east cambridgeshire district council · 117 brook street, soham applicant: n and d property...

EAST CAMBRIDGESHIREDISTRICT COUNCILTHE GRANGE, NUTHOLT LANE,ELY, CAMBRIDGESHIRE CB7 4PLTelephone: Ely (01353) 665555 Direct Dialling: (01353) 668833

NOTICE OF MEETING: Planning CommitteeTIME: 2.00pmDATE: Wednesday 3 October 2001VENUE: Council Chamber, The Grange, Nutholt Lane, ElyCOMMITTEE OFFICER: Janis Murfet EXTENSION: 6282

Liberal Democrat Members Independent Members Labour MembersCouncillor John Abbott (Ch) Councillor John Brooks Councillor Cyril Hempstead Councillor Edward Twentyman (V-Ch) Councillor Cyril Durrant Councillor Graham StewardCouncillor James Coppola Councillor Sue KerridgeCouncillor Jeremy Friend-Smith Councillor John Palmer Councillor Lionel Hart Councillor Eddie WoodbridgeCouncillor Valerie LeakeCouncillor Philip LewisCouncillor Fiona McKay-Rae

Lead Officer: David Archer QUORUM: 5 Members

AGENDA

1. Minutes – 5 September 2001

2. Apologies

MAIN CASES – ITEMS FOR DECISION/RECOMMENDATION - PUBLICPage Nos.

3. E/01/00629/FUL and E/01/00630/LBC (AMcS) (4-7)No. 54: Convert existing carport to single garage, new hallway and cloakroomNo. 55: New detached carportNo. 56: New detached carport and new detached games room and loft,additional dormer to annex and alter dormers at rear of house54, 55 and 56 High Street, ChippenhamApplicant: Mr and Mrs B Trushell

4. E/01/0196/ADI and E/01/00406/LBC (NB) (8-12)Installation of new shop front, fascia and signage2 St Johns Road, ElyApplicant: T & S Stores PLC

5. E/01/00622/FUL (NB) (13-17) New vehicular accesses to site and change of use to used car salesLand adjacent 58 Cambridge Road, ElyApplicant: N J Twitchett

6. E/01/00758/FUL (NB) (18-21)Change of use of office to transport café (retrospective)Transport Café, Transport Depot, Fordham Road, IslehamApplicant: Daniel Butler

7. E/01/00621/FUL (AM) (22-27) Adaptation of roof space of garage to accommodate one bedroom flat for holiday lettingBeald House, California, Little DownhamApplicant: Mr and Mrs S M Cornwall

8. E/01/00780/FUL (NB) (28-30) 6 foot featheredge wooden fence in garden (retrospective)The Corner House, 2B Main Street, PymoorApplicant: A J Jenkins

9. E/01/00800/CCA (NB) (31-34) Change of use of scrap-yard and part agricultural land to hard-standing for a sugar beet base and For storing and crushing concrete and brick rubble. Existing mobile home to be used as office.Land off Poplar Drove, Ten Mile Bank, LittleportApplicant: D Watson and M J Allen

10. E/01/00284/FUL (AM) (35-40)Conversion of existing brick barn and single storey extension to form a private detached dwellingLand adjacent St Nicholas Church, BarwayApplicant: Mr and Mrs B Kettlewell

11. E/01/00591/FUL (NB) (41-46)Variation of bus and coach numbers to “the number of coaches and buses operating from the site shall not exceed 10 and the number of mini-buses restricted to 3 with no more than 3 spare vehicles”The Coach Depot, Barway Farm, BarwayApplicant: P J Brown

12. E/01/00624/OUT (AMcS) (47-51)Outline application: residential development for the erection of four dwellings, garaging, access and road and associated site works.Land adjacent 14 Ten Bell Lane, SohamApplicant: Mr and Mrs K Anderson and Mr and Mrs B Howe

13. E/01/00742/FUL (NB) (52-55)Proposed four bedroom house, detached double garage, access arrangement and associated siteworks117 Brook Street, SohamApplicant: N and D Property Developments

14. E/01/00592/FUL (AMcS) (56-61) Renovation and extension to form a single dwelling and new vehicular access and carport117 High Street, SuttonApplicant: Powell Property Portfolio

15. E/01/00378/OUT (RA) (62-65) Outline application for the erection of a bungalowLand at 76 High Street, WilburtonApplicant: Mrs J Prime

16. E/01/00466/FUL (NB) (66-72)retention of existing residential unit, demolition of public house and construction of 5 no. 2 bedroom house and 1 no. 3 bedroom houseTwwentypence Inn, Twentypence Road, WilburtonApplicant: Mr G Cannon

MAIN CASE Agenda Item No. 3

Proposal : No.54 – Convert existing car port to single garage; new hallway and cloakroomNo.55 – New detached carportNo.56 – New detached carport and new detached games room and loft, additionaldormer to annexe & alter dormers at rear of houseApplication Reference E/01/00629/FUL

No.54 – Convert carport to new hallway with cloakroom & garage with window &door to rearNo.55 – New car port & rebuild garden wallNo.56 – Realign driveway & new carport, additional dormer to annexe, extend 2no.dormers at rear, new games room & loftApplication Reference E/01/00630/LBC

Location : 54 High Street, Chippenham

Applicant : Mr & Mrs B Trushell

Agent : Geoffrey Scott Architect

Case Officer : Amanda McSherry

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

1.1 The main considerations in determining this application are the impact of the proposal upon thesetting and character of the Chippenham Conservation Area and adjacent Listed buildings, theimpact of the proposal on the existing properties and site, and the on site parking provision.

1.2 Chippenham Parish Council object to the two proposed car ports, and detached games room becausethey feel that this would result in over development of the site. They do not wish to see anymorefree standing buildings on the site, and feel they would be quite out of scale with neighbouringproperties. They do not object to the conversion of the car port at No.54, or to the dormer windowsat No.56. The Conservation Officer has no objections subject to matching details.

1.3 Subject to the receipt of suitable amended plans addressing the parking arrangements, the applicationis recommended for APPROVAL.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 These applications are for listed building consent and full planning permission for the three adjoiningproperties No.54, No.55, and No.56 High Street.

No.54 - the conversion of the existing car port into a single garage, and new hallway withcloakroom, with the addition of a window and door to the rear of the property.

No.55 – a new detached car port and rebuilding the garden wall.

No.56 - realign the driveway, erect a new detached car port and new detached games roomand loft, additional dormer window to annexe, alterations to the dormers at the rear of thehouse.

3. THE APPLICANT’S CASE

3.1 No applicant’s case has been provided.

4. THE SITE AND ITS ENVIRONMENT

4.1 Three attached converted residential properties, formerly a stable block all within the ownership ofthe applicant. The properties are located within the Chippenham Conservation Area and developmentenvelope, with the rear garden of No.56 just beyond the settlement boundary.

4.2 There are a large proportion of listed buildings in the area surrounding the site. The buildings oneither sides of the site, St Margarets Church and No.57 High Street are listed as are the properties onthe opposite side of the High Street, which are set back a considerable distance form the road.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 E/00/0460/LB Form new dormer window in roof to create bedroom in A/Croof space of existing annexe.

E/00/0459/FUL Alterations to form new dormer in existing annexe to create A/Cbedroom in roof space.

E/98/0867/F Replace 4 rooflights with 2 dormer windows, convert ground A/Cfloor store to single person annexe

E/98/0868/LB Part demolition A/CE/98/0222/F Retention of three no opening windows on churchyard Ref - elevation (retrospective) (appeal dismissed)E/95/0848/LB Conversion to residential including part demolition A/CE/95/0790/F Conversion of stables to residential units A/CE/95/0930/LB Conversion of stables to residential use A/CE/93/0842/LB Conversion to residential WithdrawnE/93/0841/F Conversion WithdrawnE/92/0839/F Conversion of stables to residential units with parking A/CE/0881/89 Demolition of existing stables construction of new dwelling Withdrawn

conversion old maltings to reuseE/0018/87/F Change of use from 888 to livery stables A/CN/72/337 Conversion of reading room into residential studio A/C

6. REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS

6.1 Parish Council

Councillors do not object to the conversion at number 54, nor the dormer windows at number 56.They do however object to the two carports and detached games room. The site will be far too overbuilt if these are allowed, too cluttered. Please do not let any extra free standing buildings appear onthis site. It is quite out of scale with neighbouring properties.

6.2 Councillor

No written comments received at this stage.

6.3 Local Residents

A letter of support has been received form the new owners of number 57 High Street.

6.4 Conservation Officer

Has no objection to the proposal subject to matching details.

7. THE PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

7.1 The site is within the Chippenham Conservation Area and development envelope as defined by EastCambridgeshire District Council Plan 2000. The following policies contained within the Adoptedplan are relevant:

1, 2, 34, 58, 59, 60, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70,

7.2 Policies SP12/10, SP12/11, SP12/12 of the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995 are also relevant tothis application.

8. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT POLICY

8.1 PPG1 General Policy and PrinciplesPPG3 HousingPPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment

9. PLANNING COMMENTS

9.1 The main considerations in determining this application are the impact of the proposal upon thesetting and character of the Chippenham Conservation Area and adjacent Listed buildings, theimpact of the proposal on the existing properties and site, and arrangement of parking provision onsite.

9.2 In respect of the impact of the proposal on the surrounding conservation area and listed buildings, theConservation Officer raise no objection to the proposed development. It is considered that there willbe no adverse impact on the surrounding listed buildings or conservation area. A large proportion ofthe proposed works will not be directly visible from outside the application site.

9.3 In respect of the Parish Council’s concerns about the car ports and games room resulting in overdevelopment of the site. The games room is to be positioned to the rear of No.56 and although fairlylarge in size, in relation to its position within the large garden space it would be difficult to considerthis as over development of the site. The proposed building is considered to be of an appropriatescale with the surrounding buildings. The piece of land of the proposed car port at No.55, iscurrently being used by this property for the parking of their cars, and therefore the car port wouldnot to result in the loss of any existing open or garden space. The proposed car port for No.56 is tobe positioned directly adjacent to the existing garage and store of this property. It is to be of thesame height and width as the garage building, thereby minimising its visual appearance and will beseen as an extension to this building rather than another freestanding building. The view from theHigh Street will be a blank gable as existing, and although closer to the road than the existingbuilding it will still be set back a considerable distance from the High Street.

9.4 In respect of the car parking provision on site, in accordance with our car parking standards each ofthe three properties should have space available for the parking of two cars. The proposed car ports

for numbers No.56 and No.55 will provide each of these properties with the required two spaces.No.54 currently has a double car port, but as a result of this proposal one of these car parking spaceswill converted into the hallway and cloakroom. There will remain space beside No.54’s car port andNo.55’s car port for the parking of a car for No.54. However as the only entrance to No.55 is on thefence between these carports it is considered that the parking of a car here for No.54 will beunneighbourly for the occupiers of No.55. Additional information is awaited from the agent inrelation to parking provision.

9.5 The additional site works including the addition and alteration of the dormer windows for No.56 onthe internal courtyard elevation are considered to be acceptable. There are no works proposed facingthe adjacent churchyard.

9.6 In conclusion, the proposed development is not considered to adversely affect the setting andcharacter of the Chippenham Conservation Area, or adjacent Listed buildings. The ConservationOfficer raises no objections. In respect of the Parish Council’s comments about the overdevelopment of the application site by the carports and games room . It is considered the size andpositioning of these buildings are of a suitable scale in relation to the existing buildings on site andthe available land, therefore they are considered to be in keeping with the site and not overdevelopment. There are concerns about the parking arrangements for No.54 and the unneighbourlyimpact this is likely to cause for No.55, and the applicant has been invited to amend this layout toovercome these concerns.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that planning application reference E/01/00629/FUL BE APPROVED subject tothe following conditions

1. Full Time Limit (S3)2. Details of materials (M2)3. No conversion carports (R19)4. Compliance (S5)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Application file E/01/00629/FULEast Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995Central Government Circulars and AdviceEast Cambridgeshire Supplementary Planning Guidance


Proposal : Shop Sign

Location : 2 St. John’s Road, ELY

Applicant : T & S Stores PLC

Agent : Sign 2000 Ltd

Reference No : E/01/00196/ADI and E/01/00/00406/LBC

Case Officer : Nigel Brown


1.1 The main consideration in determining these applications are the impact of the illuminated shopsigns upon the setting of the listed building and its setting within the Ely Conservation Area.

1.2 The City of Ely Council have objected to the listed building consent on the basis of unacceptableillumination in the area and the size of the proposed signs.

1.3 The Conservation Officer has raised no objection to the proposal and has stated that the proposal isan improvement both to the original fascia on the site and the current unauthorised signage. Bothapplications are recommended for APPROVAL.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 These are applications for advertisement and listed building consent for the new signage at theexisting One Stop convenience store a 2 St. John’s Road, Ely.

2.2 The proposal is an alternative scheme to the existing unauthorised and unacceptable red and whitefascia on the premises.

2.3 The proposal involves the change of the colouring of the fascia to conservation brown and cream.The replacement panels would be timber rather than the existing blocked plastic.

2.4 In addition the length of fascia has been reduced not to fill the whole frontages on St. John’s Roadand West End, the bulk of the panels would be reduced.

2.5 Only the sign above the shop entrance would be illuminated by external trough lighting.


3.1 Fascia Signage

The fascia signage panels will be produced from exterior grade plywood with a perimeter softwoodmoulding. These panels will be finished in Van Dyke brown in an eggshell finish. Applied to the faceof the panels there will be self adhesive vinyl text and lining cut to the corporate One Stop style. Thetext will be white with gold dropshadows, with lining also being gold.

The fascia panels will be non-illuminated.

The panels will be mounted directly to the fascia area after first having the existing signage removed.

Splay Signage

The splay signage will be produced from exterior grade plywood with a perimeter softwoodmoulding. These panels will be finished in Van Dyke brown in an eggshell finish. Applied to the faceof the panels there will be self adhesive vinyl text and lining cut to the corporate One Stop style. Thetext will be white with gold dropshadows, with lining also being gold.

The fascia panels will be illuminated externally by means of linear troughlighting, which will bepositioned directly above the panel and offer downward lighting. The troughlight exterior shell willbe spray painted brown to match that of the panels below.

The panels will be mounted directly to the splay area boxing with the trough mounted directly above,after first having the existing signage removed.


4.1 The application property is an existing convenience store on the junction of St. John’s Road withWest End.

4.2 The property is a Grade II listed building within the Ely Conservation Area.

4.3 The property currently has unauthorised signage, which includes red and white, plastic blockilluminated fascias for the length of the store’s frontages with St. John’s Road and West End.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

EU/71/150/F, Additions to shop, A/C 31st January 1972.

E/0371/81/F, Alterations to increase sales and storage, A/C 21st May 1985

E/0400/81/LB, Part demolition and increase retail and storage area, A/C 21st May 1985

E/94/0741/F, Shop extension, A/C 25th October 1994

E /94/0756/LB, Shop extension, A/C 25th October 1994

E/00/0451/F, Installation of ATM cash dispenser within an new ATM secure room and 2 x anti-rambollards, A/C 9th February 2001.


6.1 Parish Council

E/01/00196/ADI

Approval recommended

E/01/00406/LBC

Refusal recommended as is out of keeping with the character of the building and surrounding area.The signage is also much too large and should not be internally illuminated.

6.2 Councillor

No formal comments received.

6.3 Ely Society

Actual signs OK. Placing looks asymmetrical especially on St. John’s Road side, would look betterif over the shop window.

West End side, could it be lowered to match the St. John’s Road one. How about a brown paintedband around whole premises to tie it all together.


