground, (it is understood that it may be possible to provide services from neighbouring facilities).

5.2 Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire Wildlife Trust: -

Recommendation to secure further ecology surveys in accordance with Best Practice Guidance. There appears to be no exceptional circumstance to justify conditioning a survey.

5.3 HDC Highways: - No objections as the traffic generated by the

proposed use would be considerably less than the previous use. The site layout provides adequate on-site turning and parking space. The Parish Council comments relating to a potential reduction of the speed limit between Yelling and Toseland are noted but a requirement to reduce the speed limit is unjustified and the process for reducing the speed limit is outside the applicant’s control.

5.4 HDC Environmental Protection: - No objection subject to

contamination investigation/ remediation condition. 6. REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 4 representations of support: from properties in Yelling

-for a long time the area has been a very unsightly mess

-application would improve it, -site attracts vandals, fly tippers and unauthorized occupiers.

7. ASSESSMENT 7.1 The main issues are the principle of the development in the

countryside and the design/scale of the scheme/impact on the character and appearance of the countryside, trees/ hedges and protected species/ habitat.

The Principle of the Development 7.2 Local and national planning policies generally aim to steer new

development to sustainable areas that offer the best access to services and facilities. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF seeks to avoid isolated unjustified dwellings in the countryside unless there are special circumstances. However, in this case, there is no special circumstance (such as an essential need for a dwelling associated with a viable rural enterprise, or the re-use of redundant or disused buildings). There is no planning permission or certificate of lawfulness for a builders yard or for storage at the site, and therefore there is inadequate evidence to confirm the history of the site. The proposed 4-bed dwelling would be located in an isolated location in the open countryside, away from any established settlement, with poor access to shops and services and no adjoining public path or street lights to encourage safe walking to any settlements and no regular bus service. This would inevitably lead to future occupiers having to access services and facilities by private motor vehicle as their choice of travel mode would be severely limited, contrary to the sustainability aims of the NPPF (paragraph 29) and CS1 of the adopted Core Strategy and LP1 of the Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013) and LP1 of the Local Plan to 2036: Consultation Draft 2017. The development would therefore not be in a sustainable location.

7.3 The proposed dwelling does not meet any of the exception criteria set

out in the NPPF and local policies regarding development in the countryside and is therefore unacceptable in principle. It is considered that any possible advantage of reusing previously developed land and extending housing choice is outweighed by the conflict with the policies designed to steer development to sustainable locations. It is also considered that the use of sustainable building techniques in the development would be outweighed by the need for motor journeys to the site. In addition, a refusal would be consistent with the concerns expressed about a residential development in two preliminary enquiries. The ‘tidying up’ of an untidy site in the countryside is not one of the exceptions set out in the NPPF to the presumption against new dwellings in the countryside. If it was, there would be an incentive for other sites to become untidy in order to justify a dwelling.

7.4 It is concluded that the proposed development is a non-essential

development in the countryside in an area remote from shops and services and without pavements and streetlights. The proposal would result in a need for the occupiers to make motor journeys to reach shops and services. The proposal would therefore be unsustainable and is therefore unacceptable in principle. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policies En17 and H23 of the

Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, policies CS1 and CS3 of the adopted Core Strategy 2009, policies LP1 LP17 and LP26 of the Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013), policies LP1, LP8, LP15 of the Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036: Consultation Draft 2017, and paragraph 55 and the overarching sustainability aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

Design /scale/ impact on character and appearance of countryside

7.5 The site is set in an isolated location in the open countryside.

However, the existing single-storey store and unauthorized mobile unit are unobtrusive, being modest in scale and part screened by landscaping.

7.6 In contrast, the proposed development would entail the removal and

replacement of the north-east and eastern perimeter screening, and the erection of a much longer and higher 3-storey building than the existing store, cramped against the replacement eastern boundary hedge and close to the southern boundary of the site, and with a large parking and turning area, thus limiting scope for effective screening / landscaping of the site. In addition, the building has been designed to take advantage of views out of the site and sun on the southern decks and so it is likely that there would be continual pressure to maintain hedges at a low level to maximise sun and views, which would expose the building further to views across the open fields. The development would therefore be intrusive in its setting, especially in views down the site access from Toseland Road and from the east, and in more distant views from the south-west over the adjoining fields.

