Previous PageNext Page

Bath & North East Somerset Council

MEETING:

Development Control Sub-Committee `B'

AGENDA
ITEM
NUMBER

MEETING DATE:

10th March 2004

  

REPORT AUTHOR:

Eamonn Flanagan Development Control Manager

(Telephone: 01225 477504)

  

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER:

David Davies, Head of Planning Services, (Telephone: 01225 394125)

  
 

TITLE:

APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION ETC.

WARD:

Various

BACKGROUND PAPERS: See over

AN OPEN PUBLIC ITEM

BACKGROUND PAPERS

List of background papers relating to this report of the Head of Planning and Development Services about application/proposals for Planning Permission etc. The papers are available for inspection at Trimbridge House, Trim Street, Bath BA1 2DP.

BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET COUNCIL

AREA B DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE

PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT INDEX

10 March 2004

ITEM NO.

APPLICATION NO.:

APPLICANTS NAME/SITE ADDRESS and PROPOSAL

PARISH

OFFICER:

REC:

PAGE NO.

deleteme

01

03/00303/OUT

Latham And Brownstone

Yard At Pool Barton Keynsham Bristol

Erection of three townhouses and nine apartments with associated works

Keynsham

Ludek Majer

Delegate to PERMIT

1-16

02

03/00408/FUL

The Secretary (Hilary Hammill) The Freshford Mill Assoc.

Freshford Mill Freshford Bath BA2 7WH

Creation of rural recreation area, nature sanctuary and workshops as amplified by letters and plans received 10.3.2003 and 5.1.2004

Freshford

Ludek Majer

Section 106 Agreement/ PERMIT

16-24

03

03/02427/FUL

Surry & Counties (Sutton) Ltd.

Freshford Mill Freshford Bath BA2 7WH

Change of use comprising a mix made up of 21 residential units, 5 live/work units 3 staff units and employment use, provision of improved access with associated landscaping, parking and demolition (resubmission)

Freshford

Ludek Majer

Section 106 Agreement/ PERMIT

24-65

04

03/02217/FUL

Mr And Mrs L Cash

Hartley Farm Upper Swainswick Bath BA1 8AF

Use as residential gypsy caravan site/4 pitches/hardstandings/cesspit on Plot 29 as amended by letter and plan received 28 November 2003

Batheaston

Ludek Majer

REFUSE

65-75

05

03/02662/FUL

D Pera

Land Off Timsbury Road High Littleton Bristol

Construction of 16 no. houses

High Littleton

Andy Pegler

Delegate to PERMIT

75-86

06

03/03075/OUT

Girl Guiding Somerset North County

Land South Of Hollow Brook Lane Hollowbrook Bishop Sutton Bristol BS18 4TX

Extension and conversion of barn to form County Guide Centre

Chew Magna

David Audsley

REFUSE

86-90

07

04/00105/VAR

Hinton Organics (wessex) Ltd

Land At Queen Charlton Quarry Queen Charlton Bristol

Variation of condition 16 of permission 97/02626/MINW dated 2 December 1998 to increase limit on heavy goods vehicles attending site on any day from 5 to 18, and to secure the permanent inclusion of cardboard waste in condition 13

Compton Dando

Chris Herbert

PERMIT

90-98

08

03/01777/FUL

Merridian Ltd

Land At 25 Ashgrove Peasedown St John Bath

Construction of three dwellings to replace existing garage, as amended by drawings received 15 August 2003

Peasedown St John

Neil Harvey

Section 106 Agreement/ PERMIT

98-101

09

03/01830/OUT

Hillside Farm Investments Ltd

King William IV Inn Tunley Bath BA2 0EB

Construction of 4 no. dwellings.

Dunkerton

Neil Harvey

PERMIT

101-105

10

03/02323/OUT

Hobbs And Roach

Land (fronting Berkeley Gardens) To The Rear Of 31 Queens Road Keynsham Bristol

Construction of single dwelling and garage

Keynsham

Chris Beak

PERMIT

105-109

11

03/02390/FUL

Mr & Mrs G King

3 Ellsbridge Close Keynsham Bristol BS31 1TB

Two-storey side extension following demolition of existing garage

Keynsham

Neil Harvey

REFUSE

109-111

12

03/02648/FUL

Mr & Mrs D Hitchings

Heath Cottage Tilley Lane Farmborough Bath BA2 0BE

Erection of garage building after removal of existing garage structure.

