Agenda item - 17/02316/1 - THE GABLES, HIGH STREET, BARLEY, ROYSTON, SG8 8HY

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Residential development of eight dwellings, garages, parking and landscaping. New access road, car park for existing surgery, relocation of existing electricity substation and double garage and store attached to existing garage for 'Chadwick' (as amended by drawings received 7th November 2017, 11th January 2018, 9th February 2018 and 19th March 2018).

RESOLVED:That planning application17/02316/1 be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons contained in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and subject to the amended Condition 7 and additional condition 22 below.

Condition 7

The approved details of landscaping shall be carried out before the end of the first planting season following either the first occupation of any of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced during the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

Reason: To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the completed

development and the visual amenity of the locality.

Condition 22

Details of the solar panels to be installed and used on the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced and the approved details shall be implemented on site.

The details to be submitted and approved shall include the following:

(a) details as to whether solar panels are feasbile at this site;

(b) the number and location of all solar panels and;

(c) details of the design and finish of the solar panels to be installed.

If feasible, solar panels shall be installed to the two affordable residential units which are required under Condition 4.

Reason: To ensure that the development will have an acceptable appearance which does not detract from the appearance and character of the surrounding

area.

Residential development of eight dwellings, garages, parking and landscaping. New access road, car park for existing surgery, relocation of existing electricity substation and double garage and store attached to existing garage for 'Chadwick' (as amended by drawings received 7th November 2017, 11th January 2018, 9th February 2018 and 19th March 2018).

The Strategic Planning Officer presented a report in respect of planning application 17/02316/1 supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

The Strategic Planning Officer advised that the site was situated north-west of Barley and included existing access from the High Street leading to the front of the surgery and round to the rear of the surgery, which accommodated an electricity sub-station.

The entirety of the site was located in the Barley Conservation Area and under the current (1996) Local Plan the whole of the site was outside of the village boundary, however, under the emerging Local Plan the land at the Gables was within the boundary with the paddock being outside of the boundary.

The proposal was for 8 new dwellings and improvements to the front car park and new rear car park at the surgery together with associated landscaping. The existing sub-station would be relocated within the site, next to the new car park.

The proposal also included improvements to the existing access to the High Street widening the access to allow suitable access for wider vehicles such as emergency vehicles.

There would be a central green area and attenuation for drainage for the site.

The development would consist of detached and semi-detached and terraced 2 to 4 bed dwellings with varied designs that were in keeping with the area.

The development would not be visible from the High Street and would not be overly prominent in the landscape which, in the officer’s view, would provide a logical extension to the village

The Strategic Planning Office informed Members that the Parish Council had raised an objection that the development would reduce the amount of green space causing harm to the Barley Conservation Area and the listed White Posts property.

He advised that any harm caused by the development had to be weighed against the benefits and consideration should be given to the housing supply as detailed in Paragraph 4.3.5 of the report.

The site was considered sustainable as it was on the edge of a category A village, identified in the emerging Local Plan.

The benefits of the proposal included improvements to the Surgery, the removal of the sub-station that would allow an expansion of the surgery in the future and the provision of housing in Barley, including two affordable units.

It was acknowledged that part of the site was outside the village boundary and that the development would result in harm to the Grade II listed building, but this was outweighed by the benefits.

It was the Officer’s recommendation that the application be approved, subject to the conditions contained in the report.

Parish Councillor Yvonne Lee, Barley Parish Council, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/02316/1.

Parish Councillor Lee stated that the Planning Officer’s report made reference to the objections made to this application by the Parish Council and, rather than repeat those objections, she would focus on the key areas where they disagreed with comments made in the report.

The Parish Council believed that the recommendation to approve this application was flawed and the Officer’s report was misleading in several key areas, in particular, the public benefit to be derived from the application and the context of the National Planning Policy Framework and its relationship with local planning policy.

The Planning Officer at Paragraph 4.3.10 of the report stated that the key public benefits would be for the adjacent Doctor’s surgery, with the provision of 8 additional off-street car parking spaces and allowing the surgery to extend and expand.

The existing car park was rarely at full capacity, with patients preferring to park on the road and the surgery recently merged with Granta Medical Practice, which operated across 4 sites and had 33,500 registered patients. Patients at Barley were able to access services at all 4 sites, including Royston, so, as far as she was aware, there was no intention to expand, nor offer services from Barley alone.

It was not a public benefit to have more car parking spaces, when those already in existence were not being used.

It was claimed that improving the car park would improve highway safety but changing people’s habits was extremely difficult. If people refused to use the spaces available today, why would they use more in future?

Therefore, highway safety would not be improved, in fact quite the reverse as this application would compromise it.

There was a clear conflict between a new access road with increased traffic and Bakers Lane nearby.

The High Street may be a 30MPH road, however we take issue with the reference to long views. There were certainly no long views when exiting Bakers Lane onto the High Street, as there was no visibility of the access to the Doctor’s surgery.

The claimed benefit from future expansion of the surgery was pure conjecture and how would this be achieved?

Any expansion, other than change of use to the first floor flat would result in a loss of parking spaces, the vey public benefit we were told justified the approval of this application.

This was all a red herring and there was no public benefit.

50 percent of the site fell outside of the village boundary. The Officer’s report at Paragraph 4.3.4 advised that only the paddock, which was more than 50 percent of the development site, sat outside the current boundary and proposed that this boundary be redrawn.