This is as discussed on site. The illumination of Splay Sign C is no more than existing. No objection.

6.5 Local Residents

Letters of objection received from 26 West End and 26 St. John’s Road.

(i) Should be dark green; (ii) illumination too bright.


7.1 The application is a Grade II Listed Building within the Ely Conservation Area.

7.2 The following policies from the East Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000 are relevant to thisapplication. Policies 1, 2, 49, 67 and 71.

7.3 Policy SP12/11 of the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995 is also relevant.


PPG1, General Policy and Principles

PPG6, Town Centres and Retail DevelopmentPPG15, Planning and Historic EnvironmentPPG18, Enforcing Planning ControlPPG19, Outdoor Advertisement Control.


9.1 The main consideration in determining these applications are the impact of the illuminated shopsigns upon the setting of the listed building and its setting within the Ely Conservation Area.

9.2 This is a proposal to replace existing unauthorised and unacceptable illuminated fascias on theexisting convenience store a 2 St. John’s Road, Ely. Advertisement Consent is required by virtue ofthe signage being an illuminated sign within a conservation area and by virtue of the size of thelettering. The proposal is also considered, as a material alteration to a listed building and as suchlisted building consent is also required.

9.3 The submitted applications are a result of discussions between the Conservation Officer and theapplicant’s agent, to agree acceptable alternative signage to the existing on the premises.

9.4 The resultant proposal substitutes the inappropriate red and white, block plastic fascias with brownand cream, timber fascias. The length of fascia has been significantly reduced. The ConservationOfficer has confirmed that the replacement signage would be an improvement on the currentsituation and indeed the original situation prior to the unauthorised signage.

9.5 The revised signage does propose the external illumination of the splay fascia above the entrance tothe store. This is a reduction of the current situation, which illuminates all fascias on the premises.The Conservation Officer has confirmed that this level of illumination reflects the original level onthe shop and is acceptable.

9.6 These applications now represent an acceptable compromise and remedy to the existing situation. Ifapproved the applicant will be given a strict deadline to remove the unauthorised signs.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that advertisement consent application reference E/01/00196/ADI beAPPROVED subject to the following conditions.

1. AD1 (Maintenance)2. AD2 (Safety)3. AD3 (Removal)4. AD4 (Permission of owner)5. AD5 (Highway safety)6. AD6 (Hours of illumination)7. AD7 (Illuminated time limit)8. AD8 (Time limit)

10.2 It is further recommended that listed building consent application reference E/01/00406/LBC beAPPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. S3 (Full Time Limit)2. M3 (Submitted Materials)3. S5 (Compliance)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Application file E/01/00196/ADI and E/01/00406/LBCEast Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995Central Government Circulars and AdviceEast Cambridgeshire Supplementary Planning Guidance


Proposal : New Vehicular Accesses to site and Change of Use to Used Car Sales

Location : Land Adjacent 58 Cambridge Road, Ely

Applicant : N. J. TwitchettAgent :

Reference No : E/01/00622/FUL


1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION

1.1 The main considerations in determining this application are matters of highway safety, the provisionof adequate turning and parking on the site and the effect of the proposal upon the character of thearea.

1.2 The City of Ely Council has recommended approval of the proposal. The Local Highways Authorityhave raised concern that two accesses onto Cambridge Road and that the proposed turning andparking arrangement within the site is not acceptable. The application is recommended forREFUSAL.

1.3 A Members’ Site Visit has been arranged for 12.45pm Prior to the Meeting.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is a full application to change the use of land currently used as storage land for an existingpetrol filling station and advertising hoardings, for use for the sale of used cars.

2.2 Although remaining within the same ownership as the petrol filling station, the used cars businesswould be a separate enterprise.

2.3 The proposal also involves the removal of the existing advertising hoardings on the site and theformation of two new 4.5 metre wide accesses onto Cambridge Road.

3. APPLICANT’S CASE

3.1 We do not agree with Mrs Reynolds’ opinion of gaining access to the car sales via the petrolforecourt. The proposals shown would allow an in and out configuration to the sales area and wouldbe separate from the vehicular traffic to the petrol station. This arrangement would provide a safeconfiguration for cars and pedestrians visiting the car sales area and not cause and further congestionto the petrol filling area. Since the petrol station on the opposite side of the road closed down theforecourt of the filling station is much busier. Visitors to the car sales area would also be tempted topark on the petrol station forecourt, which would be hazardous and totally undesirable.

3.2 Combining the access to the car sales forecourt would be undesirable. The car sales would be aseparate business from the filling station and would not want to be dependent on access through theproperty of another business.

3.3 The existing access to the site down the side of the petrol station is limited with access doors to thefilling station toilet opening on to it. It is not suitable for public access to the car sales area, as it willrequire visiting cars to manoeuvre around cars pulling in and out of the petrol station forecourt aswell as pedestrians going in and out of the petrol station shop.

3.4 Visitor parking for the car sales area would be provided on site to meet your parking requirements.Site area 622 sq. metres, 1 parking space/90 sq. metres = 7 spaces.

3.5 We hope that this makes the situation clear and would like the application to be considered as drawnwith the new access onto Cambridge Road. If you cannot support the scheme we request that theproposal be determined by the Planning Committee.


4.1 The application site has an area of 622 sq. metres and lies directly adjacent to the existing BorlandService Station on Cambridge Road.

4.2 The site provides no obvious function to the petrol filling station and is used for occasional carstorage and parking. On the site’s frontage with Cambridge Road are positioned four advertisinghoardings.

4.3 Access to the site is currently via the petrol filling station and a five-metre access to the north of thepetrol station kiosk. No vehicular access is currently afforded onto Cambridge Road.

4.4 Residential properties on Cambridge Road and Tower Road directly abut the site to the north-westand north-east.

5. PLANNING HISTORY:

E/0502/77/F, Alterations to garage, A/C, 1st September 1977

E/0910/77/F, Erection of canopy car showroom and covered area and forecourt, A/C, 15th March1978

E/0180/82/F, Agricultural produce sales outlet, A/C, 17th May 1982

E/0198/85/F, Proposed redevelopment of existing petrol filling station forecourt with new salesbuilding, A/C, 18th April 1985

E/0782/85/F, Erection of flat over shop, A/C, 15th November 1985

E/97/0559/F, Erection of portakabin for office use, A/C, 8th September 1997.

6. REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS:

6.1 Parish Council

Approval recommended.

6.2 Councillor


6.3 Principal Environmental Health Officer

Agree in principle to this proposal subject to the following conditions:

1. Opening hours to be the same as across the road.2. A 1.8 metre high fence to be placed on boundary between land and 58 Cambridge Road.3. Surface of car parking area to be constructed of tarmac or similar material.

6.4 Environment Agency:

No objections subject to conditions.

6.5 Local Highways Authority:

The agent now states that the car sales would be a separate business from the filling station. Theletter of 30th July clearly states that the sales would be ancillary to the petrol station use with sharedfacilities.

I have stated that I would consider one new access to the sales area if there were insurmountabledifficulty in accessing the sales area from the existing forecourt. The agent has not suggested thatthere is an insurmountable difficulty to put forward a justifiable reason for a new access, nor has asuitable layout been submitted showing the proposed arrangement of the vehicles for sale togetherwith parking for visitors and retaining adequate manoeuvring for all vehicles within the site.

The parking and manoeuvring arrangement is particularly important if a new access is permitted.

If the applicant/agent is unwilling to furnish sufficient information from which I can fully assess theproposals, I recommend that the scheme be refused.

Comments of amended plan

If the sales business is really separate from the filling station I do not have much to sustain a refusalagainst new access to Cambridge Road, ONE new access. Such access would have to be the onenearest the petrol station as the other one could not accommodate the required vehicle to vehiclevisibility splays without crossing the frontage of No. 58.

I have checked the agent’s proposed layout:

To provide the usual space to enable potential buyers to access and view each of the vehicles eachparking space should be a minimum 2.4 metre wide and 4.8 metres long. For parking spaces 1-7 towork satisfactorily a minimum of 6.0 metres should be provided between these parking spaces andthe car sales spaces. Adequate manoeuvring is not provided within the layout submitted.

To overcome any highway objection (that I am able to sustain) the layout should be amended toindicate one new access and a layout that is workable and encourages visitors to park off thehighway. In addition the required junction visibility splays 2.4 metres x 70.0 metres should be shownin their entirety, together with the pedestrian splays.

Strongly recommend that the agent be encouraged to amend the plan to address the highwayrequirement. If he still wishes the layout to be considered as submitted then I have no alternative butto recommend refusal.

6.6 Local Residents:

No letters received from neighbours.


7.1 The site lies within the development envelope of Ely as defined within the East CambridgeshireDistrict Local Plan 2000. The following policies from that plan are relevant to this application.Policies 1, 2, 4, 34, 36-41, 45, 46, 58-60, 64, 115,116, 118 and 139-142.

7.2 Policy SP5/2 of the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995 is also relevant to this application

7.3 The application must also be considered against this Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidancecovering car parking and landscape.


PPG1, General Policy and PrinciplesPPG4, Industrial and Commercial Development by Small FirmsPPG6, Town Centres and Retail DevelopmentPPG13, TransportPPG24, Planning and Noise.

9. PLANNING COMMENTS9.1 The main considerations in determining this application are matters of highway safety, the provision

of adequate and parking on the site and the effect of the proposal upon the character of the area.

9.2 The application site lies within the development envelope of Ely. It is adjacent to an existing petrolfilling station and is considered in policy terms an acceptable use of land in this location.

9.3 This part of Cambridge Road is a primarily residential area. The Principal Environmental HealthOfficer has confirmed that subject to conditions this use is acceptable in this location.

9.4 It is noted that this site lies on Cambridge Road, one of the principal entrances into the City of Ely.The site’s current appearance can be considered as far from ideal with the current siting of fouradvertising hoardings. It is therefore considered that the replacement of these hoardings with theproposed use would accord with existing uses in the area and would not harm the character of thisimportant entrance to the city.

9.5 The remaining major consideration regarding this application is the means of access to the proposeduse. The Local Highways Authority is understandingly reluctant to approve unjustified accesses ontoCambridge Road. By virtue of the nature of Cambridge Road and the site’s close proximity to thejunction with Witchford Road, Barton Road and Tower Road, it is considered that alternative meansof access should be considered before any additional accesses onto Cambridge Road can beentertained.

9.6 Notwithstanding, the Local Highway’s objection in principal to new accesses onto Cambridge Road,the applicant has failed to provide an indication that adequate turning and parking can be achievedon this site. The Local Highways Authority is also opposed to the principle of two accesses ontoCambridge Road as currently proposed.

10. RECOMMENDATION:

10.1 It is recommended that planning application reference E/01/0622/FUL be REFUSED for thefollowing reasons:

1. (R1) Inadequate access by reason of inadequate visibility to the north from the northern accesspoint.

2. R4 (Manoeuvring)

BACKGROUND PAPERS



Proposal : Change of Use to Transport Café (Retrospective)

Location : Transport Depot, Fordham Road, Isleham

Applicant : Daniel Butler

Agent :



1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION

1.1 The main considerations in determining this application are the principle and justification forapproving this facility in the open countryside, and matters of highway safety.

1.2 Isleham Parish Council has raised no objection to the proposal but have raised concern with respectof the means of access to the site.

1.3 It is considered that the proposed use for café facilities is suitably ancillary to the use of the site as ahaulage yard. The means of access to the site is considered acceptable in highway terms. Theapplication is recommended for APPROVAL.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is a retrospective planning application for the change of use of an existing office building foruse as a transport café.

2.2 The access to the site is by way of the existing access onto Fordham Road, which serves the haulageyard on which the application property lies. In accordance with previous planning permissions forthe haulage yard the junction onto Fordham Road has been angled and modeled to dissuade (but notprevent), vehicles turning right.

2.3 The facility has its own dedicated turning and parking area separate from other commercial activitieson the site.

2.4 The existing café has a total seating area of 18.24 sq. metres, with a kitchen area of 11.16 sq. metresto the rear.

3. APPLICANT’S CASE

No applicant’s case has been provided.


4.1 The application site lies on existing commercial land at Fordham Road, Isleham. This part ofFordham Road is on the inclined gradient emerging from the old Railway Bridge between Islehamand Fordham.

4.2 The site has been operating since 1980 as a haulage yard. The site is used by various small privatehauliers as their registered operator’s site. Since 1980 the site has been developed with variouscommunal facilities such as offices, workshops and toilets.

4.3 The application property is part of an existing office building on the site. The café is located at theentrance to the site. Although almost totally dedicated to serve hauliers on the existing yard thefacility is available to the general public.

5. PLANNING HISTORY:

E/0027/74, Single storey office, car park and entrance to the site, A/C, 6th June 1974

E/0384/80, Provision of DIY lorry centre and lorry maintenance depot, A/C, 24th June 1980

E/0370/82, Erection of workshop for haulage vehicles, A/C, 11th August 1982

E/0756/84, Erection of office, stores & WC, A/C, 11th October 1984

E/1310/89/O, Erection of light industrial commercial units, Refused, 11th January 1990

E/0959/90/F, Use of existing buildings and associated land as roofing contractor’s office and yard,Refused 31st December 1990

E/1013/90/F, Extension to existing workshop to form high service bays, Withdrawn.


6.1 Parish Council

Isleham Parish Council does not object to this application in principle but, as the site access isimmediately at the base of a steep incline (the old railway bridge), it is strongly recommended that acondition is imposed to re-design the access junction in such a way as to stop vehicles from Islehamturning left into the depot and vehicles from the depot turning right into Isleham.

It is understood that this was a condition of the original approval for the depot in 1980 but has neverbeen enforced.

6.2 Councillor



I have no adverse comments to make regarding this application.

6.4 Local Highways Authority

The facility should be ancillary to the depot.If the facility serves drivers of vehicles associated with the depot then I could not sustain anobjection, as the vehicles would be visiting the site anyway.

If the café is open to all, which ultimately may result in vehicles specifically detouring to the sitethen I would certainly recommend refusal.

6.5 Local Residents



7.1 The site lies outside of the development envelope of Isleham as defined within the EastCambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000. The following policies from that plan are relevant to thisapplication. Policies 1, 2, 34, 64, 66, 115, 116, 118, 133 and 134.

7.2 Policies SP6/2 and SP6/4 of the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995 are also relevant to thisapplication.

7.3 The application must also be considered against this Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidancecovering landscape and car parking.


PPG1, General Policy and PrinciplesPPG4, Industrial and Commercial Development and Small FirmsPPG6, Town Centres and Retail DevelopmentPPG7, The Countryside, Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development.PPG13, TransportPPG18, Enforcing Planning Control


9.1 The main considerations in determining this application are the principle and justification forapproving this facility in the open countryside, and matters of highway safety.

9.2 The application site lies outside of any defined development envelope and constitutes a business usein the open countryside. Such development is normally considered as unsuitable in the opencountryside and are facilities that should be concentrated within existing settlements. To allow suchdevelopment in the open countryside is normally considered unsustainable as it encourages the useof motor vehicles and out migration from urban areas to the countryside.

9.3 The current proposal is by definition a transport café specifically located and designed to serve theexisting haulage yard at this location. A large majority if not all customers are drivers using theexisting haulage yard. It is considered that this relationship is acceptable. The proposal provides afacility for existing activities on the site and as such does not constitute unsustainable development.Whilst it is accepted that the facility could be used by the general public, this is unlikely by way ofits nature and location. It is not considered that an enforceable condition could be attached restrictingall sales to drivers from the haulage yard. However, a personal condition is recommended to controlfuture uses of the site should the facility be sold.