Farmborough

Neil Harvey

REFUSE

111-113

13

03/02656/FUL

E D Huntley

The Manor House Mill Lane Monkton Combe Bath BA2 7HD

Use of dining room (associated with bed & breakfast business) to permit use by non-residents on Fridays and Saturdays

Monkton Combe

Neil Harvey

Further report

113-115

14

03/02677/FUL

Jonathan Chard

49 Beaufort Avenue Midsomer Norton Radstock BA3 2TG

1 metre high front boundary fence as amended by revised drawings received 13 February 2004

Norton Radstock

Jerry Amsdon

PERMIT

115-117

15

03/02846/FUL

Mr M Young

Unit 3 Timsbury Industrial Estate Hayeswood Road Timsbury Bath

Detached dwelling for security officer

Timsbury

Chris Beak

PERMIT

117-120

16

03/02960/FUL

Mr & Mrs P Harris

18 Lambourn Road Keynsham Bristol BS31 1PR

Two-storey side extension (in accordance with amended plans received 6 February 2004)

Keynsham

Chris Beak

PERMIT

120-122

17

03/03003/FUL

Mr And Mrs H Batley

1 Fairhaven Cottages Northend Batheaston Bath BA1 8ES

Access to side to provide vehicular disabled access

Batheaston

Neil Harvey

REFUSE

122-124

18

03/03019/FUL

A Bessell

13 Station Road Keynsham Bristol BS31 2BH

Change of use of existing commercial premises to residential use, as amended by drawings received 9 February 2004

Keynsham

Neil Harvey

Delegate to PERMIT

124-127

19

03/03028/FUL

Mr S Parkinson

19 Axford Way Peasedown St John Bath BA2 8DD

Two-storey side extension

Peasedown St John

Chris Beak

PERMIT

127-129

20

03/03059/FUL

C D Austin And Sons

Bathford Gardens Box Road Bathford Bath BA1 7LR

Lean-to extension to Building 1 and additional concrete hardstanding

Bathford

Neil Harvey

REFUSE

129-132

21

03/03138/FUL

Ernest Anthony Property Management

Land Adjacent To 179 Bath Road Keynsham Bristol

Detached house and garage

Keynsham

Chris Beak

REFUSE

132-133

22

03/03167/LBA

Mr & Mrs A Hardacre

The Manor The Street Farmborough Bath BA2 0AR

Replacement of rear first and second floor modern softwood windows with double glazed leaded casements.

Farmborough

Robert Sutcliffe

REFUSE

134-135

23

03/03204/FUL

School Governors

Ralph Allen School Claverton Down Road Combe Down Bath BA2 7AD

Extension to science lab M7

Monkton Combe

Neil Harvey

PERMIT

136-137

24

03/03212/LBA

Mrs G Rice

Pows Cottage Vicarage Lane Compton Dando Bristol

Rear conservatory

Compton Dando

Jacky Wilkinson

CONSENT

137-139

25

04/00009/REG03

Bath & N E Somerset Council

Chew Valley School Chew Lane Chew Magna Bristol BS40 8QB

New music block

Chew Magna

David Audsley

Delegate to PERMIT

139-142

26

04/00010/FUL

Mr A Barlow

Copse End Coombe Lane East Harptree Bristol BS40 6BG

Conversion and extension of existing garage to form annex for elderly parent as amended by drawing received 13 February 2004

East Harptree

Jerry Amsdon

PERMIT

142-144

27

04/00020/OUT

W Donson

Land Adjacent To 5 Alpine Close Paulton Bristol

Detached dwelling

Paulton

Jerry Amsdon

PERMIT

144-147

28

04/00062/FUL

Mr & Mrs M J Burgan

The Gables, 4 Tyning Road Saltford Bristol

Retention of one existing velux window and provision of six new velux windows

Saltford

Chris Beak

Delegate to PERMIT

147-149

29

04/00271/FUL

A Magill

The Firs Maggs Lane Whitchurch Bristol BS14 0PH

Roof extension to provide additional floor of residential accommodation

Whitchurch

Jerry Amsdon

REFUSE

149-151

BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET COUNCIL

AREA 'B' DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE

10 March 2004

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES ON APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT

 

Item No:01

APPLICATION NO. 03/00303/OUT TYPE Outline Application

EXPIRY DATE 2nd Apr 2003

WARD Keynsham North

PARISH Keynsham

Housing Development Boundary

APPLICANT: Latham And Brownstone

PROPOSAL: Erection of three townhouses and nine apartments with associated works

SITE LOCATION: Yard At Pool Barton Keynsham Bristol

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

Members will recall that this application was originally reported to the last August Sub-Committee with a recommendation to refuse. The application was deferred at that meeting for further negotiations to take place. These have been very intensive over the ensuing months and have resulted in a significant revision of the proposal.