The Village boundary was thoroughly reviewed and revised in the emerging Local Plan following public scrutiny and debate. What justification was there for redrawing them on a whim to accommodate development proposals?

The boundary was clear enough and, if it was moved once, what would be the justification to stop further expansion westwards.

The Conservation Officer concluded that the proposed development would result in harm to both the Conservation Area and the setting of the Grade II listed building, White Posts.

Under NPPF this harm had to be balanced against the public benefit of the scheme, but when there is no public benefit, the harm cannot be counter balanced.

In respect of scale, layout and design, the applicant had reduced the size of units and reduced the overall number from 9 to 8 but had not reduced the area of the development site.

The Conservation Officer stated that, if this scheme was consented, it would be susceptible to further future development and expansion. This was something that Barley residents were acutely aware of.

The scheme could not be made viable, consequently she would expect the developer to come back very quickly, and on the basis of viability, seek a revised scheme.

Given the scheme was under 10 units there was no requirement to provide affordable units, so the two affordable units in the scheme would be the first casualty then maybe the sub-station.

Parish Councillor Lee urged Members to refuse the application as it would cause demonstrable harm and was neither viable nor deliverable.

The Chairman thanked Parish Councillor Lee for her presentation.

Mr Bill Bampton, Applicant’s Agent, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 17/02316/1.

Mr Bampton informed Members that Pelham Structures only worked in the local area and they designed the buildings, manufactured the timber frames and constructed the houses.

They had been involved in several local schemes including the Langdon Leisure Centre, which they designed and built.

They only undertook work in rural areas enabling them to provide sympathetic rural developments.

The benefits of the development had been covered in the Officer’s report.

Barley was a Category A village which was highly sustainable and suitable for development, but had no sites allocated in the Local Plan.

He wished to refute the Parish Council’s assertion that there were no benefits to this scheme.

They had worked with the Doctors Surgery and designed and proposed what they considered they would need for the long-term future of their business. There were 4 practices in the group, however the other 3 were not capable of being expanded and this practice was owned by the Doctors.

Highways had examined the proposals and found them to be totally satisfactory. The scheme would give improved sight lines and provide better traffic flow.

10 additional car parking spaces would be provided, although it was acknowledged that some of these would be lost if the surgery did expand.

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF said that sustainable development should go ahead without delay, providing it did not cause demonstrable harm and the Conservation Officer accepted that there would be less than demonstrable harm.

In his personal opinion, this development caused no harm whatsoever, as the buildings would be complimentary in design and would provide much needed local housing and two low cost houses.

Mr Bampton asked Members to support the Officer’s recommendation.

Members queried whether it was intended to put solar panels on the roofs of the houses and asked whether the affordable housing could be prioritized for local people.

Mr Bampton advised that it was the intention for the development to be highly sustainable. Where there were south facing roofs solar panels would be part of the proposal, however they would be designed into the roof rather than attached to the surface.

In respect of affordable housing, this was in the hands of the Planning Authority, but he had no objection to local people having priority.

The Chairman thanked Mr Bampton for his presentation.

Members sought assurance that the conditions regarding the affordable housing element of this development were robust and queried whether the density of this development was comparable with that of the village and whether this was part of the balance that outweighed the harm.

The Strategic Planning Officer advised that the condition regarding affordable housing required the scheme to be submitted to the Planning Authority and that the agreed scheme had to be adhered to. The requirement for affordable housing was laid out in Paragraph 4.3.4 and it was the affordable housing that tipped the balance in favour. If the Applicant applied to vary that condition there may be grounds to refuse it and it would come back to this Committee.

In respect of density this equated to the housing in the area of the surgery and was relatively comparable to the rest of the village.

It should be noted that, although the Conservation Officer maintained his objection, he was heavily involved in the new design. The design was not aimed at reducing density, but to get the best scheme for this site, which happened to result in a reduction in the number of units.

Members queried whether the Copper Beech Tree should have a Tree Preservation Order placed on it and queried whether the affordable housing would have solar panels.

They noted that part of the site was included in the village boundary under the emerging Local Plan and queried how, if development was allowed on the area outside of the village boundary, the rest of the land would be protected in future.

The Strategic Planning |Officer advised that the whole of this site was within the Conservation Area and any tree within a conservation area was already protected and any work to the Copper Beech Tree would need consent.

Solar panels on the affordable housing units could be secured by an additional condition.

He could give no guarantee regarding future developments in the area, although it should be noted that the Conservation Area continued to the west and it was his opinion that this development would provide a logical boundary to the village and any further development to the west would be an encroachment into the countryside.

A Member was concerned that the Conservation Area was not being protected and that this development seemed to be recommended for approval because someone thought that Barley should have some new housing and felt that the Conservation Officer had made a good case for not accepting this development.

It was proposed that Condition 7 be amended to read:

“The approved details of landscaping shall be carried out before the end of the first planting season following either the first occupation of any of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced during the next planting season with others of similar size and species.”

Members acknowledged the objections of the Parish Council and noted that no sites had been allocated in Barley the emerging Local Plan. They felt that this was a small development, that would provide benefits that outweighed any harm caused to the Conservation Area or the adjacent Grade II listed building.

Upon being moved, seconded, and put to the vote, it was