9.4 Isleham Parish Council has no objection to the proposal but have raised concern with respect of rightturn manoeuvring from the premises. It can be confirmed that a condition was attached to the 1980planning permission for the haulage yard on this site, requiring the design of the junction to dissuaderight turning from the site onto Fordham Road. The junction has been designed at an angle todissuade right turn manoeuvring out of the site. Obstructions have also been placed at the junction tofurther prevent such right turns. The Local Highways Authority has confirmed that this adequatelymeets this condition. It should be noted that it is not within the remit of planning conditions toprohibit traffic movements such as right turns from the site or left turns onto the site. This aside, it isnot considered that the dedicated traffic movements to this site could justify any further works orimprovements to the access.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that planning application reference E/01/00758/FUL be APPROVED subject tothe following conditions.

1. S3 (Full Time Limit)2. R5 (Restrict to approved use only), Transport café, A3.3. R1 (Personal permission), Daniel Butler4. S5 (Compliance).

BACKGROUND PAPERS



Proposal : Adaptation of roofspace of garage to accommodate 1 bedroom flat for holiday letting

Location : Beald House, California, Little Downham

Applicant : Mr and Mrs S. M. Cornwell

Agent :


Case Officer : Andrea Mayley


1.1 The main issues to be taken into account when determining these applications are planning policy,scale and bulk of development, and the impact upon the residential amenity of adjoining dwellings.Little Downham Parish Council has raised concern about the proposal, but recommend the PlanningCommittee take the decision.

1.2 Amended plans have been received which result in the re-positioning of the building to face awayfrom the private areas of the adjoining dwelling. The amended plans also indicate a parking andturning area to the rear of the building along with access to the field beyond. It is considered that theintroduction of a residential element in this location in such close proximity to the adjoiningdwelling would adversely affect the reasonable residential amenity of the occupiers of this dwelling.

1.3 The application is recommended for REFUSAL.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is a full application for the adaptation of the carport, garage and garden store building approvedin association with the replacement dwelling “Beald House”. The proposal involves the increase ofthe ridge height of this dwelling by 0.7 of a metre, and the addition of a dormer window, rooflightsand normal windows to enable the accommodation of a first floor. The proposed accommodationconsists of a hall, stairway and cloakroom at ground floor level (in addition to the car port, garageand garden store) and a living room, kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom at first floor level. Thisamounts to a self-contained unit which it is proposed will be used for short-term holiday lets.

2.2 Amended plans have been received which re-orientates the building on the site to prevent the loss ofprivacy to the occupiers of adjoining properties.


3.1 We wish to amend the above application as per attached site layout.

We therefore request that your decision/recommendation is deferred to allow adequate time for theParish Council to review our amended proposal. It is our belief that the followingproposals/additional information addresses the concerns with regard to our original application.

1. We propose to rotate the position of the garage as indicated. This should alleviate theconcern with regard to overlooking the rear of the adjacent property from the single dormerwindow to the proposed front elevation.

2. We offer to enter into an agreement with ECDC and LDPC that a covenant is placed in ourdeeds for the property to prevent the separate sale or change of use of the flat. All parties tothe agreement would have to agree to any new proposals i.e. ourselves or our heirs, ECDCand LDPC.

It should be noted that services to the flat (power, gas, water) are supplied via the main house.Noting 2, above, the flat would not be saleable without separate services.

We understand that concerns have been expressed regarding increased traffic flow in a quiet countrylane. Given local knowledge (please consult parish/district Councillors) during any normal daymany HGV’s, cars etc use the lane as a short cut to Ely Road or vice versa. Impact of one additionalvehicle due to the flat is wholly irrelevant.

Regarding occupancy of the flat, it is our intention to place strict controls on any prospective holidaylet. In particular occupation will be limited to two adults and one child maximum, entry/exit timeswill be during reasonable hours and rental will be via a very reputable quality agency.

It is our belief that the impact of this proposal is a negligible increase over and above plans alreadyapproved. Looking with a positive light we believe the proposal will bring benefits to the localcommunity and economy (pubs, shop, rates and general tourism revenue).

Additional comments

We summarise our application - The basic structure and its site position has already receivedpermission ref. E/00/0963/F. Our proposal increases the ridge height by approximately 500mm(20") and adds a dormer window to the front elevation with velux rooflights (light only) aboveeyeline. In addition traffic of one vehicle coming/going will be necessary.

1. The impact of the increased ridge height can be alleviated by lowering the proposed floorlevel by 225mm (9"). The new ridge height would therefore be approx. 275mm (11") higherthan originally approved plans. If this is considered too high it may be possible to lower theroof pitch slightly to achieve a ridge height similar to the original approved plans.

2. We understand that the concern regarding overlooking has been addressed and that it isaccepted that the rotation of the building as proposed in our letter of 14 August with revisedsite layout resolves this issue.

3. Privacy/noise disturbance - left hand boundary from road.

(a) The existing mature dense 2.1m high conifer hedge screens the full length of theboundary adjacent to the garage and rear parking and turning area. Visibility ofcoming and going will be nil and slow moving vehicle noise will be negligible.

(b) Ditto the boundary between No 3 and California House has a mature conifer hedgein excess of 2.4m high.

(c) A paved drive/turning area will be provided for the flat and not gravel.

(d) Remainder of LH boundary to road frontage is screened by 1.8m close board fencewith paved drive.

4. Privacy/noise disturbance - right hand boundary

The proposed building is screened either entirely by the new house or by high coniferhedging to extreme RH boundaries - no disruption to privacy or peace and quiet.

5. Sale as separate dwelling - as letter of 14th August - covenant to prevent sale and in additionwould suggest planning conditions to limit occupation to say 11 months of year andmaximum occupancy of 2 adults and 1 child i.e. 1 vehicle.

6. Traffic - one car coming and going once per day can hardly be considered disruptive.

7. Foul drainage - we have spoken to Anglian Water regarding concerns expressed byneighbours, we should receive their letter by Friday 21st September 2001. We trust this canbe passed onto the planning committee. We summarise comments below:

(i) The proposed flat will not be connected separately to the main sewer but via theexisting house connection.

(ii) The additional flow from the flat will not create or add to any existing problemswith the main sewer.

(iii) Problems experienced in the past related to a local pumping station and have beenremedied by Anglian Water by installation of non-return valves.

(iv) The new house connection will incorporate a non-return valve on its own system,which will also protect the flat.

In summary the flat will not add any smell or nuisance value to neighbours or ourselves. Wewould not make this proposal if this was the case.


4.1 The proposed building is located adjacent to a recently constructed replacement dwelling located onCalifornia in Little Downham. California leads into Brick Kiln Lane and is located to the Northeastof Little Downham. The development envelope has been drawn around a small group of dwellingsfronting Brick Kiln Lane. This part of Little Downham is very rural in nature and has an informalcharacter with a range of detached dwellings of various sizes and appearance.

4.2 Planning permission was granted last year for the replacement of a small property known as BealdHouse. The replacement dwelling is a large dwelling set back from the road on a similar line to theadjacent dwelling number 3 California. The proposed building is set further back from the newdwelling and is approximately 30 metres from the road.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 E/00/0963/F – Replacement dwelling and new garage A/C 19.2.01


6.1 Parish Council

The Parish Council recommends refusal and supports the District Council’s decision with thisapplication.

Amendment (1)

The Parish Council recommends that this application be referred to the Planning Committee for adecision to be made.

6.2 Councillor

No comments received at this stage.

6.3 Local Residents

Four letters of objection have been received from 3, 19, Besoughan, and California House,California on the following grounds:

1. Existing replacement dwelling is overbearing and out of character2. Proposed building will block views of fen3. Holiday flat completely overlooks my garden and house taking away any privacy4. Proposed building will affect the value of my property5. Obvious that the proposal will be another large property on the same site6. Another property onto the already overloaded sewage system will exacerbate the problem7. Proposed building overlaps the development envelope8. This is a residential area of the village not a business area9. Grants are being made available to the applicant who will move his mother-in-law in.10. The rest of the land will be turned into a golf course

Amendment (1)

The further letters of objection have been received from 3, 19, Besoughan, California on thefollowing grounds:

1. The garage should have only been passed as single storey height, and should be within thedevelopment envelope

2. Not informed about the garage on the original application3. Proposal results in overlooking and overshadowing4. The second amended plans are two metres higher than the first5. Sewerage problem will be made worse6. Not a suitable place for holiday let – no benefit to community as a result7. Area will become more commercialised and busier with additional traffic

6.4 Executive Director Environmental Services

I have no objections and agree in principle to this proposal.

Amendment (1)

No additional comments.

6.5 Anglian Water Services

Anglian Water has no objections to the flows from the new one bed flat connecting into the existingfoul sewer in Lawn Lane. However, we would recommend that a Non-Return Valve (or a flapvalve) is installed between the main sewer and the property.

There have been problems with the main sewer in the past. Anglian Water is aware of theseproblems, and these are being dealt with. However, the additional flow from the new flat wouldhave no affect on these existing problems.


7.1 The site lies within the development envelope as defined by the approved East Cambridgeshire LocalPlan 2000. The following policies contained within the Adopted Plan are relevant:

1, 2, 34, 58, 59, 60, 64, 65, 66, 126, 127, 128

7.2 The following policies contained in the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995 are also relevant to theconsideration of this applcaition:

SP12/10

7.3 The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines, CarParking Standards and Residential Design are relevant to the consideration of the application.


8.1 PPG1 General Policy and PrinciplesPPG3 HousingPPG13 Transport


9.1 The main issues to be taken into account when determining these applications are planning policy,scale and bulk of development, and the impact upon the residential amenity of adjoining dwellings.

9.2 Policy 128 of the local plan supports proposals for new hotel and guest house provision where thiswould not cause significant harm to the amenities of the occupants of surrounding dwellings etc.The local plan also makes reference to the Council’s Tourism Strategy, which has identified ashortfall in bed and breakfast accommodation in recent years. Therefore it is considered that theprovision of small units of accommodation for tourism purposes is supported provided that therewould not be a conflict with other polices in the local plan, or that this would result in harm toresidential amenity, character, highway safety etc. Although it is considered that this proposal wouldresult in an additional bed space for potential visitors to the District, it is not considered that this canbe achieved without adversely affecting the residential amenity of existing adjoining occupiers.

9.3 The proposed building has been approved in single storey form as a part of the application for thereplacement dwelling. It provides space for three cars to park and for garden implements to bestored. It is located to the rear of the replacement dwelling accessed from the front. The proposalinvolves an increase in the ridge height of this building by 0.7 of a metre. It is considered that thisbuilding is appropriate in bulk and scale and the increase in ridge height is minimal. It is notconsidered that the scale and bulk of the proposal adversely affects the character of the area oradversely affects the residential amenity of the adjoining dwellings.

9.4 The proposal includes the provision of additional windows at first floor level. In particular, a dormerwindow is proposed in the front elevation to light the living room. This positioning of this windowwould enable direct views into the private areas of the adjoining property number 3 California.Amended plans have been received which indicate that the building is to be re-positioned on the siteto face away from the private areas of the adjoining dwelling. It is not considered that there will beoverlooking from this building as a result of these changes.

9.5 The positioning of the garage building to the rear of the existing properties results in developmentadjacent to the private areas of established dwellings. The introduction of living accommodationinto this part of the site would result in an adverse impact upon the peace and tranquillity currentlyexperienced in the private areas of adjoining properties.

9.6 The amended plans also indicate that there will be parking and turning area for the holidayaccommodation located to the rear of the building. Access into the field to the rear is also shown. Itis considered that there would be an adverse impact upon the residential amenity of the adjoiningproperty by virtue of noise and disturbance from vehicles associated with the proposal.

9.7 In conclusion, it is considered that it is appropriate to have a garage building associated with the newdwelling to accommodate three car spaces and a garden store. However, it is not consideredappropriate to locate additional living accommodation in this part of the site along with a car park tothe rear. The addition of such activities would adversely affect the residential amenity of occupiersof the adjoining dwelling.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that planning application E/01/00621/FUL should be REFUSED for thefollowing reason:

1. The proposal would result in an adverse impact on the residential amenity of the adjoiningresidential properties by virtue of introducing an element of residential disturbance in closeproximity to the existing rear garden area associated with the adjoining residential property, contraryto Policy 60 of the East Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Application files E/01/00/621/FUL and E/00/0963/FEast Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995Central Government Circulars and AdviceEast Cambridgeshire Supplementary Planning Guidance


Proposal : 6’ Featheredge Wooden Fence in Garden (Retrospective)

Location : The Corner House, 2b Main Street, Pymoor

Applicant : A. J. Jenkins

Agent :




1.1 The main considerations in determining this application are the impact of the proposal upon thecharacter of the streetscene and its effect on highway safety.

1.2 Little Downham Parish Council has objected to the proposal on grounds of the effect on visibility fortraffic emerging from School Lane onto Main Street.

1.3 It is considered that the fence does not harm the character of the streetscene or matters of highwaysafety. The application is recommended for APPROVAL.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is a retrospective planning application for the erection of 1.8 metre fence on the frontage of 2bMain Street. The fence is erected of the property’s two frontages with Main Street and School Lane.

2.2 Planning permission is required by virtue of being an enclosure of more than one metre in heightfronting a public highway.


3.1 No applicant’s case provided.


4.1 The application property is an existing house on the junction of Main Street and School Lane,Pymoor.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

ER/72/373/O, Erection of 4 dwellings, A/C, 26th October 1972

E/0425/88/F, Erection of a house and garage, A/C, 30th June 1988.


6.1 Parish Council

The Parish council objects to the erection of the fence on that corner for visibility reasons.

6.2 Councillor

Councillor White

Request this matter come to Planning Committee

6.3 Littleport & Downham Internal Drainage Board

The Board has no comment from a drainage viewpoint.


Comments awaited.

6.5 Local Residents

Letters of objection from 5 & 7 School Lane:

(i) Visibility onto Main Street effected; (ii) encroachment on highway land.


7.1 The following policies from the East Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000 are relevant to thisapplication. Policies 1,2, 34, 58, 59, 60, 64, 65 and 66 .

7.2 Policy SP12/10 of the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995 is also relevant to this application.


8.1 PPG1 General Policy and PrinciplesPPG3 HousingPPG18 Enforcing Planning Control


9.1 The main considerations in determining this application are the impact of the proposal upon thecharacter of the streetscene and its effect on highway safety.

9.2 It is considered that the fence does not harm the character of the street scene. The development hasbeen designed and sited to accord with the street scene. Only part of the fence is visible from MainStreet.

9.3 The fence has also been designed and splayed to avoid any interference with visibility whenemerging from adjacent School Lane properties. The visibility at the junction between School Laneand Main Street is also unaffected. It is considered that an objection on highway safety groundscould not be sustained in this instance.

9.4 It is also noted that some neighbouring residents have claimed that the fence has been erected onhighway land. It can be confirmed that evidence provided by the applicant and from the LandRegistry has proven that the land falls within the ownership of the applicant and that noencroachment onto public land has taken place.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that planning application reference E/01/00780/FUL be APPROVED subject tothe following.

1. S3 (Full Time Limit)2. S5 (Compliance)

BACKGROUND PAPERS



Proposal : Change of Use of Scrap-Yard and Part Agricultural Land to Hardstanding for aSugar Beet Base and for Storing and Crushing Concrete and Brick Rubble. ExistingMobile Home to be Used as Office

Location : Land off Poplar Drove, Ten Mile Bank, Littleport

Applicant : D. Watson & M. J. Allen

Agent : M. A. Smith

Reference No : E/01/00800/CCA



1.1 The main considerations in determining this County Matter application are the landscape impact ofthe proposal, policies to protect the countryside; highway safety and potential disturbance toproperties in the vicinity.