This is an outline application with all five matters reserved for further approval on the site of the former builders' yard at the end of Pool Barton Lane, immediately west of Old Vicarage Green. The site features low level utilitarian buildings last used by a window manufacturer, and is between 1 and 3 metres below the level of the latter development.

The applicants have submitted a significant amount of detailed drawings indicating their intended design. The proposal originally entailed the construction of a block of 9 flats and 3 townhouses. The 3-storey curved block with a basement to comprise 9 flats was to be in the centre of the site and a staggered terrace of 3-storey town houses was proposed at the western end of the site adjoining the western flank of Old Vicarage Green. Access would be made from the improved Pool Barton Lane. The scheme was significantly revised in December 2003 resulting in the provision of three blocks of flats, each to contain four flats 2/3 storeys high (including basement levels). Two blocks are now proposed in the widest part of the site as a mirror reflection of each other (handed) replacing the former curved block of 9 flats. The townhouses are replaced with a separate block of 4 flats turned 90 degrees.

Following further negotiations the scheme was further revised resulting in the reduction to 11 units with the easternmost block reduced in height to 2 storeys (and deletion of the top flat). The 'handed' blocks were originally to be linked with a glazed staircase which has now been deleted and the remaining individual staircases originally to be glazed are proposed with external cladding. The relative heights of the blocks would be between 6.5 and 7.5 metres, significantly below the adjacent level of Old Vicarage Green (by some 3 metres). The westernmost block would be at a substantially lower level, with the basement partly excavated, giving an overall height of 8.5 metres but a relative height (above existing levels) of 6.5 metres on average.

The scheme proposes 12 car parking spaces. The vehicular and pedestrian access would again be from Pool Barton Lane and the scheme proposes improvements to surfacing and lighting for greater pedestrian safety. This was undertaken following further liaison with the Highway Engineers and Police Crime Reduction Officer. The applicants' agents included the latter officer's letter in support of the application.

The applicants' agents have submitted Design and Transport Statements and an Acoustic (Road and Rail Traffic Noise) Report in support of their proposal. They have also submitted several letters addressing the issues of planning policy in the development plan and have also made a reference to various planning policy guidance notes (PPGs). They consider the proposal would now be consistent with both the national and the local planning policies, would re-use a brownfield site, would result in a reduction of (potential) traffic levels in the lane, and would bring the site under planning control with significant environmental benefits.

The site has an area of 0.35 hectares (0.33 acres) and lies within the housing development boundary of Keynsham. Its eastern boundary adjoining land in the Bristol/Bath Green Belt. The proposed density would be 79 dwellings per hectare (33 per acre).

The most recent application to develop this site for light industrial units to replace existing industrial unit was refused in October 2000 for the following reasons:-

1 The proposed buildings by reason of their size, bulk and location within the site would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area on the edge of the Green Belt and visible from it, and to the character of this part of Keynsham in conflict with policy EMP 10 of Wansdyke Local Plan.

2 The proposed development would result in an increase in traffic generation to this site which is served by a substandard vehicular access at present, owing to the inadequate width of the access lane to cater for heavy goods vehicles, with a substandard junction of the access lane with Station Road, creating potential highway hazards, in conflict with policies TP.1 and TP.18 of the Wansdyke Local Plan.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

KEYNSHAM TOWN COUNCIL (Revised Plans): The Committee maintained its previous objections -

1. Overdevelopment of the site

2. Unsatisfactory road access (particularly for emergency and service vehicles)

3. Inadequate car parking provision

4. Detrimental visual impact when viewed from the A4 by-pass

The Committee also noted that the applicants documents about the site being used for light industrial usage with associated vehicle movements is not strictly the case since there was little vehicle access to and from the site for many years. The Committee also noted that an application in the late 1980's for a smaller housing development had been refused because of access difficulties.

The Committee understand that there is police concern regarding the traffic movement at the junction of Pool Barton and Station Road.

KEYNSHAM CIVIC SOCIETY (Revised Plans): With regard to the above application, we understand that an amended application has recently been presented. We further understand that this amended application is for 3 blocks of flats with one car parking space for each flat. It is not clear exactly how many residences there will be in total.

Supporting information for this amended application appears to indicate that the access to this site is presently used by a large number of goods vehicles and that the future use by residents under the revised application would be greatly reduced. We wish to point out that this statement is incorrect, the number of vehicles presently entering and leaving this site on a daily basis is not very great and would be nothing compared with normal residential traffic from 3 blocks of flats, including deliveries, waste collection etc.