7.7 The applicant considers that although the new dwelling will be visible

in some views, it will appear as an isolated farm house typical of the overall landscape character. It is acknowledged that there are scattered buildings in the countryside but it is considered that this and the opportunity, the application provides, for landscaping enhancement and management, would not justify this intrusive unsustainable development.

7.8 There is no objection to a contemporary design or the proposed

materials. However, it is considered that the design of the dwelling is not ‘truly outstanding or innovative’ sought by one of the criteria of paragraph 55 of the NPPF (and the applicant has not provided information to support an 'exceptional and truly innovative' categorisation). It is also considered that the development would not ‘significantly enhance its immediate setting’ due to the intrusion of a building of this scale and position on the site. Therefore, the development cannot be considered to be of the ‘exceptional quality or innovative nature’ required to satisfy one of the criteria of paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

7.9 It is considered that the proposal would not satisfy bullet point 5 of

paragraph 17 of the NPPF as inadequate account has been taken of the adverse effect of this intrusive development upon the intrinsic beauty of the countryside.

7.10 It is concluded that the development would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside due to the visual intrusion resulting from the undue scale and massing of the proposed dwelling and the unduly cramped and proximity to proposed replacement perimeter landscaping. The development would appear incongruous and intrusive in its wider rural setting and would therefore fail to preserve or enhance local character and distinctiveness. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies En25 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995), policy CS1 of the Adopted Core Strategy (2009), policy HL5 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration (2002), policies LP1 and LP13 of the Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013) policies LP1, LP8, LP10, LP11 and LP33 of the Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036: Consultation Draft 2017 and is not of ‘exceptional quality or innovative nature’ sought by the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and policy LP26 of the Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013).

Trees and hedges 7.11 The site includes a mature Poplar (which is to be removed) and ash

tree (which is to be retained). 7.12 The Council’s Tree Officer has no objection to removal of the poplar

tree, despite it being a significant feature in the landscape, due to its height, but the Tree Officer is concerned about the unnecessary loss of the eastern/ south-eastern hedge which follows the historic site boundary and is understood to be predominately of hawthorn. It is considered, however, that although it may be possible to investigate retaining the existing hedge, the removal of the hedge, subject to a replacement hedge being provided, does not in itself amount to a reasonable reason for refusal. It does however reinforce the view that the development would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside.

Protected species/ habitat 7.13 The specialist report by Greenwillows accompanying the application

recommends a site survey as badgers/a sett appear to be on site and the report advises that there is scope for reptiles on site and bats in an apple tree (which is proposed to be felled). The report also recommends measures to avoid harm to birds and their nests and biodiversity enhancements. The report recommends a site survey to determine if the sett is a main breeding sett or not (and recommends that the sett survey should be preferably in June) and a survey to establish if reptiles and bats are present on the site.

7.14 The specialist for the applicant advises, in a letter dated 4th June

2017, that the scheme can be approved with conditions but it assumes that the badgers/setts and any reptiles could be relocated and the letter did not refer to the bats. However, the applicant has not provided any survey information since the Greenwillows report and letter dated 4th June 2017 and the advice in the letter does not accord with BS42020:2013 ‘Biodiversity. Code of practice for planning and development, which advises that ‘The presence or absence of protected species, and the extent to which they could be affected by the proposed development, should be established before planning

permission is granted; otherwise all material considerations might not have been considered in making the decision. The use of planning conditions to secure ecological surveys after planning permission has been granted should therefore only be applied in exceptional circumstances’. There appears to be no exceptional circumstance to justify conditioning a survey, instead of securing the survey in advance. A refusal on this ground would be in accordance with the advice from the Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire Wildlife Trust.

7.15 It is considered that the applicant has provided inadequate

information about protected species (badgers, bats, reptiles and their habitat) and that the lack of survey information is not in accordance with Best Practice Guidance. It is therefore not certain that significant harm to wildlife species and habitats can be avoided (for example through relocating reptiles on a suitable alternative site with less harmful impacts or possibly retaining the apple tree instead of felling it if bats are present).

7.16 The application does not provide enough information about the

potential impacts of the development on the protected species. It is therefore not possible to ascertain the likely impact on any protected species that may be present and therefore the applicant and Local Planning Authority are unable to demonstrate that the development avoids harm to protected species and biodiversity.