1.2 Littleport Parish Council has objected to the proposal due to the poor quality of the access road tothe site.

1.3 It is considered that the road serving the site is inadequate to cater for the type of traffic associatedwith this development. The site has no planning permission or established rights as a scrap yard; assuch the proposal should also be rejected as inappropriate development in the open countryside. It isrecommended that the District Council OBJECT to this application.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is an application submitted to Cambridgeshire County Council as a “County Matter”. ThisCouncil’s views on this application are sought.

2.2 The application proposes the change of use of an agricultural field for the screening and crushing ofconcrete and brick rubble. The proposal involves the formation of an area of hardstanding for thispurpose which additionally will be used as a sugar beet base.

2.3 It is also proposed to use the existing mobile home on the site as an office for the enterprise.


3.1 No applicant’s case provided.


4.1 The application site has an area of 1.36 hectares, and is currently agricultural land with an area ofhardstanding.

4.2 The site lies on the junction of Poplar Drove and a track linking it with Horsley Hale.

4.3 The site has a history of unauthorised uses related to the storage, scrapping and repair of cars. Thishas included the erection of workshop buildings and the stationing of a mobile home. No formalaction was taken regarding this development and uses. No planning permissions or lawfulnesscertificates were granted to the site. The site has now been cleared of all but the mobile home.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 No formal planning history.


6.1 Parish Council

Refusal. Road unsuitable for intended use, a narrow road with no turning spaces.

6.2 Councillor

Cllr. Kerridge

Requests that this matter come to Planning Committee.


The site is remote and I therefore would not anticipate a problem with noise emissions from the useof the mobile crusher, having calculated the anticipated noise level at the nearest residential propertyfrom the actual running of the crusher to be less than 40dB(A). This calculation was done using thedetails provided by the consultant employed by Mr. Allen for his first application for the crusher tobe sited at the Willow Drove site. The noise level of the screener was measured at 89dB(A) at 1metre. It is assumed that these measurements are correct and a noise condition on this site wouldensure adequate protection for the neighbouring residential properties, whatever material is being putthrough the equipment. The condition should read “The level of noise emitted from the site shall notexceed 60dB(A) during the normal opening hours of the site, when measured as a 15 minute Laeq atthe boundaries of the site at the points closest to the nearest residential properties in all directions”Conditions as to the hours of use of the crusher would need to be placed on the development. Theseshould be 0800 to 1800 hours Mon-Fri, 0800 to 1300 hours on Sat and at no time on Sundays andBank Holidays.

I am however very concerned about the access to the site. How many HGV movements areanticipated during a normal working day and will the site be accessed over the railway crossing atPoplar Drove? A residential property is immediately next to this Drove and due to the crossing notbeing automatic would have to stop and open the gates before crossing. The risk of noise emissionsfrom this type of activity being unacceptable is great and there are no conditions that could be placedon the use of Polar drove that could minimise noise emissions from vehicles, with the exception oflimiting them to a reasonable number. I could therefore not support such an application until detailsas to the access route and vehicle numbers can be given to demonstrate that noise emissions will beacceptable.

6.4 Littleport & Downham Internal Drainage Board

We have no comment from a drainage point of view.

The applicant must ensure that no building; fence or trees are erected within 9 metres of the Board’swatercourse.

6.5 Local Residents


6.6 Internal Consultations within Cambridgeshire County Council

Will be reported verbally to the meeting.


7.1 The application site lies outside of the development envelope of Littleport as defined within the EastCambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000. The following polices from that plan are relevant to thisapplication. Policies 1, 2, 82, 83, 86, 87, 93, 139, 140 and 142.

7.2 Policies SP1, SP11/7, SP12/1 and SP12/6 of the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995 are alsorelevant to this application.

7.3 The application must also be considered against this Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance onlandscape, which has been adopted countywide for development control purposes.


PPG1 General Policy and PrinciplesPPG4 Industrial and Commercial Development and Small FirmsPPG7 The Countryside, Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development.PPG13 TransportPPG23 Planning and Pollution ControlPPG24 Planning and Noise


9.1 The main considerations in determining this application are the landscape impact of the proposal,policies to protect the countryside; highway safety and potential disturbance to properties in thevicinity.

9.2 The applicant claims that the site’s existing use is that as a scrap yard. The site has a history ofunauthorised uses carried out by the previous owner of the site. These uses included the storage,repair and scrapping of cars. These uses were never the subject of any formal enforcement action. Noplanning permissions were granted for these uses. Although invited to apply for a Certificate ofLawfulness to prove and authorise the established use of this site for these purposes, the previousowner declined to do so. It is not accepted that these unauthorised uses were continuous for at leastten years and in the absence of a properly made and approved Certificate of Lawfulness theauthorised use of the site cannot be considered as that of a scrap yard.

9.3 The site has now been cleared of all scrap cars, buildings and all use of the site has ceased andconsequently no enforcement investigation is necessary. All that remains on the site is a mobile

home; this is the only remaining issue from the previous unauthorised uses and development on thissite. In light of the history of the site and the current appearance of the site, the site must beconsidered simply as agricultural land in the countryside.

9.4 The Principal Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that the proposed use of crushing andscreening equipment can take place on this site without noise nuisance being caused to residentialproperties in the vicinity. This confirmation is in light of technical details provided with respect ofthe equipment and the distance from residential properties.

9.5 It is noted that a substandard road network serves the site. Any visitor to the site would have a choiceof two ways to approach the site. Firstly, the site could be accessed from Hale Fen which is a routefrom the A10 to Poplar Drove, this is a single track road with no passing bays. Secondly, PoplarDrove itself whilst accessing onto Ten Mile Bank rather than the A10 accesses via a manuallyoperated railway crossing. It is not considered that either of the two means of access to the site isconsidered acceptable in highway terms. Vehicles would either have to enter the site directly off theA10 via a substandard junction and road, or have to access via an inappropriate railway crossing.The Principal Environmental Health Officer has expressed specific concerns with respect of thecontinuous use of the railway crossing.

9.6 It is concluded that whilst it may be accepted that such activities as the crushing and screening ofhardcore should be carried out away from residential properties, it is not considered that this shouldresult in such activities being carried out in the open countryside. It is considered that this site ispoorly served by the road network and therefore cannot be considered as an appropriate location forsuch activities, and should be rejected as unacceptable development in the open countryside.Clarification is being sought as to the Local highway advice to the County Council as thedetermining authority.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that the District Council raises OBJECTIONS to planning application referenceE/01/00800/CCA on the following grounds:

1. Inappropriate development in the open countryside.2. Poor road network serving the site including increased use of a substandard junction directly

onto the A103. Poor road network serving the site including potential inappropriate increased use of railway

crossing.4. Potential noise disturbance to residential properties of increased use of railway crossing.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Application file E/01/00800/CCAEast Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995Central Government Circulars and AdviceEast Cambridgeshire Supplementary Planning Guidance


Proposal : Conversion of existing brick barn and single storey extension to form a privatedetached dwelling

Location : Land adjacent St Nicholas Church, Barway

Applicant : Mr and Mrs B Kettlewell

Agent : Roger Lynn Associates


Case Officer : Andrea Mayley


1.1 This application was deferred from the September Planning Committee to enable a Members tomake a site visit. Members are requested to read this report in conjunction with Agenda Item 15 ofthe September agenda.

1.2 The main issues to be taken into account when determining this application are planning policy, theimpact upon the residential amenity of adjoining dwellings, and the impact upon the setting of theGrade II* Listed former St Nicholas Church adjacent. Soham Town Council and the ConservationOfficer have not raised an objection to this application. English Heritage comment that theapplication site makes a positive contribution to the semi-rural setting of the listed building.

1.3 Additional comments have been received from the Forward Planning Officer, which conclude thatthis proposal is not a conversion, and does not seek re-use for employment purposes. In addition,this report provides further information regarding the 1990 Appeal which was dismissed on this site,and other Appeals of relevance that have been received in the District.

1.4 The application is recommended for REFUSAL.

1.5 A Members’ site visit has been arranged for 10.00am prior to the meeting.

2. PLANNING HISTORY

2.1 E/89/0231/F - Erection of a chalet bungalow Ref 27.7.89 Appeal dismissed 6.6.90E/88/1234/ - Dwelling Ref 26.10.88E/88/1235/ - Dwelling Ref 26.10.88


3.1 Principal Forward Planning Officer

This application proposes the conversion of an existing brick barn in the village of Barwayinto a large detached residential property. The site adjoins St Nicholas Church Barway, whichis a Grade II* Listed Building. The issues to be considered when determining this applicationare:

• Whether the proposed development represents a conversion of this building or theconstruction of a new dwelling; and

• The impact of the proposed development on the character and setting of a Listed Building(St. Nicholas Church)

I shall refer to each of these issues in turn.

Conversion or new build?

PPG7 ‘The Countryside – Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development’ setsout the Governments approach to the conversion of rural buildings. This approach is set out inPolicy 94 of the District Local Plan. Planning applications for the re-use or conversion of anagricultural building will only be permitted where the following criteria are met:

i) the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction and are capable of conversion withoutmajor or complete reconstruction;ii) the buildings form, bulk and general design are in keeping with their surroundings;iii) conversion would not disturb species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, forexample bats and barn owls;iv) particular care must be taken to ensure that major extensions, changes to rooflines, majorrebuilding of external walls or external additions are not at odds with the buildings existingcharacter, original function and contribution to local character; v) the conversion would provide local employment opportunities, thereby avoiding generation ofsubstantial traffic movements or encouragement of reverse commuting from towns; and vi) conversion would not lead to a dispersal of existing activities away from village centres on such ascale as to prejudice the vitality of those centres.

The proposed conversion of this building would incorporate parts of two walls of the originalbarn, but in terms of its scale, form, height or appearance bares no resemblance to the existingstructure. In my opinion this conversion would be contrary to criteria 1,2,4 and 5 of thisPolicy and cannot be regarded as a conversion for the purposes of planning policy.

The proposed development represents the construction of a new dwelling on the site of thisbarn (a brownfield site). It seems to me therefore that the important considerations are theissue of how this site relates to the village in terms of character and whether it would bepreferable in planning terms to secure the removal of this employment use from this site.

The Local Plan seeks to support and encourage balanced and sustainable communities byresisting the loss of existing employment areas and by preventing the conversion ofagricultural buildings to residential use, unless it can be demonstrated that there is either noneed, or there would be significant planning gain through the removal of such a use (Policy 95and 142). The presumption in the plan is that we should resist the loss/conversion of suchbuildings unless there is either no demonstrable need for such a use or there would be clearplanning gain through the loss of an undesirable activity (noise, traffic etc.) from a residentialarea. The applicants have not submitted any evidence of their attempts to market this site foremployment use.

A planning judgement must be made as to:

1. Whether (in locational terms) this is an appropriate site for employment use in thevillage, having regard to local amenity and access considerations.

2. Whether in terms of character and setting it would be better to secure the residentialdevelopment of this site

3. Whether the scale and design of the proposed dwelling is appropriate given the siteslocation adjacent to a Grade II* Listed Building.

Impact on the Character and Setting of a Listed Building

Although the barn itself is of no architectural or historic merit, it does form part of a widerfield adjoining a Grade II* Listed Building. The proposal would both narrow this gap andchange the character and feel of this area, introducing cars and domestic uses into this area.English Heritage have expressed concerns that the proposal would adversely affect thecharacter and setting of this Listed Building although it should be noted that this judgementwas made without the benefit of a site visit. Members must reach their own judgement on thisissue following a site visit.


4.1 The previous report recommended refusal on four grounds. Firstly, the development does notamount to the conversion of the existing structure; therefore it is a new dwelling in the countryside.Secondly, if it were a conversion, no evidence has been submitted to illustrate that the opportunitiesfor employment re-use have been considered. Thirdly, the development would affect the characterof this part of Barway and finally that the proposal does not amount to sustainable development.This report provides additional information regarding the proposed reasons for refusal in the form ofadvice from the Principal Forward Planning Officer, the Inspectors Report into the Appeal againstthe refusal of planning permission for one dwelling on this site in 1990 and extracts from InspectorsReports into Appeals held elsewhere in the District on similar issues.

4.2 The Principal Forward Planning Officer advises that this proposal is not a conversion and thattherefore this development represents the construction of a new dwelling on the site of a barn.Reference is made to the local plan which aims to achieve sustainable balanced communities byresisting the loss of existing employment sites and seeking the conversion of redundant agriculturalbuildings for employment use. Policy 95 enables evidence to be provided to prove that there is noneed for an employment re-use of the site. It is also possible to make the judgement that the sitewould not be suitable for employment use due to issues of residential amenity, visual amenity orhighway safety.

4.3 It is clear from the planning history that several attempts have been made to secure some form ofdevelopment on this site. The third refusal on this site was taken to Appeal in 1990. The proposal atthis stage was a full application for the erection of one dwelling to be sited between the redundantbarn and St Nicholas. The Inspector reasoned as follows.

“From my inspection of the site and its surrounding, and my consideration of the representation, Ihave come to the conclusion that the decision in this case turns upon first, whether the proposedextension would harm the character and appearance of the village by occupying site whose opencharacter is of significance to the form of the village; and second, whether its close proximity to StNicholas would harm the setting of this Grade II* listed building.

Although the chapel has been converted into a house, in my opinion, due to the sensitive nature ofthe conversion, it retains the character of a medieval chapel set on a “green”. To my mind, thetraditional open character of the “green” survives, even though there is an agricultural building tothe west of the former chapel. I consider that in the context of the open character of this “green” theproposed dwelling would be intrusive. Further, it would detract from the open appearance of thevillage by occupying land that hitherto has been open, and whose openness contributes to thecharacter of the village. I have therefore concluded that the proposed extension would harm thecharacter and appearance of the village.

On the second issue, Section 56(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (as amended)requires that special regard be paid to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building.St Nicholas is a 14th century clunch built chapel with a nineteenth century brick chancel. Some years

ago, it was converted into a house. Its setting is of importance, as it appears to constitute thesurvival of an early planform of a rural hamlet, namely houses set around a sloping green uponwhich lies a chapel. I have therefore concluded that the historic setting of the chapel survives,which, to my mind, makes its preservation highly desirable.

4.4 Although this appeal related to a new dwelling between the chapel and the agricultural building itdoes demonstrate the significance of the character of this part of the village both in its own right andas the setting to a grade II* Listed Building.

4.5 This proposal cannot be described as a conversion. It is therefore, a new dwelling outside of thedevelopment envelope. There have been numerous appeals relating to the issue of dwellings in thecountryside, the following appeal is just one of the more recent examples. Outline planningpermission was sought for a single-storey residential building following the demolition of an oldpiggery unit. All matters of detail were reserved for later approval. Permission was also sought tochange the use of the appeal site, currently used for the parking and maintenance of commercialvehicles in connection with a haulage business, to separate residential use. The Inspector concluded:

Although not a great distance from the church and school, the appeal site is in the open countrysideoutside the defined village envelope and outside the main built-up framework of Little Thetford. Theremoval of the buildings and uses currently on the site would both improve the appearance of the siteand reduce noise and disturbance for those living nearby. However, the erection of a new house andcreation of a large domestic curtilage would encroach upon and detract from the rural setting of thevillage to a greater extent than the existing buildings. It would also create a precedent for furtherdevelopment outside the village envelope. “

4.6 The following appeal is relevant to the determination of this application as it considered the issues ofemployment in rural areas, sustainability and precedent. The development proposed the demolitionof an existing workshop and erection of a single detached dwelling.

“ReasoningAs the appeal site lies in open countryside outside any development envelope I consider that theproposed development would be contrary to both the structure plan and local plan policies that seekto restrict such development. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that because the proposalinvolves redevelopment of a site already built on, those policies are not strictly relevant. Paragraph3.16 of PPG7 advises local planning authorities to examine applications for residential re-use ofbuildings in the open countryside with particular care. It goes onto say 'it may be appropriate toapply similar strict control to that over new housing in the open countryside '. That approach to there-use of existing buildings is in my view clearly appropriate for redevelopment of existing sites.Therefore I am not persuaded that the development plan policies that 'Seek to restrict non-essentialnew housing development in the countryside outside settlements are irrelevant in this case.

…..I consider that there is no justification for treating the proposal as an exception to the restrictivepolicies on isolated houses in the countryside. To do so would in my opinion set an undesirableprecedent for any modest well-designed house to be built on sites already occupied by buildings inthe countryside.

Due to its location, the site is not one that can be considered particularly sustainable. It is at somedistance from the limited services available in Kirtling. The village itself has only one bus service aday to Newmarket. The occupiers of the proposed dwelling would need to use a car for most of theirjourneys. The present use of the site might be considered to be equally unsustainable, probablygenerating more vehicle journeys than a residential use.

Summary and ConclusionsI consider that the proposed development would be contrary to both the structure plan and localplan policies that seek to restrict development in open countryside outside any developmentenvelope. I also consider that the proposals would result in an unsustainable form of developmentand would be contrary to the provisions of the development plan that seek to retain ruralemployment opportunities. However I consider that there would not be any significant increase inharm to visual amenity and rural character as a result of the proposed development. Nevertheless Iconsider that there is no justification for treating the proposals as an exception to the restrictivepolicies on isolated houses in the countryside. To do so would in my opinion set an undesirableprecedent for any modest well-designed house to be built on sites already occupied by buildings inthe countryside.”

4.7 The following appeal is the most recent of the three examples. This decision leaves no doubt that theInspectorate considers issue of sustainability sufficient to warrant the dismissal of applications forjust one dwelling. The development proposed was an outline application for the erection of a singledwelling on land outside the development envelope.

The Effects of the Development on Interests ofSustainable Development

Westley Waterless has a church and a village hall. There is a twice-weekly bus service to Newmarketand there is also a school bus service to secondary schools in Newmarket. In addition, there is arailway station in the nearby village of Dullingham. However, in my opinion, the local facilities andthe availability of public transport is limited. I, therefore, consider that it is inevitable that theoccupiers of the development would be heavily reliant upon the use of private transport.Consequently, it is my opinion that the development would be contrary to interests of sustainabledevelopment, which amongst other considerations, seek to reduce the need to travel, especially bycar.

The appellant argues that the development would generate only a small volume of traffic and thatconsequently, it would have a negligible impact on interests of sustainable development. But I do notconsider this to be a good argument for allowing the development. It could equally be applied to anumber of other proposals for development in unsustainable locations, which would cumulativelygive rise to a significant increase in the number of journeys made overall and by private transport,in particular.

In the absence of local facilities to serve the day to day needs of the future occupiers of thedevelopment and adequate provision for modes of transport, other than the private car, I concludethat the development would be contrary to interests of sustainable development. I also conclude thatit would conflict with Development Plan Policies SP1 and 34, and with national planning policyguidance given in PPG1, PPG3, PPG7 and PPG13, concerning the promotion of interests ofsustainable development.”

4.8 The Appeal decision in Little Thetford illustrated that even where development would secure theenvironmental and visual improvement of the site, this was insufficient to over-ride the policy ofrural protection from non-essential housing development. Further the Inspector drew attention to thecumulative harm that could arise from the precedent that would be set. The Appeal decision inKirtling is important as it related to the redevelopment of an existing employment site. Again, theInspector considered that precedent would be set for many other sites already occupied by buildingsin the countryside. Also, this appeal demonstrated the importance of rural policies, which attempt tosecure rural employment opportunities and reduce the reliance on the private car. The third appeal

decision provided that even though the erection of one dwelling would result in a negligible impactupon the interests of sustainability, this could be repeated too easily resulting in a significantcumulative impact.

4.9 In conclusion, the proposal is not a conversion of a redundant barn; it is effectively a proposal toerect a new dwelling outside of the development envelope. If the barn is to be converted it isconsidered that it could be put to an appropriate employment use in accordance with national andlocal planning guidance. No evidence has been provided which justifies the departure from theestablished local plan policies that aim to provide sustainable communities for people to live andwork. Further it is considered that the proposal as submitted would erode the character of this part ofthe village, and potentially set a precedent for other such developments across the District.

5. RECOMMENDATION

5.1 It is recommended that planning application E/01/00284/FUL should be REFUSED for thefollowing reasons:

1. The proposed development results in the major reconstruction of the redundant barn and istantamount to a new dwelling in open countryside contrary to Policy SP12/1 of theCambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995 and Policies 86 and 94 of the East Cambridgeshire LocalPlan 2000. No details have been submitted regarding any attempts that may have been made tosecure the suitable business re-use of the site contrary to Policy 95 of the East CambridgeshireDistrict Local Plan 2000 and the aims and advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note7. The site is located outside of the development envelope in open countryside as designated bythe East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2000. The proposed development would consolidate builtdevelopment at the edge of this rural village, and would set a precedent for further suchdevelopments, the cumulative effect of which would be to adversely affect the character of thispart of Barway, contrary to Policy SP12/6 of the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995, Policy 82of the East Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000 and aims and advice contained withinPlanning Policy Guidance Note 7.

2. The proposed development would result in the introduction of an additional dwelling into asmall hamlet with very limited facilities leading to an increase in commuting by car to urbanareas contrary to Policy SP1 of the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995 and Policies 1, 2 and 34of the East Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000 and the aims and advice on sustainabledevelopment in Planning Policy Guidance Notes 7 and 13.

BACKGROUND PAPERS



Proposal : Variation of Condition 3 of Planning Permission Reference E/0059/91/F dated 7th

March 1991 to read:

“The Number of Coaches and Buses Operating from the Site Shall Not Exceed 10and the Number of Mini-Buses Restricted to 3 with No More than 3 Spare Vehicles”

Location : The Coach Depot, Barway Farm, Barway

Applicant : P. J. Brown

Agent :




1.1 The main considerations in determining this application are matters of highway safety, the impactupon residential properties in the vicinity and the impact upon the character and setting of listedbuildings in the area.

1.2 Soham Town Council has recommended approval of this application.

1.3 The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the increased numbers of vehicles serving this site canbe accommodated. Inadequate space for turning and parking for the increased numbers exists on thisrestricted site. As a result, vehicles are required to park on Barway Road itself, or make unsafereversal movements out of the site. This has a harmful affect upon matters of highway safety and thegeneral character of this part of Barway. The application is recommended for REFUSAL. In light ofthe retrospective nature of the application, formal enforcement action is also recommended.

1.4 A Members’ Site Visit has been arranged for 10.15 am Prior to the Meeting.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 Planning permission was approved for the use of the application site as a coach depot under planningreference E/0059/91/F dated 7th March 1991. Condition 3 of the approved planning permissionreads:

3. The number of coaches to be operated from this site shall be restricted to 4 and thenumber of mini-buses restricted to 3.

2.2 The applicant is currently operating more than the specified number from the site. The applicant hasrequested that the condition be varied to read:

3. The Number of Coaches and Buses Operating from the Site Shall Not Exceed 10 andthe Number of Mini-Buses Restricted to 3 with No More than 3 Spare Vehicles

2.3 The applicant is attempted to move existing scrap coaches from the site to increase space on the siteto turn and park the increased number of vehicles. No proposals have been made to improve theaccess to the site onto Barway Road.




4.1 The application site is an existing coach depot within the hamlet of Barway. The site has a 500-sq.metre workshop building in the middle of the site.

4.2 The site has an area of 3.6 hectares. At the junction of the site with Barway Road the site has a widthof 20 metres widening to 40 metres to the rear. The site has a depth of 104 metres.

4.3 The site forms part of the property Barway Farm, which lies within the centre of Barway, a modesthamlet served by a single road. The site’s junction with Barway Road is directly opposite where theroad divides into two narrower roads, which serve The Manor House and Barway Bridge.

4.4 To the rear of the site are currently located a considerable amount of scrap coaches which theapplicant is attempting to remove. By virtue of the age and type of vehicles used by the business anumber of “spare” coaches are stored on the site as a source of parts for the operational vehicles. It isnot clear how many vehicles operate from this site, but it is at least ten coaches.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

E/0638/74/F, Erection of an agricultural storage building, A/C, 6th January 1975

E/0865/87/F, Change of use for garaging of 4 coaches, A/C, 14th September 1987

E/0059/91/F, Continuation of use of site for garaging of 4 coaches and 3 mini-buses, A/C 7th March1991. Appeal allowed 7th August 1991 regarding temporary and personal conditions.


6.1 Parish Council

Approve

6.2 Councillor



I have no adverse comments to make regarding this application.

6.4 Middle Fen & Mere Internal Drainage Board

This application is within the District boundary. However, the comments of the EnvironmentAgency should be sought in this matter for pollution prevention/control measures necessary for theparking and storage of such numbers described in the application to ensure protection of the waterenvironment.

6.5 Environment Agency

Comments awaited.


I refer to the layout plan forwarded to me for comment. Only three of the parking spaces opposite the garage can be adequately utilised by coaches and thosewould likely reverse from the site rather than use the turning bay.

The tandem parking in front of the garage necessitates the manoeuvring of one vehicle to facilitatethe egress of another. Vehicles in all three spaces in front of the garage, being so close to the access,would be likely to reverse from the site rather than utilise the turning area.

From the plan submitted I must conclude that the site area does not appear to be sufficient for thenumber of coaches and buses required to use it. Consequently, parking and manoeuvring wouldoccur on the highway.

Whilst this site in Barway has relatively modest passing traffic, vehicles and pedestrians should havesafe unhindered passage on the highway.

Should your Authority be mindful to refuse this application, this Authority would support aninadequate parking and turning reason.


No comment

6.8 Local Residents

Letters of objections received from Laburnum House, St. Nicholas and Braeburn, Barway.

(i) Address wrong, (ii) clarification as to whether ten specific coaches or ten at any time; (iii) noise,(iv) highway safety; (v) coaches parking on road; (vi) poor access; (vii) out of hours operations;(viii) air pollution; (ix) scrap coaches on site; (x) twenty different coaches visit this site; (xi) damageto road.


7.1 The site lies outside to the development envelope of Barway as defined within the EastCambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000. The following policies from that plan are relevant to thisapplication. Policies 1, 2, 34, 36, 82, 86, 87, 93, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143 and 150.

7.2 Policies SP1, SP5/2, SP5/6, SP5/7, SP5/9 and SP12/11 of the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995area also relevant to this application.

7.3 The application must also be considered against this Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidancecovering parking and landscape.


PPG1 General Policy and PrinciplesPPG4 Industrial and Commercial Development and Small FirmsPPG7 The Countryside, Environmental Quality and Economic and Social DevelopmentPPG13 TransportPPG15 Planning and the Historic EnvironmentPPG18 Enforcing Planning ControlPPG23 Planning and Pollution ControlPPG24 Planning and Noise


9.1 The main considerations in determining this application are matters of highway safety, the impactupon residential properties in the vicinity and the impact upon the character and setting of listedbuildings in the area.

9.2 The application site is an existing business in the open countryside. Policy 143 of the Adopted LocalPlan allows the expansion of existing businesses in the open countryside provided the expansionwould not harm the landscape setting of the countryside and settlements and it would not harm theamenities of the surrounding area.

9.3 The application submitted seeks retrospective consent for the variation of the restrictions to numbersof coaches and buses operating from this site. The increase in coaches from four to ten is asignificant expansion to the business, more than doubling activities on the site.

9.4 The site is screened from the Barway Road and has minimal landscape impact. The ConservationOfficer has raised no objections to the increased use of the site, in terms of the potential impact uponadjacent listed buildings and the character of Barway generally.

9.5 No objections have been raised by the Principal Environmental Health Officer, with respect of theincreased use of the site subject to the applicant’s strict adherence to additional conditions on the1991 planning permission covering noise, hours of operations of noisy machinery and otheroperational issues.

9.6 The remaining critical issue in considering whether this is an acceptable expansion of an existingbusiness in the countryside is the issue of highway safety. The significant increase of vehiclesoperating from this site would have implications regarding the manoeuvring of vehicles within thedepot. Before considering any increase of operational vehicles from the site the applicant has beenrequired to indicate that the increase could be accommodated on the site through sufficient andworkable parking areas. In addition separate from these parking areas all vehicles would be requiredto be able to turn on the site, to enable vehicles to enter and leave in forward gear. These parking andturning areas should be mutually exclusive and not prejudice the operations of the workshop on site.

9.7 The applicant has attempted to show adequate parking and turning for the increase in numbers ofcoaches whilst retaining the operational use of the garage and the need to store spare coaches. TheLocal Highways Authority has raised concerns regarding the likelihood that the proposed layoutcould be maintained and therefore questioned whether it is a workable solution. The result would be

significant reverse movements on the site, and reverse movements in and out of the junction. In lightof the difficulty in maintaining workable manoeuvring on the site drivers would be less likely toenter the site and instead would park on Barway Road itself. During the period where the applicanthas been breaching this condition there has been a demonstrated problem of vehicles parking on theroad. This has had additional effects in terms of noise nuisance to neighbouring properties and aserious harmful effect upon the setting of the village.

9.8 The applicant has failed to indicate that the site can accommodate a doubling of vehicles serving thesite. The Local Highway Authority has confirmed that this is an inevitable result of the site being toosmall and restricted. The expansion of the site outside of its current defined area would not beconsidered appropriate in terms of its impact upon the character of the village and its listed buildings.

9.9 It is therefore considered that, as a result of inadequate space for the manoeuvring of vehicles on thesite, the proposed application is not an acceptable expansion of an existing business in thecountryside, and therefore conflicts with Policy 143 of the Adopted Local Plan.

9.10 In light of this application being retrospective, the refusal of planning permission would requireenforcement action for the reduction of operations to the approved levels under the 1991 consent. Itis accepted that this would have serious implications for the business. Enforcement action is alwaysconsidered the last resort especially if it effects the operations of a business use, however in this casewhere demonstrated harm is being caused to matters of public interest formal enforcement cannot beavoided. In accordance with advice within PPG18 a reasonable period would be considered tocomply with any requirement of any enforcement action. This reasonable period would allow theapplicant to pursue alternative sites in addition to reducing operations on this site.

9.11 Before embarking on formal action further evidence will be gathered with respect of actual numbersof coaches on the site, which may exceed ten. In addition the precise operation within the garage onthe site will also be clarified.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that planning application reference E/01/00591/FUL be REFUSED for thefollowing reasons:

1. The site’s isolated location served by a rural road network and inadequate manoeuvringfacilities within the site, would likely result in a harmful impact upon the character of the areaand residential amenities of adjoining occupiers the proposal is considered an unacceptableproposed expansion of an existing business in the countryside and is therefore contrary to Policy143 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2000.

2. The proposed site by virtue of its restricted size and nature cannot provide adequate facilitieswithin the site for the parking and turning of the increased numbers of vehicles As such theproposal would result in additional reverse movements within the site and through the junctionwith Barway Road, and would cause serious harm to the safety and freeflow of traffic.