7.17 The proposal has not had appropriate regard to biodiversity and

protected species and is contrary to the best practice guidance of BS42020:2013 ‘Biodiversity. Code of practice for planning and development’ as inadequate surveys have been undertaken. The information provided does not amount to a thorough ecological impact assessment which is necessary to reach clear conclusions on the likely impact before planning permission is granted. The precautionary principle should be applied unless and until it has been demonstrated that there is no likelihood of harm to the habitats of protected species. The records show that there is at least the possibility that protected species are at the site and could be disturbed by the development proposed. The applicant has had the opportunity to commission further surveys but if extra surveys have been undertaken, they have not been reported to the Local Planning Authority. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy En22 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995), policy CS1 of the Adopted Core Strategy (2009), and there is inadequate information to conclude that the proposal will not entail significant adverse impact on protected species, contrary to policy LP28 of the Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013) and policy LP30 of the Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036: Consultation Draft 2017 and the overarching sustainability aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and its aim to minimize impact on biodiversity.

Weight of policies 7.18 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF) has a more

positive approach to development in the countryside than the more restrictive development plan policies H23, En17 and CS3. However, policy CS1 of the adopted Core Strategy 2009 is broadly consistent with the NPPF. Having regard to the NPPF paragraph 215, these policies are considered to have significant weight, given NPPF’s

paragraph 17 bullet point 5 relating to safeguarding the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and the policies can be afforded considerable weight. Significant weight is justified because, whilst these policies concerned with the supply of housing must be regarded as ‘out-of-date’ insofar as compliance with these policies alone would result in HDC not meeting its objectively assessed housing need, the Huntingdonshire Housing Land Supply Update (August 2017) demonstrates that compliance with Core Strategy policies CS2, CS3, En17 and H23, plus support for the additional housing allocations in the draft local plan will meet our objectively assessed needs up to 2036 (which is 20,100 units for period 2011 - 2036) and will ensure a 5 year housing land supply, even with a 20% buffer. Developments such as that proposed in this application are not required to meet housing needs.

7.19 Policies En25 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 and HL5 of the

Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration (2002) accord with the NPPF’s aim to secure a high standard of development and the policies can be afforded considerable weight.

7.20 Policies En22 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995) and CS1 of

the Adopted Core Strategy (2009) and protected species: these policies are considered to have significant weight, given NPPF’s overarching sustainability aims and the aim to minimize impact on biodiversity.

Other matters 7.21 The Parish Council is concerned about highway safety regarding

traffic speeds. It is considered however that it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on highway safety grounds as an access exists and satisfactory vehicle parking and turning space and visibility splays can be achieved on site. However, the concern remains about the non-sustainable location e.g. lack of paths and street lights meaning that pedestrians would need to walk in the roadway and the likelihood that future occupiers would need to use motor vehicles to access shops and services.

7.22 Third parties suggest that the site has been unsightly and that it

attracts vandals, fly tippers and unauthorized occupiers but it is considered that the site is not unattractive due to its perimeter vegetation (despite the small amount of debris deposited in the access) and the third party and Parish Council concerns do not justify this intrusive development contrary to the policies for the area.

Conclusion 7.23 The proposal would provide a large dwelling which would make a

modest contribution to housing demand in the District and to the economic growth of the settlement. However, the site lies in an isolated location in the open countryside, remote from shops and services and therefore the occupiers would need to rely on private motor journeys to access shops and services, which would be unsustainable. In addition, the scale and mass of the proposed dwelling compared to the existing modest store which is to be replaced (and the undue proximity of the proposed development to the site perimeters, which will be likely to limit the extent to which

perimeter landscaping would screen the development) would be intrusive in the countryside setting. The scale, mass and intrusion of the development would harm the rural character of the area and the lack of adequate ecology surveys means that it is not possible to ascertain the likely impact on any protected species that may be present and as such the application is unable to demonstrate that the development avoids significant adverse impact on protected species.

7.24 The Council can demonstrate a 5 year housing supply (the latest

position is summarized in the Housing Land Supply Position document August 2017) and therefore the Local Planning Authority does not rely on developments like the current proposal, to which there are fundamental objections, to bolster the housing supply.

7.25 Having regard for applicable national and local policies and having

taken all relevant material considerations into account, it is recommended that planning permission should be refused in this instance.

8. RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development is a non-essential development in the countryside in an area remote from shops and services and without pavements and streetlights. The proposal would result in a need for the occupiers to make motor journeys to reach shops and services. The proposal would therefore be unsustainable and unacceptable in principle. The development would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside due to the visual intrusion resulting from the undue scale and massing of the proposed dwelling, it being unduly cramped, and the close proximity to proposed replacement perimeter landscaping. The development would appear incongruous and intrusive in its wider rural setting and would therefore fail to preserve or enhance local character and distinctiveness. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policies En17, H23 and En25 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, policies CS1 and CS3 of the adopted Core Strategy 2009, policy HL5 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration (2002), policies LP1, LP13, LP17 and LP26 of the Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013) and policies LP1, LP8, LP10, LP11, LP15 and LP33 of the Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036: Consultation Draft 2017, and paragraph 55, and the overarching sustainability aims, of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012). The proposal is not considered to be of the ‘exceptional quality or innovative nature’ sought by the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) or policy LP26 of the Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013).

2. The proposal has not had appropriate regard to biodiversity and protected species (badgers, bats, reptiles and their habitat) and is contrary to the best practice guidance of BS42020:2013 ‘Biodiversity. Code of practice for planning and development’ as inadequate surveys have been undertaken. The records show that there is at least the possibility that protected species are at the site and could be disturbed by the development proposed. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy En22 of the

Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995), policy CS1 of the Adopted Core Strategy (2009), and there is inadequate information to conclude that the proposal will not entail significant adverse impact on protected species, contrary to policy LP28 of the Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013) and policy LP30 of the Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036: Consultation Draft 2017 and the overarching sustainability aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

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 Sheila Lindsay Senior Development Management Officer 01480 388247

1

Huntingdonshire DC Public Access

From: DMAdmin

Sent: 12 May 2017 17:01

To: Control, Development (Planning)

Subject: FW: Planning Permission Consultation - Yelling Windmill Toseland Road Yelling

(ref 17/00706/FUL)

From: Phil Himbury [mailto:phil@himbury.freeserve.co.uk] Sent: 12 May 2017 15:09To: DMAdmin; Lindsay, Sheila (Plan. Serv.)Subject: RE: Planning Permission Consultation - Yelling Windmill Toseland Road Yelling (ref 17/00706/FUL)

For the attention of Sheila Lindsay

Dear Ms Lindsay,

I refer to your email and letter both dated 21st April and our subsequent telephone conversation in connection with the application for the change from agricultural to residential use and the construction of a new dwelling.

The Parish Council has now met to consider the application and the various planning policies which apply, in particular, paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework, together with the considerations detailed in your letter to the applicant dated 23rd October 2013 reproduced as Appendix 1 of the Planning Statement to the application. Notwithstanding the contents of the NPPF and this letter, the Parish Council noted that:

the use of the site as a builder’s storage facility has fallen into disuse and the site is now derelict and unsightly;

the proposal provides for the restoration and re-use of the land;

the proposal may be considered to be an exception to the policy limitations intended to avoid the creation of isolated residential properties in the countryside;

and recommends approval of the application subject to the following conditions:

(a) that the hedging and trees screening the site be retained and augmented with additional planting;(b) that the provision of services to the site should be underground to avoid the creation of any obtrusive

features such as masts, pylons, etc.;(c) that the 40mph speed limit at Yelling should be extended to connect to the 30mph limit in Toseland for

safety reasons.

Your sincerely

Phil HimburyClerkYelling Parish Council

From: Dmadmin@huntingdonshire.gov.uk [mailto:Dmadmin@huntingdonshire.gov.uk] Sent: 21 April 2017 13:52To: phil@himbury.freeserve.co.ukSubject: RE: Planning Permission Consultation - Yelling Windmill Toseland Road Yelling (ref 17/00706/FUL)

1

Huntingdonshire DC Public Access

From: Phil Himbury <phil@himbury.freeserve.co.uk>

Sent: 29 May 2017 21:53

To: Lindsay, Sheila (Plan. Serv.)

Subject: RE: Planning Consultation - Yelling Windmill Toseland Road Yelling (ref

17/00706/FUL)

Dear Ms Lindsay,

I refer to your undernoted email seeking clarification of the Parish Council’s position in the event that any of the three conditions associated with its recommendation for approval of the above could not be met.

The Council has now met to consider this matter further and I have set out its conclusions below.