3. As a result of inadequate manoeuvring facilities within the site, the proposal would likely resultin the parking of coaches on the public highway which would result in serious harm to thecharacter of the area and the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers contrary to Policies 86and 143 of the East Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000 and Policy SP5/9 of theCambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995.

10.2 It is further recommended that formal enforcement action be taken to reduce the activities of the siteto the approved limits of the 1991 planning permission. In light of the implications of enforcementaction upon the applicant’s business a compliance period of twelve months is recommended.

BACKGROUND PAPERS



Proposal : Outline application: residential development for the erection of four dwellings,garaging, access road and associated site works.

Location : Land adjacent 14 Ten Bell Lane, Soham.

Applicant : Mr & Mrs K Anderson/Mr & Mrs B Howe

Agent : Andrew Fleet

Reference No : E/01/00624/OUT



1.1 The main issues to be taken into consideration in determining this application are planning policy,the impact upon the character of the area and streetscene, the impact upon the residential amenity ofthe adjacent dwellings, and highway safety.

1.2 Soham Town Council has requested that this application be determined by Planning Committee,their concerns are regarding the access, and the increased traffic that will come out on to the verynarrow entrance on to Pratt Street. A resident of Ten Bell Lane also has raised concerns about theincrease in traffic and the narrow access on to Pratt Street.

1.3 Subject to the addition of relevant conditions, the Local Highway Authority does not raise objectionto the proposal on the grounds of highway safety. The site lies within the built up area of Soham andresidential development is acceptable in principle. The application is recommended forAPPROVAL.

1.4 A site visit has been arranged for 10.30 am prior to the meeting.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is an outline application for the erection of four dwellings and garages. The applicant hassought to include the means of access as a matter to be considered at this stage. An illustrative planhas been submitted which illustrates how four dwellings can be accommodated on this site withgarages and means of access.




4.1 The site is approximately 0.15 of a hectare and is located between and to the rear of the residentialproperties of No.14 and No.18 Ten Bell Lane. It is currently being used as part of the garden spacesand a vegetable plot area for the adjacent properties.

4.2 The adjacent properties numbers No.14 and No.18 are in the control of the applicants, and they areboth two storey detached properties. No.14 has a blank north eastern side gable facing the site, andone first floor window on its rear south east elevation. No.18 has two first floor and four groundfloor windows on its south western elevation facing the site, and ground floor patio doors facing thesite its south eastern elevation. There is an existing access from Ten Bell Lane on to the site.

4.3 The site is located towards the rear of Ten Bell Lane close to the turning head, and the surroundingproperties are a mixture of bungalows, and two storey properties. The grounds of The WeatherallsCounty Primary school are at the rear of the site.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 E/99/0256/F Extension A/C 20.04.99E/0267/87/F Extension A/C 07.04.87N/73/133 Extension to lounge A/C 24.07.73N/65/304 Erection of detached dwelling A/C 15.09.65N/65/88 Erection of detached dwelling –outline A/C 14.04.65N/60/97 Erection of bungalow or house Ref. 02.06.60N/55/16 Erection of a house A/C 10.05.55N/54/175 Erection of two storey dwellinghouse A/C 29.12.54


6.1 Parish Council

Have requested that the application be determined by the Planning Committee. Their concerns are inrespect of the access and increased traffic flows as a result of the development coming out on to avery narrow entrance on to Pratt Street.

6.2 Councillor

No comments received at this stage.

6.3 Environmental Services Manager

I have no objection in principle to this proposal subject to the following conditions1. Construction works – noise level/time condition - E72. Dust control condition - E83. Contaminated land condition – D114. No burning of waste building material on site – E14

6.4 Local Residents

A letter has been received from a resident of Ten Bell Lane. They are concerned about the extratraffic that will be generated by this development in the existing street. They mention that thejunction of the street with Pratt Street is narrow, and that the turning area at the bottom of the streetis usually taken up by parked cars. They mention that the street is too narrow for delivery lorries toturn in, and that parents from the nearby school use the street to park in. They feel that there is roomto develop this piece of land but not for the four dwellings proposed.

6.5 Environment Agency

The Agency has no objection to the proposed development, in principle, but wishes to make thefollowing comments.

All surface water from roofs shall be piped direct to an approved surface water system using sealeddownpipes. Open gullies should not be used.

The maximum acceptable depth for soakaways is 2 metres below existing ground level.

Only clean, uncontaminated surface water, should be discharged to any soakaway, watercourse orsurface water sewer.

Soakaways should be proved to be adequate at this location to the satisfaction of the Council.

Surface water from roads and impermeable vehicle parking areas shall be discharged via trappedgullies.

An acceptable method of foul drainage disposal would be connection to the public foul sewer.

Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted DevelopmentOrder 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order), any oil storage tank shall be sited onan impervious base and surrounded by oil tight bunded walls with a capacity of 110% of the storagetank, to enclose all filling, drawing and overflow pipes.

6.6 Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service

No additional water supplies for fire fighting are required.

6.7 Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeology Department

Our records indicate that the site lies in an area of high archaeological potential, close to the Saxonand medieval core of Soham. It is adjacent to an area in which two circular cropmark enclosuresappear on aerial photographs. These features were partially investigated in 1991, and this revealedSaxo-Norman, medieval archaeological remains (Sites & Monuments Record no. 7009). Theremains compromised a series of ditches, stakeholes, and a large pit, indicating that the area wasoccupied in the 10th – 13th centuries. It is considered likely that important archaeological remainssurvive on the site and that these would be severely damaged or destroyed by the proposeddevelopment.

We therefore consider that the site should be subject to a programme of archaeological investigationand recommend that this work should be commissioned and undertaken at the expense of thedeveloper. This programme of work can be secured through the inclusion of a condition to anyplanning consent.

6.8 Local Highway Authority

The carriageway of Ten Bell Lane is relatively narrow, although it does have the benefit of footwaysboth sides.

The junction of Ten Bell Lane with Pratt Street does not meet current standards in terms ofgeometric layout or vehicle to vehicle visibility. However, approximately 21 dwellings are servedfrom Ten Bell Lane, resulting in something approaching 126 vehicle movements a day. No reported

injury accidents have occurred either within Ten Bell Lane or at the Pratt Street junction as a resultof its sub-standard nature.

The proposed four dwellings would likely generate an additional 24 vehicle movements a day, whichis not a significant increase on that existing.

In the circumstances, I would find it difficult to sustain an objection to the development on highwaygrounds.

I note that the access arrangement is not a reserved matter, therefore any approval given will besubject to appropriate highway conditions.


7.1 The site lies within the development envelope as defined by the approved East CambridgeshireLocal Plan 2000. The following policies contained within the Adopted Plan are relevant:

1,2, 3, 5, 28, 34, 40, 57, 58, 59, 62, 66

7.2 The following policies contained in the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995 are also relevant to theconsideration of this application:

SP4/2 and SP12/10


8.1 PPG1 General Policy and PrinciplesPPG3 HousingPPG13 TransportPPG16 Archaeology and Planning


9.1 The main issues to be taken into consideration in determining this application are planning policy,the impact upon the character of the area and streetscene, the impact upon the residential amenity ofthe adjacent dwellings and highway safety.

9.2 Soham is designated as a Rural Growth Settlement in the local plan. This settlement status supportsthe development of housing estates, groups and infilling on sites within the development envelopeprovided that all other material planning considerations are satisfied. The site is located within thedevelopment envelope of Soham, the principle of residential development on this site is consideredto be acceptable and the proposal represents comprehensive development of this site.

9.3 In respect of the sites positioning within the streetscene, and the potential for it to be considered asbackland development contrary to Policy 28 of the Local Plan. Policy 28 states that all backlandsites will be considered on their merits, and in this instance the siting and design are reserved mattersto be considered at the subsequent detailed stage. A possible layout plan has been submitted and themeans of access forms part of this application. From the submitted layout plan it would appear thatthere is scope on site for four dwellings and garages. With three of the dwellings at the rear of thesite being served by a separate access to the dwelling at the front of the site, positioned around asmall cul de sac, in accordance with provisions of Policy 28 of the Local Plan. In addition, has aproper road frontage and separate access provision.

9.4 In respect of the impact of the proposal upon the residential amenity of adjoining dwellings, theoutline application is for four dwellings therefore the proposed properties are not restricted in type

and could be bungalows, chalet bungalows, or houses. An indicative layout has been submittedwhich shows a possible layout, for two 3 bedroom chalet bungalows, one 3 bedroom bungalow andone 4 bedroom house. Whilst this layout does not restrict the subsequent detailed application, it doesadequately illustrate how four dwellings, and garaging can be provided on site without adverselyaffecting the character of the area, the streetscene, and adversely affecting the amenity of adjacentproperties.

9.5 In respect of highway safety, the Parish Council and a nearby local resident have raised concernsabout the narrow access of Ten Bell Lane on to Pratt Street, and are concerned about the increasedtraffic generated as a result of this proposal, using this access. The Local Highway Authority whilstaware of narrowness of Ten Bell Lane, and the sub standard junction of Ten Bell Lane and PrattStreet, do not feel able to sustain an objection to the proposal on highway grounds. There have beenno reported accidents to date as a result of the sub-standard nature of the access, and it is notconsidered that the proposed development will significantly increase the existing vehicle movementsper day. The Highway Authority recommend approval subject to conditions.

9.6 In conclusion, it is considered that the principle, of four dwellings and garaging on this site isacceptable, in terms of planning policy, the impact on the character of the area and streetscene, andthe impact upon the residential amenity of the adjacent dwellings. Whilst the concerns of the ParishCouncil, and a nearby resident have been taken into consideration in respect of highway safety, theLocal Highway Authority consider a refusal on highway grounds to be unsustainable.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that planning application reference E/01/00624/OUT be APPROVED subject tothe following conditions:

1. S1 Outline Permission (delete means of access)2. S2 Outline time limits3. H7 Access road width (for a distance of) min 4.5m wide for min. distance 10.0m.4. H9 Access road completion.5. H11 Scheme for parking and turning6. H13 Visibility to the private access road 2.4m x 33.0m7. H14 Visibility to the private access road and frontage drive 2.0m x 2.0m8. E7 Construction works – noise level/time9. E8 Dust Control10. D11 Contaminated land11. E14 Waste disposal12. LBC30 Archaeological investigation13. M4 Finished floor levels14. L5 Boundary treatment15. S5 Compliance

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Application file E/01/00624/OUTEast Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995Central Government Circulars and AdviceEast Cambridgeshire Supplementary Planning Guidance


Proposal : Proposed Four Bedroom House, Detached Double Garage, Access Arrangementsand Associated Site Works

Location : 117 Brook Street, Soham

Applicant : N & D Property Developments

Agent : Andrew Fleet




1.1 The main considerations in determining this application are the impact of the proposal upon theresidential amenities of adjoining occupiers; and the proposed impact of the proposal upon thecharacter of the street scene.

1.2 Soham Town Council has raised no objection to the proposal but have requested that the proposal bemoved back to avoid harm to the light afforded to the adjacent property. Comments are awaited onamended plan.

1.3 The applicant’s agent has provided an amended plan moving the dwelling further back on the site. Itis considered that the revised siting of the house would not cause harm through loss of light to theadjoining property. The proposal would also accord with the character of the street scene. Theapplication is recommended for APPROVAL.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is a full planning application for the erection of a four-bedroom house on land between 115 and119 Brook Street, Soham.

2.2 The proposed house would be located twelve metres back from the road. A new access onto BrookStreet is proposed running adjacent to the bungalow 115 Brook Street, to serve a detached garage tothe rear. The resultant dwelling would have a 22 metre rear garden.




4.1 The application site has an area of approximately 880 sq. metres and is currently side garden for theexisting house 119 Brook Street.

4.2 The site is a gap between 115 and 119 Brook Street, which is part of continuous row of residentialproperties.

4.3 The adjacent property 115 Brook Street is a modest bungalow with garaging to the rear, dwellings onthis north-western side of the site tend to be single storey bungalows located forward and adjacent tothe highway. The property 119 Brook Street is a substantial dwelling set back from road which ispart of a row of houses, which continue, to the junction with Greenhills and the industrialdevelopment at Regal Lane.

4.4 Properties on this part of Brook Street are higher than the road as land is banked away from thehighway.

4.5 Towards the front of the site are located non-native weeping willow and cypress trees.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 No planning history


6.1 Parish Council

Approved subject to realignment of building within site.

Comments awaited on amended plan and siting.

6.2 Councillor

No formal comments received


I do have slight reservations regarding the size of property intended for such a small plot, howeverdo not feel that a property on this piece of land would affect the amenity of adjoining properties,therefore agree in principle to this proposal subject to conditions controlling the construction worksand operations on site.

6.4 Arboricultural Officer

No objection to loss of trees subject to condition requiring replacement planting.

6.5 Local Residents

Letter of objection received from 115 Brook Street

(i) Alignment of dwelling would cause overshadowing.

Comments awaited on amended plan which shows realignment of dwelling.


7.1 The site lies within the development envelope of Soham as defined within the East CambridgeshireDistrict Local Plan 2000. The following policies from that plan are relevant to this application.Policies 1, 2, 9, 34, 38, 40, 57-59, 64, 66 and 87.


7.3 The application must also be considered against this Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidancecovering residential design and parking.


PPG1 General Policy and PrinciplesPPG3 HousingPPG13 Transport


9.1 The main considerations in determining this application are the impact of the proposal upon theresidential amenities of adjoining occupiers; and the proposed impact of the proposal upon thecharacter of the street scene.

9.2 The site lies within the development envelope of Soham on a site that falls within the definition ofinfill, as such the proposal is acceptable in policy terms.

9.3 The proposed house by virtue of its design and positioning on the plot accords with the street scene,at the point where the character of Brook Street changes from bungalows fronting the highway tohouses set back from the road.

9.4 The property has been designed to avoid direct overlooking onto the adjacent properties 115 and 119Brook Street. The property has been set back behind the bungalow 115 Brook Street but forward ofthe house 119 Brook Street. The positioning of the proposed dwelling has minimised any potentialimpact by overshadowing onto the adjacent bungalow, 115.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that planning application reference E/01/00742/FUL as amended by plansreceived 12th September 2001 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. S3 (Full Time Limit)2. M2 (Details of Materials)3. M4 (Finished floor levels)4. L9 (Scheme for replacement trees)5. R21 (No additional windows): north-western at first floor6. R22 (Fixed obscure glazing): north-western 7. E7 (Construction works, noise level/times)8. E8 (Dust control)9. E14 (Waste disposal)

10. S5 (Compliance)

BACKGROUND PAPERS



Proposal : Renovation and extension to form a single dwelling and new vehicular access and carport

Location : 117 High Street, Sutton

Applicant : Powell Property Portfolio

Agent : Neil Cutforth & Associates




1.1 The main issues to take into consideration in determining this application are the impact of theproposal on the amenities of the neighbouring properties, and the impact of the proposal on theexisting property.

1.2 Sutton Parish Council has requested that this application be determined by Planning Committee witha site visit. Their concerns are in relation to the impact the proposal will have on the neighbouringproperties, and the fact that fumes from the proposed carport could enter the neighbour’s kitchenwindow. They note that the front windows of the property have been altered in shape, and feel thatthe existing integrity of the front of the dwelling should be maintained. The comments of the ParishCouncil in respect of the amended plans are awaited.

1.3 Amended plans have been received providing the elevation plans of the carport, and repositioningthe proposed car port and altering the windows and doors on the front elevation. It is considered thatthe application, as amended, is acceptable in respect of its impact in the existing property, and that itwill not adversely affect the amenities of the neighbouring properties to such a degree that theapplication should be refused. The application is recommended for APPROVAL.

1.4 A site visit has been arranged for 12.15 pm prior to the meeting.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is a full application for the renovation and conversion of the existing derelict property from twodwellings into one, the erection of a single storey extension (approximately 2.5m x 4.4m x 2.4meaves, 4m ridge), a car port (approximately 5m x 3.6m x 2.4m eaves, 3.6m ridge) and new vehicularaccess on to Painters Lane. The existing outbuilding at the rear of the site will be removed as a resultof the proposal.


3.1 A letter has been received from the applicant. They have lived in Sutton for 9 years and as the newowners of the property, which is currently in a state of disrepair, they wish to renovate it assympathetically as possible. They are trying to make the property more appealing to a prospective

purchaser, whilst ensuring that it also remains financially viable. Originally it was their intention toextend the property to provide a fourth bedroom. However they have decided against this, as theyfeel that it would be detrimental to the existing character of the property. They have amended theproposal in accordance with the comments of the Conservation Officer. They mention that theirproperty was built before the neighbouring property No.115 High Street and the two side windowson this property currently overlook and intrude on the privacy of their site.

3.2 A letter has been received from the agent in support of the application as follows :-

In response to the comments submitted by the Conservation Officer and the Parish Council, I haverevised the front elevation to show windows of reduced widths, removed the arch to the centralupper floor window and reduced the number of panels to the front door from six to four. Despitethese alterations having been made, I must state that I do not agree that these revisions haveimproved the scheme. We have now drastically reduced the amount of natural light to habitablerooms and having lowered the window cill height, we can now not position the kitchen sink under awindow.

Whilst it is easy for Parish Council and Conservation Officers to request alterations, based on anopinion of the aesthetics of a scheme, it remains my remit to provide a scheme which is alsofinancially viable and which has to consider internal layouts in conjunction with externalappearance. I may also remind you that the existing façade supports two cottages, with two entrancedoors providing the symmetry, it is therefore not possible to retain the integrity of the existingbuilding façade while converting it to a single dwelling. The existing façade has also, already lostsome integrity by the construction of a large bay window.

My client is keen for me to point out that this property has remained in a poor state of repair forsome years and is something of an eyesore within the streetscene. I feel sure that our scheme (evenbefore revision) provides a vast improvement to the High Street and the Parish Council would surelynot prefer the property to remain as it exists.

In respect of the chimney stack, I note the Conservation Officer's comments, however, the loss of thestack is necessary to allow the internal accommodation. Because the building is being converted toone dwelling, the new staircase needs to be positioned centrally, to maximise the useable spaceinternally. The staircase will therefore occupy space which is presently used to accommodate thefireplace and chimney stack. The positioning of the staircase adjacent to either side wall of thedwelling will result in the need for long internal corridors and the repositioning of the front door.This will also result in the reduction of floor space available for habitable rooms and again, effect thefinancial viability of the project. I have therefore decided that the loss of the chimney stack is anecessity.

With regard to your previous comments regarding the site levels, I enclose a further two copies ofmy 1:100 scale site cross section. This drawing illustrates the proposed profile relationship betweenthe new rear extension and the existing window to the adjacent bungalow. You will see that theextension partly covers the window as seen from the 'viewpoint', however, the 3.2m gap betweenstructures, the difference in levels and the 30 degree pitch of the hipped roof to the extension will notresult in any overshadowing. It is considered unfortunate that the existing windows to the bungalowat 115 High Street, overlook the garden to 117. I have therefore designed the small extension in theposition shown, as well as to increase the accommodation, to reduce the potential overlooking acrossthe rear of the property. It is obvious that the rear garden will not have any privacy from thebungalow and as such will not be attractive to potential purchasers, consequently the potential saleprice will be reduced. It is therefore important that the District Council's planning department allowsus to construct the small extension to at least afford future occupants with privacy when using theproposed decking at the rear of the living room.

I had also positioned the carport to partially obscure the view from the bungalow window further tothe rear. However, I now consider that this may have resulted in some loss of light and as such, Ihave repositioned the carport. Please therefore find enclosed, two copies of the amended site layoutplan which reflects this revision.

I hope that the contents of this letter and attached drawings resolve most of the issues of concern andthat as a result, you will feel able to refer the application to the Planning Committee meeting on 3rdOctober, recommended for approval. In either case, I would be grateful if you could include a copyof this letter within the agenda notes, relating to this case.’


4.1 The application property is a two storey derelict residential property, which was originally a pair ofsemi-detached properties. It is located on the corner of the High Street and Painters Lane. The landof the site slopes downward from the property towards the rear of the site where there is currently asingle storey pitched roof outbuilding. There is currently no boundary treatment on the sideboundary with Painters Lane.

4.2 The adjacent property No.115 High Street is a detached bungalow, which is, positionedapproximately 1.4m higher than the application site. It has two side windows, which face into thesite. The window positioned closest to the front of the property is a living room window and it is theonly window in that room, and the window closest to the rear of the property is a conservatorywindow.

4.3 The neighbouring property No.119 High Street is located across Painters Lane, and it has a twostorey blank gable, which faces the site. The land to the rear of the site has planning permissionunder reference E/01/00117/FUL (house 7), to construct a two storey dwelling and garage. Thegarage will be positioned adjacent to the rear boundary of the application site, and the proposedproperty’s side elevation, which will face the site, has no first floor windows proposed.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 No planning history.


6.1 Parish Council

Sutton Parish Council has requested that this application be determined by Planning Committee witha site visit. Their concerns are in relation to the impact the proposal will have on the neighbouringproperty, and the fact that fumes from the proposed carport could enter the neighbour’s kitchenwindow. They note that the front windows of the property have been altered in shape, and feel thatthe existing integrity of the front of the dwelling should be maintained. Their comments in respectof the recently submitted amended plans, which reposition the carport and alter the windows anddoor on the front elevation, are awaited.

6.2 Councillor

No written comments received at this stage.

6.3 Executive Director Environmental Services

They have no observations that would adversely affect this proposal. In respect of the comments ofcar fumes affecting the neighbours, they do not feel that the erection of a car port will cause anincrease in potential fumes, as this area would be the logical place for the occupiers to park their carsanyway. A car port is less practical for use of as a workshop, therefore there is less potential for carrepairs taking place causing an increase in fumes, from engine running etc.

6.4 Local Residents

6.4.1 A letter from Richard Hough Building Ltd has been received. They have no objection in principle,other than to ask that the boundary /store wall should be retained at its present height, to retain theprivacy of their proposed new house in Painters Lane, and avoid overlooking of the property.

6.4.2 Two letters have been received from the owner of the adjacent property No.115 High Street. Theyare concerned about the loss of light to their side windows facing the site. They are also concernedabout the positioning of the carport and the potential for car fumes entering their windows, andaccess for maintaining their property. The suggest the carport may be better positioned in theopposite corner of the rear garden.


The comments of the Conservation Officer were sought due to the age of the property, built around1812. The property however is not listed or within a conservation area. He considered that the‘rebuild’ was acceptable, however he made some comments in respect of the proposed scheme asfollows:-.

- windows of reduced widths would be better, to match the existing sash painted timberwindows.

- the central upper window on the front elevation would be better without its arch- a 4 rather than 6 panel front door would be better- it is a shame to loose the chimney.

Comments in respect of the amended plans are awaited.


7.1 The site is within the development envelope as defined by the East Cambridgeshire District LocalPlan 2000. The following policies contained within the Adopted plan are relevant:

1, 2, 34, 58, 59, 60, 64, 65, 66.



8.1 PPG1 General Policy and PrinciplePPG3 Housing


9.1 The main issues to take into consideration in determining this application are the impact of theproposal on the amenities of the neighbouring properties, and the impact of the proposal on theexisting property

9.2 In respect of the impact of the proposal on the amenities of the adjacent property No.115. There areno windows proposed on the side elevation of the property overlooking this site, and a condition isproposed to be attached to any approval, to ensure that no windows can be inserted in future.

9.3 In respect of the loss of light for the neighbouring property No.115, this property lies to the east ofthe application site therefore any potential loss of light will result in the afternoon/evening. Theneighbouring property No.115 is positioned approximately 1.4m higher than the application site andhas two ground floor side windows facing the site. There is a ground floor lounge windowpositioned approximately 0.5m to the rear of the existing application property, which is the onlywindow to that room, and a conservatory window positioned close to the rear of their property, closeto the existing outbuilding on the application site. The amended plans include the repositioning ofthe proposed car port, to help minimise any impact on the conservatory window of the neighbouringproperty. The proposed car port has been moved closer to the rear boundary and will be inapproximately the same position, and of the same height as the existing outbuilding. It is thereforenot considered that the proposed carport will seriously reduce the available light to the conservatorywindow.

9.4 In respect of the impact of the proposed extension on the living room window of No.115. Takingaccount of the differing land levels, the 2.5m projection of extension from the existing property, theproposed hipped roof and the westerly orientation of the extension, whilst it is acknowledged thatthere may be some loss of light to this room, it is not considered that it will serious reduce theamenities of this property.

9.5 The Environmental Services department have been consulted in respect of the neighbours and ParishCouncil’s concerns about car fumes from the car port, however they have no objection to theproposed development.

9.6 In respect of the provision of car parking on the site in accordance with our car parking standards,the proposed property should provide 3 car parking spaces. However in view of the fact that there iscurrently no car parking provision on the site, and the proposal involves the conversion of twoproperties (which would require 4 car parking spaces) into one, and there will be space on the site forthe parking of two cars, it is considered that the proposed car parking in this instance is acceptable.

9.7 In respect of the impact of the proposal upon the existing property, both the Conservation Officerand the Parish Council raised concerns about the alterations to the windows and doors on the frontelevation of the property. Amended plans have been received taking account of these comments.The comments of both the Parish Council and the Conservation Officer in respect of these amendedplans are still awaited, however it would appear that the amended plans do address most of theirconcerns.

9.8 In conclusion, it is considered that the amended plans do appear to overcome the original concerns inrespect of the proposal's impact on the existing property, and the neighbouring properties. Anycomments received in respect of the recently submitted amended plans from the ConservationOfficer, Parish Council, or neighbouring properties will be reported verbally to Members at theCommittee meeting.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that planning application reference E/01/00592/FUL as amended by plansreceived 24/07/01 and 13/09/01 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions

1. Full Time Limit (S3)2. Details of materials (M2)

3. No gates (H18)4. No additional windows (R21) east elevation ground and upper levels5. No extension or ancillary buildings (R17)6. Parking (H10B) 2 cars7. Compliance (S5)

BACKGROUND PAPERS



Proposal : Outline application for the erection of a bungalow

Location : Land at 76 High Street, Wilburton

Applicant : Mrs J Prime

Agent : Tony Walton Design

Reference No : E/01/00378/OUT

Case Officer : Rachel Almond


1.1 The main issues to consider in determining this application are planning policy relating to backlanddevelopment, highway safety, impact on residential amenity and the character of the area, whichforms part of the Wilburton Conservation Area. Wilburton Parish Council, the Local HighwaysAuthority and the Council’s Conservation Officer raise no objections to the principle of thisdevelopment. However, it is considered that this proposal would cause harm to the character of thearea and the residential amenities of existing properties and would set a dangerous precedent. Theproposal is therefore contrary to Policy 28 of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2000 and isrecommended for REFUSAL.

1.2 A site visit has been arranged for 11.50 am prior to the meeting.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is an application for outline planning permission to erect a bungalow in the rear garden of 76High Street, Wilburton. An illustrative layout has been submitted which shows the plot subdivisionand parking and turning facilities for the new and existing dwellings served off a 4 metre widedriveway.


3.1 No applicant’s case has been submitted.


4.1 The site comprises 0.1 hectares of overgrown garden land to the rear of the existing bungalow,number 76, which fronts onto High Street in Wilburton. The site lies partially within the WilburtonConservation Area and adjoins the Grade 2 Listed Limes Farm, which is currently being rebuilt afterfire damage.

4.2 There are a mix of boundary treatments ranging from conifers and open areas to sheds andcorrugated iron adjoining the farmyard. The rear gardens of properties which front onto Clarke’s

Lane back on to the site along the site’s eastern boundary. The existing access onto the High Street isimmediately adjacent to the junction with Church Lane.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 No planning history.


6.1 Parish Council

No objections.

6.2 Local Residents

Letter received from 9 Clarke’s Lane raising the following concerns:

1. possible loss of sunlight depending on height of building2. possible overlooking depending on design3. loss of views to the rear4. difficult to judge at outline stage5. possible overdevelopment6. noise disturbance

6.3 Conservation Officer:

Depending on design and position in the plot, a small dwelling here would have limited impact onthe Conservation Area and adjacent Listed Building.

6.4 Executive Director (Environmental Services):

I do have concerns regarding potential nuisance from the working farm to the rear of this proposedproperty. However the amended plan does offer protection not only to the proposed property by theerection of a 1.8m high close boarded fence. Even though the amended plan shows the relocation ofthe driveway I still feel that there is potential for disturbance to the occupiers of number 76. Ifpermission is granted it should be subject to the following conditions.

1. Construction noise E7.2. Dust control E83. No burning of builders waste on site.4. 1.8m high close boarded fence to the perimeter boundary of the proposed property extending

along the driveway.5. Driveway to be constructed of compacted material such as tarmac or similar material.


Thank you for the illustrative layout relating to the above. Unfortunately, the agent has not taken onboard the recommendations made within the consultation dated 29 May.

The access, if it is to be shared as shown, should be a min. 4.8m wide for a min. distance of 10.0mmeasured from the channel line of the High Street. This access should also be at 90o to the HighStreet for a min. distance of 10.0m.

It should be noted that the turning area for the proposed bungalow could not work as such. I amsatisfied however, that adequate space could be made available. Similarly the parking and turningfor the existing property could be made to work.

If the layout is to form part of the outline consent then an amended layout plan should be obtainedfrom the applicant/agent, a copy of which to be forwarded to me when available.


7.1 The site lies within the development envelope of Wilburton, which is designated as a GroupSettlement in the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2000. The front part of the site also lies within theWilburton Conservation Area. The following policies contained in the East Cambridgeshire LocalPlan 2000 are relevant to the consideration of this application:

1, 2, 3, 7, 28, 34, 40, 57, 58, 59, 62, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 77 and 213.

Policy 28 states:

Proposals for housing on backland sites will be considered on their merits. Applications will rarelybe acceptable where this would involve the development of one house immediately behind anotherand sharing the same access, or where development would have an adverse effect on the amenity ofadjacent properties or the character of its surroundings, or setting of the settlement.

7.2 The following policies contained in the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995 are also relevant to theconsideration of this application:

SP1, SP12/10 and SP12/11


8.1 PPG1 – General Policy and PrinciplesPPG3 – HousingPPG13 – TransportPPG15 – Planning and the Historic EnvironmentPPG24 – Planning and Noise


9.1 The starting point for the consideration of this application has to be the development plan. Whilst thesite lies within the development envelope of Wilburton, which is designated as a Group Settlement, itis not considered that the proposal would comply with Policy 7 of the local plan, it is considered thatthe proposal would be backland development and falls to be considered in the context of Policy 28 ofthe local plan. An illustrative layout has been submitted which demonstrates that the proposedbungalow would be accessed via a drive shared with the existing frontage bungalow. Whilst theLocal Highways Authority have no objection in principle of the proposed amended access, theillustrative layout, as submitted, is not considered to be acceptable. Similarly, the Council’sConservation Officer and Environmental Services have not raised objections to the development.The application needs to be considered in relation to the amenities of adjoining properties and thecharacter of the area.