The Council is mindful that its recommendation to approve the proposal to build a two and a half storey property at the site appears to be at variance with both elements of the National Planning Policy Framework and HDC’s Local Planning policies concerning the construction of isolated residential properties in agricultural landscapes. However, the proposal would provide for the regeneration of the site from its current derelict, unsightly condition which is unlikely to be achieved by other means. As a result, the Council concluded that this proposal merits approval as a singular and exceptional case but in reaching that conclusion arrived at the three conditions as previously advised to protect and enhance the site location and well being of the wider village community.

The Council has noted your comments with regard to condition (c), i.e., the implementation of the 40 mph speed limit. It remains the Council’s view that the introduction of the limit as a safety measure given the site’s access to the carriageway and proximity to the known accident ‘black spot’ at the Toseland cross roads remains necessary but it is acknowledged that, as this is beyond the applicant’s control, it would be unreasonable for it to be retained as a condition of approval.

The Council has reviewed conditions (a) and (b) and I would confirm that its recommendation for approval would be altered to one of refusal if either:

(a) the applicant would not undertake to retain the hedging and trees screening the site or to replant it if its removal was considered unavoidable during construction or;

(b) the services to the site required the extension of services from the existing village boundary and could not be provided underground, (it is understood that it may be possible to provide services from neighbouring facilities).

I hope this helps but please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need further clarification.

Your sincerely

Phil HimburyClerkYelling Parish Council

From: Lindsay, Sheila (Plan. Serv.) [mailto:Sheila.Lindsay@huntingdonshire.gov.uk] Sent: 19 May 2017 15:24To: Phil HimburySubject: RE: Planning Consultation - Yelling Windmill Toseland Road Yelling (ref 17/00706/FUL)

Dear Mr Himbury,

2

Thanks for your email.

I await the tree /landscape survey which will clarify if the first of the 3 Parish Council conditions you mention can be adhered to or not.

Meanwhile, it would help me to know if the Parish Council recommendation would be to refuse the application if one or more of the 3 conditions a-c could not be adhered to?

For example, item c is not in the applicant’s control and I consider that it would be unreasonable to require it in this case.

I look forward to hearing from you.regards,

Sheila LindsaySenior Development Management Officer (South Team)Development ServicesCorporate DeliveryHuntingdonshire District Council

Pathfinder House, St Marys StreetHuntingdonPE29 3TN

Tel: 01480 388247 (direct dial)Email: sheila.lindsay@huntingdonshire.gov.ukPlease visit the Planning Pages of our new website at http://www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/planning for all planning related enquiries, including full details of the pre-application services we are providing.

Any comments represent the informal opinion of an officer of Huntingdonshire District Council. These comments are made without prejudice to any eventual determination through the planning process.

From: Phil Himbury [mailto:phil@himbury.freeserve.co.uk] Sent: 12 May 2017 15:09To: DMAdmin; Lindsay, Sheila (Plan. Serv.)Subject: RE: Planning Permission Consultation - Yelling Windmill Toseland Road Yelling (ref 17/00706/FUL)

For the attention of Sheila Lindsay

Dear Ms Lindsay,

I refer to your email and letter both dated 21st April and our subsequent telephone conversation in connection with the application for the change from agricultural to residential use and the construction of a new dwelling.

The Parish Council has now met to consider the application and the various planning policies which apply, in particular, paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework, together with the considerations detailed in your letter to the applicant dated 23rd October 2013 reproduced as Appendix 1 of the Planning Statement to the application. Notwithstanding the contents of the NPPF and this letter, the Parish Council noted that:

the use of the site as a builder’s storage facility has fallen into disuse and the site is now derelict and unsightly;

the proposal provides for the restoration and re-use of the land;

3

the proposal may be considered to be an exception to the policy limitations intended to avoid the creation of isolated residential properties in the countryside;

and recommends approval of the application subject to the following conditions:

(a) that the hedging and trees screening the site be retained and augmented with additional planting;

(b) that the provision of services to the site should be underground to avoid the creation of any obtrusive features such as masts, pylons, etc.;

(c) that the 40mph speed limit at Yelling should be extended to connect to the 30mph limit in Toseland for safety reasons.

Your sincerely

Phil HimburyClerkYelling Parish Council

From: Dmadmin@huntingdonshire.gov.uk [mailto:Dmadmin@huntingdonshire.gov.uk] Sent: 21 April 2017 13:52To: phil@himbury.freeserve.co.ukSubject: RE: Planning Permission Consultation - Yelling Windmill Toseland Road Yelling (ref 17/00706/FUL)

Dear Parish Clerk,

Please find correspondence from Development Management at Huntingdonshire District Council attached to this email in relation to the following application for planning permission.

Proposal: Proposed new dwelling & change of use from agricultural to residential.

Site Address: Yelling Windmill Toseland Road Yelling

Reference: 17/00706/FUL

Opting out of email correspondence--------------------------------------------------------We are continually striving to improve the service we deliver to our customers. As part of this we are now contacting our customers by email where possible in an effort to provide a faster, more efficient service.

If you would prefer not to receive correspondence from us via email you have the right to opt out. If you wish to opt out please contact us at the address provided below so that we can remove your email details from our records.

Keeping safe on the internet---------------------------------------------You should never open a file attached to an email when you do not trust the sender's authenticity.

We will only contact you via email when you have already contacted us in relation to this specific application (or one directly related to it) and provided your email address as a contact - we will not transfer your contact details between unrelated applications.

4

If you have any doubts or concerns relating to this email please contact us directly, our contact details are provided below.

Development ManagementHuntingdonshire District Council

T: 01480 388388E: mail@huntingdonshire.gov.uk

Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived

Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived

Application Ref: 17/00706/FULo © Crown copyright and database rights 2017 Ordnance Survey HDC 100022322

1:1,732Scale = Date Created: 30/08/2017

Development Management Committee

Location: Yelling

!

KeyThe SiteListed BuildingConservation Area

I R V I N E J O N E S D E S I G N Ltd

Mr & Mrs Reed

Mill PostYelling

©

Proposed North & West Elevations+ indicative panoramic view & ariel plan

004_101 Apr. 2017 1:100

16 CAMBRIDGE WEST POINT (UNIT 10)STIRLING WAY

PAPWORTH EVERARDCAMBRIDGE CB23 3GY

+44 (0) 7779 24 70 95info@irvinejonesdesign.co.ukwww.irvinejonesdesign.co.uk

Daniel Jones BA(Hons) BArch PG.Cert ARB RIBA Chartered Architect

PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATIONScale 1:100

DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING. FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY ARE TO BE TAKEN FROM THIS DRAWING. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILIMETERS UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE CHECKED ON SITE PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING. THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF IRVINEJONESDESIGN & IS ISSUED UNDER LICENCE TO THE RECIPIENT ONLY. ALL COPYRIGHT LAW PROTECTING DESIGN, ARTISTIC & LIERRERY WORK CONTAINED WITHIN THIS DRAWING REMAINS. ANY DISCREPENCES SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT.

PROPOSED WEST ELEVATIONScale 1:100

cor-ten steel

structural post struts

INDICATIVE PANORAMIC VIEW looking North-West mill

site

see

shee

tno

. 004

_102

wat

er to

wer

ingl

es fa

rm

PANORAMIC VIEW EXTENT ON PLAN Yelling village

Toseland village

Cotton Farm wind turbines in the background

PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATIONScale 1:100

9189

7685

PROPOSED EAST ELEVATIONScale 1:100

blackened/charred timber cladding

metal sheet roofing material

I R V I N E J O N E S D E S I G N Ltd

Mr & Mrs Reed

Mill PostYelling

©

Proposed South & East Elevation + Indicative Views

004_102 Apr. 2017 1:100

16 CAMBRIDGE WEST POINT (UNIT 10)STIRLING WAY

PAPWORTH EVERARDCAMBRIDGE CB23 3GY

+44 (0) 7779 24 70 95info@irvinejonesdesign.co.ukwww.irvinejonesdesign.co.uk

Daniel Jones BA(Hons) BArch PG.Cert ARB RIBA Chartered Architect

DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING. FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY ARE TO BE TAKEN FROM THIS DRAWING. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILIMETERS UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE CHECKED ON SITE PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING. THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF IRVINEJONESDESIGN & IS ISSUED UNDER LICENCE TO THE RECIPIENT ONLY. ALL COPYRIGHT LAW PROTECTING DESIGN, ARTISTIC & LIERRERY WORK CONTAINED WITHIN THIS DRAWING REMAINS. ANY DISCREPENCES SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT.

solar panel arraysolar panel array

INDICATIVE VIEW PROPOSAL looking North-West INDICATIVE VIEW PROPOSAL from the front, Yelling High Street/Toseland Road