9.2 In relation to the impact of the development on the character of the area, it is the case that there is afarmyard in depth to the west of the application site and immediately to the east of the site areresidential properties in Clarkes Lane. However, it is considered that the general character ofdevelopment in this area is frontage only development with large areas of associated undevelopedland to the rear. Given this, it is considered that the development of this rear garden with anadditional bungalow would be out of character with the overall pattern of development in the areaand would result in the loss of a green area within the locality which contributes to the character ofthe area. Furthermore, it is considered that development of this site would set a dangerous precedentfor other similar developments in the village, which would have a cumulative adverse impact on thecharacter of the area.

9.3 Turning to the amenity of adjoining properties, it is considered that the development of this sitewould result in disturbance to the existing bungalow on High Street as well as the properties whichfront onto Clarkes Lane. Number 76 High Street already faces onto the busy A1123 High Street, ithas two main windows in the side elevation which would face the shared drive. If screening wasproposed between the drive and the windows, it is considered that this would be quite oppressive.Taking into account the general disturbance from residential activity emanating from the proposeddwelling, it is considered that the amenities of the existing bungalow fronting High Street would beadversely affected by the proposed development. In addition, the rear gardens of the properties onClarkes Lane would also be adversely affected by the disturbance associated with the introduction ofa dwelling in this location.

9.4 The proposed development is considered to be unacceptable, as it would have an adverse impact onthe character of the area and residential amenities of adjoining properties contrary to Policy 28 of thelocal plan.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that application E/01/00378/O as amended by plan received 20/7/01 beREFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposal would constitute an unacceptable form of development which would harm thecharacter of the area which is characterised by frontage development in large plots contrary tothe designation of Wilburton as a Group Settlement and contrary to Policies 7, 58, 59 and 213 ofthe East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2000 and Policy SP12/10 of the Cambridgeshire StructurePlan 1995, and approval would set a dangerous precedent for further development of othersimilar sites in the village which would cumulatively erode the character of frontagedevelopment in the area.

2. The proposal would constitute an unacceptable form of backland development leading tonuisance, disturbance and loss of privacy to existing adjoining properties from residentialactivities and traffic movements in an otherwise tranquil rear garden area, contrary to Policy 28of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2000.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Application file E/01/00378/OUT East Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995Central Government Circulars and AdviceEast Cambridgeshire Supplementary Planning Guidance


Proposal : Demolition of Public House and Existing Residential Unit and Replacement withTwo 5 Bedroom Houses; Three 3 Bedroom Houses and One 2 Bedroom House

Location : Twentypence Inn, Twentypence Road, Wilburton.

Applicant : Mr. G. Cannon

Agent : S. C. Fletcher (Architect)




1.1 The main considerations in determining this application are the policy implications of the loss of thepublic house and its replacement with dwellings in the open countryside. Matters such as highwaysafety, residential design and impact on the landscape also have to be considered.

1.2 Wilburton Parish Council have raised objection to the proposal on the grounds that the site liesoutside of the development envelope of Wilburton.

1.3 It should be noted that extant planning permission exists for the conversion of the public house to sixdwellings. In light of this, the principle of residential development on this site has already beenaccepted. The proposal would replace the existing public house and house with six appropriatelydesigned dwellings of mixed size. It is considered that the resultant development would be animproved form of development to the approved conversion on the site. The application isrecommended for APPROVAL.

1.4 A Members’ Site Visit has been Arranged for 11.35 am Prior to the Meeting.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is a full planning application for the demolition of the existing Twentypence Inn and associateddwelling, and their replacement with six dwellings of mixed sizes.

2.2 The proposed dwellings do not follow the footprint of the existing public house and house butinstead spread the form of development across the whole site.

2.3 Four dwellings in the form of a block of three houses (two 3 bedroom and a two bedroom)with a detached five bedroom house will be located on the site of the existing public house andhouse. Two detached dwellings a five bedroom and three bedroom will be located away from the

footprint of the public house within the existing hardstanding within fifteen metres north of thepublic house.

2.4 Each individual dwelling would have dedicated car parking adjacent rather than the communalparking area previously approved under the conversion scheme.

2.5 The development of the whole site; would allow a comprehensive landscaping of the site and at thesame time allow the reduction and removal of much of the previous car park north of the publichouse.

2.6 The proposed dwellings are a mix of sizes providing two 5 bedroom, four 3 bedroom and a 2bedroom house. The dwellings have been designed in an attempt to reflect traditional simple fendwellings, set as a group rather than block in the landscape.

2.7 The application also provides for a dedicated access to the site directly adjacent to the existing accessthat serves the adjoining Twenty Pence Marina.


3.1 The enclosed drawings show the proposed scheme, which now comprises of two, 5 bedroomdwellings (Units 1 and 6), a 3 bedroom dwelling (Unit 2) and a building containing three dwellings,two 3 bedroom and one 2 bedroom (Units 3 to 5). The car parking has been arrangements have beenrevised, with less parking within the gravelled “yard”. Initial landscape details also shown. The siteboundaries have been revised in accordance with the information from the Local HighwaysDevelopment Control Officer.


4.1 The application site is the current Twentypence Inn, which is now operational after being closed fora period of time. The property lies on the B1049 between Wilburton and Cottenham. The site frontsonto the River Ouse (the district boundary with South Cambridgeshire) to the south.

4.2 The property currently consists of the public house building, with modern restaurant addition, whichextends to three storeys approved under planning reference E/0255/79.

4.3 Full planning permission was approved under planning reference E/96/0934/F (dated 28th June1999), for the conversion of the public house to six dwellings.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

ER/72/98/O, Construction of a boat haven, erection of six bungalows for hire, manager’s cottage,workshop, toilets, provision of a caravan boat park for 21 units and car park for sixty vehicles, A./C,24th May 1973.

ER/73/265/F, Alterations and additions to existing public house, A/C, 30th November 1973.

ER/73/289/F, Alterations and additions to existing public house, A/C, 7th September 1973

ER/73/461/F, Erection of porch and external barrel store, A/C, 4th February 1974.

E/73/465/F, Installation of sewage disposal plant, A/C, 4th February 1974.

E/0313/74/F, Erection of a lunch kitchen, A/C, 5th September 1974.

E/0314/74/F, Erection of 3 staff units, car park and extension to kitchen and restaurant, A/C, 5th

September 1974.E/0364/75, Marina and flood bank, A/C, 27th August 1975.

E/0255/79, Alterations & additions, A/C, 15th May 1979.

E/0411/80/F, Increase in number of river mooring to 60 and erection of an administrative andservices block, Refused 15th July 1980, Appeal allowed 29th May 1981.

E/0419/80/F, Alterations and additions to enlarge car park, A/C, 16th June 1980.

E/0754/80/F, Erection of a toilet block, A/C, 2nd October 1980.

E/0035/88/A, Projected sign (internally illuminated), A/C, 10th January 1989.

E/1710/88/F, Conversion of pub bar to four bed & breakfast rooms, A/C, 9th February 1989.

E/96/0934/F, Conversion of ex-public house to four 2 bedroom, one 3 bedroom and one 5 bedroomhouses, A/C, 28th June 1999.


6.1 Parish Council

Whilst the provision of smaller “low cost” housing would be welcome in the parish this land doesnot lie within the development envelope.

Comments unchanged by revised proposal.

6.2 Councillor


6.3 Principal Environmental Health Officer:

I agree in principal to the proposal, subject to conditions covering construction works.

6.4 Environment Agency:

No objections subject to conditions.


The six dwellings proposed could be expected to generate in the region of 36 vehicle movements aday.

This is significantly less than could be anticipated to be generated by the inn.

Consequently, I could not sustain an objection to the proposal on highway grounds.

6.6 South Cambridgeshire District Council

This Council wishes to object to the proposed development for the following reasons:

1. Housing development in the open countryside is inappropriate without proper justification.Although the built form exists the use is inappropriate and together with the curtilages, theresidential paraphernalia will harm the open rural character of the countryside. The developmentis also contrary to national policies which require housing in the countryside to have properjustification and the countryside to be protected for its own sake.

2. The proposal would result in the loss of a locally available service. In the absence of anyevidence that the use is no longer viable the proposal is considered to be unacceptable for thisreason.

3. Whilst imposing alternative uses is clearly beyond your control this Council neverthelessbelieves that the most suitable use would be for recreation/tourism taking advantage of itsproximity to the river, and preferably connected to the adjacent Marina.

6.7 Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeology:

Our records indicate that the site lies in an area of high archaeological potential. The site lies on thebank of the West River, which was the focus of prehistoric and Roman activity. An alleged BronzeAge hoard including spearheads was found 1 km. upstream (Sites & Monuments Records # 5716)and cropmarks of possible Roman field systems lie to the south of the site (SMR 8869). Thesecropmarks are part of a wider Roman landscape in the vicinity including Car Dyke (ScheduledAncient Monument 224), Chittering Romano-British settlement (Scheduled Monument 13605), andBullocks Haste settlement (SAM 66). It is considered likely that important archaeological remainssurvive on the site and that these would be severely damaged by the proposed development.

We therefore consider that the site should be the subject to a programme of archaeologicalinvestigation and recommend that this work should be commissioned and undertaken at the expenseof the developer. This programme of work can be secured through the inclusion of a negativecondition (PPG16, para. 30) in any planning consent.

6.8 Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service

The Fire Authority is of the opinion that additional water supplies for fire fighting are not required.

6.9 Haddenham Conservation Society

It has come to the knowledge of this society that there is now an application before the council todevelop the property known as Twentypence Inn, Wilburton. Whilst acknowledging that this doesnot come within the parish of Haddenham it is very close indeed to the boundary. The society alsohas a concern for the wider environment and in this context wishes to point out the existing buildinghas become the most important nesting colony of House martins in the area and possibly in thecounty. On 26th June 2001, forty-five nests were counted under the eaves of the main building withothers close by.

Our concern is therefore two fold in this matter. Firstly that wahtever the decision you make as todevelopment no demolition work is undertaken during the breeding season in any year of these birds.This would be from April to early September, also it needs to be pointed out that it would alsoagainst the law enshrined in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Secondly that should permission begranted for development the design of any new buildings be such that it would accommodate at leasta similar number of nests in the future. A Study would need to be made of the present structure tosee why it is so suitable for the birds (probably the wide roof overhang) and this be incorporated intoany new designs.

We are also greatly concerned that there should be any new developemnts at this site at all as,bearing in mind the flooding all over the country in 2000 and the considered opinion that it couldhappen again in flood plains attached to rivers, this is a place which would be very vulnerable andwe feel the application should be rejected on that score.It is also in greenbelt country and outside and planning envelopes. It is an unsuitable proposal andwe wish to object.

6.10 Cambridgeshire Wildlife Trust

The situation regarding House Martins as with all breeding birds is that it is illegal to destroy nestsonce it is known that there are nesting birds present. If it wasn’t known about, it could still be illegalif reasonable precautions were not taken. This is the jist of the Wildlife & Countryside Act (1981),without going into the precise wording. To way to avoid committing an illegal act would be to carryout the demolition works outside of the breeding season, say between August & February. as anaside, if the developers wanted, they could incorporate suitable nesting boxes for House Martins inthe new buildings (designs available from RSPB).

6.11 Local Residents

Letter of objection received from Twenty Pence Marina

(i) Inadequate foul and surface water drainage; (ii) existing vehicular access inadequate; (iii) conflictwith Marina activities; (iv) Leylandii dispute.


7.1 The site lies outside of the development envelope of Wilburton as defined within the EastCambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000. The following policies from that plan are relevant to thisapplication. Policies 1, 2, 9, 34, 38, 40, 57-59, 62, 64, 66, 87 and 135.

7.2 Policies SP1, SP12/1 and SP12/10 of the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1995.

7.3 The application must also be considered against this Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidancecovering landscape, parking and residential design.


PPG1, General Policy and PrinciplesPPG3, HousingPPG7, The Countryside, Environmental Quality and Economic and Social DevelopmentPPG9, Nature ConservationPPG13, TransportPPG16, Archaeology and PlanningPPG17, Sport and RecreationPPG21, TourismPPG25, Development and Flood Risk


9.1 The main considerations in determining this application are the policy implications of the loss of thepublic house and its replacement with dwellings in the open countryside. Matters such as highwaysafety, residential design and impact on the landscape also have to be considered.

9.2 The application site lies outside of any defined development envelope, in the open countryside aconsiderable distance from the nearest settlements of Wilburton and Cottenham. Under normalcircumstances development of this site would be considered as unacceptable and non-sustainabledevelopment in the open countryside and would normally be resisted.

9.3 It can be confirmed that an extant planning permission for residential development of this site existson this site. Full planning permission reference E/96/0934/F dated 28th June 1999 approved theconversion of the existing public house to six dwellings of a similar mix of sizes under considerationwithin this application.

9.4 It is noted that Policy 135 considers the loss of village facilities, specifically within existingsettlements. Although the tone of this policy may also require an element of consideration ofalternative uses before any approval for residential conversion of this property, this is belated in thiscase, in light of the existing approval for the residential conversion of the public house. As such theprinciple of residential development on this site cannot be revisited.

9.5 The public house itself is of no conservation or architectural merit as such there would be noobjection in principle to its total demolition. In light of this fact, the applicant has attempted toredevelop the site in a better-built form. The applicant’s agent has successfully redesigned theproposal to provide the same level and mix of accommodation without being constrained by thebulky footprint of the public house or its alien three storey design.

9.6 By demolishing the public house and existing dwelling on the site, the applicant has been able toconsider the development of the whole site with six dwellings. The dwellings have been scatteredavoiding the previous proposal, which simply delivered a large block of six three-storey dwellings.The result is a loose group of mixed dwellings with dedicated curtilages and parking throughout thehardstanding area of the public house. This also avoids the previous provision of an unsightlyexpansive car parking area; and also removes the area of the former car park that would haveremained.

9.7 The applicant has proposed native and comprehensive landscaping of the site in an attempt toassimilate the development into this vulnerable site.

9.8 The dwellings have been specifically designed to reflect their fen setting, in an attempt to replicate atraditional farmstead collection of dwellings.

9.9 In light of the extant commitment to residential development on this site; it is considered that theproposal would result in an improved built form of the six mixed-sized dwellings on this site. Whilstat the same time, rounding off the whole site in a comprehensive and sympathetic way.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is recommended that planning application reference E/01/00466/FUL as amended by plansreceived 5th September 2001 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. S3 (Full Time Limit)

2. M2 (Details of Materials)3. M4 (Finished Floor levels)4. L1 (Soft landscaping)5. L2 (Hard landscaping)6. L3 (Soft and hard landscaping)7. L5 (Boundary treatment)8. E7 (Construction works, noise level/time)9. E8 (Dust control)10. E14 (Waste disposal)11. During demolition works the noise level emitted from the site when measured at the nearest

residential properties shall not exceed an Leq of 75dB(A) when measured over a 10 hour periodbetween 0800 and 1800 hours Monday to Friday, and over a 5 hour period between 0800 and1300 hours Saturdays and a Lmax of 80dB(A) at any time between the aforementioned hours.No works shall be undertaken outside of these hours or on Sundays and Bank Holidays withoutthe prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

12. D2 (Foul drainage)13. LBC30 (Archaeological investigation)14. LBC31 (Archaeological access)15. S5 (Compliance)

N.B. Also informative with respect of Countryside & Wildlife Act requirements during demolition.

BACKGROUND PAPERS


east cambridgeshire district council · 117 brook street, soham applicant: n and d property...

Documents