We therefore wish to re-iterate ALL our objections as indicated in our letters to you on this subject, references KCS70 dated 28th February 2003, KCS76 dated 10th June 2003 and KCS80 dated 5th August 2003.

Taking all considerations into account, and based on your own planning rules of thumb on number of dwellings per hectare, we would consider this site to be capable of building no more that 3 private dwellings or perhaps one block of 4 flats.

Please would you keep us informed of any future developments.

OLD VICARAGE GREEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY (Revised Plans): With reference to the revised application for the proposed development of the above mentioned site, which we note, is in fact for 12 apartments, we wish to register on behalf of the Residents of Old Vicarage Green the following objections:-

1. The revised layout is still well in excess of what could be considered reasonable for such a restricted and sensitively located site. The proposed apartment blocks will totally obstruct the view presently enjoyed by at least 33% of the properties on The Green. They will also be directly overlooking these same properties which the original designer of Old Vicarage Green was very careful to avoid.

2. The provision of only one parking space per unit is both totally impractical and unrealistic for such an isolated site. The lack of any provision for visitor/service vehicle parking would create intolerable problems for those concerned. The proposed internal site access road is also impractical and could not possibly work in practice.

3. The design of the alterations to the main site access road along Pool Barton does not comply with the general standards required for a single track road. This applies particularly at its junction with Station Road where it would inevitably cause a serious traffic hazard when taking into consideration the substantial increase in traffic this development would create. This increase in traffic also gives us concern for the safety of the boundary wall, that we would take this opportunity to remind you of the fact that this wall, as well as a one metre strip of the land along the adjacent section of Pool Barton, is registered in the name of the Management Company. We would also assure you that we have no intention, as has been suggested, of agreeing to any form of access being made through this wall into Old Vicarage Green.

We were somewhat surprised to note the very informal nature of the covering letter from the Agent acting on behalf of the Applicant, which would appear to place the Case Officer in a rather compromising situation. However, we were assured on good authority that there has in fact been no prior acceptance of these proposals as the Agent's letter implies.

KEYNSHAM AND SALTFORD LOCAL HISTORY SOCIETY: I understand, once again, a planning application has been made affecting Pool Barton in Keynsham. Would it be possible to have a plan of the area concerned as three town houses and nine apartments must cover a fairly large area.

I am sure you are aware that it falls within the area once covered by Keynsham Abbey and its surrounding land, and that there might be archaeological finds of some significance if it were to be developed.

HIGHWAYS AGENCY: No comment.

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT TEAM (original plans): The application seeks to utilise a former builders yard in Keynsham. The yard is accessed from an adopted highway [Pool Barton Road] which is sub-standard in width [generally between 3 to 5 metres], with no footway provision. The road is bounded on one side by the Keynsham by-pass and by a high wall on the other. In terms of vehicle movements the road serves as an access only to the yard and is used as an occasional on-street car park for commuters and the local public house. There is a turning head located outside the site entrance. A public footpath passes along the edge of the site adjacent to the by-pass providing walkers access to the paths and fields beyond. Unfortunately one of the narrowest parts of the road is immediately at its junction where there is not room for two vehicles to pass. Visibility at 2.4 metres complies with requirements due to the fairly wide footpaths in the location. [2.4 is considered appropriate for this number of dwellings and has been used elsewhere in the Council's area].

The application is supported by a traffic assessment which provides data from TRICS on the potential vehicle movements associated with use under its B2 class use and seeks to compare traffic generation from the proposal. Comment has been received from the former owner of the site stating that the level of traffic quoted had never reached the levels stated. This may well be the case, however the data from TRICS provides a realistic and generally accepted system for traffic generation figures of what could result in a reopening of the premises under the B2 umbrella. It is assumed that the previous use remains as a fall-back position.

Using the TRICS database for comparison purposes it is likely that the residential development as proposed would generate approximately half the number of vehicle movements as opposed to potential commercial use under it's existing consented use. It is considered however that this level of traffic generation is only possible due to the level of parking proposed on site, ie 1:1. Whilst being in the spirit of the aims and objectives of current Guidance and policy in reducing car journeys and reliance on the car, it I would result in indiscriminate parking on the highway, with the obvious place being the sub standard Pool Barton Road. It is acknowledged that the proposal will result in the reduction in heavy goods vehicles other than those associated with service arrangements for dwellings which can only be for the benefit of road users.

Whilst providing potential traffic reduction from the site it is likely that other problems will result; ie increased pressure on on-street parking, conflict between vehicles/pedestrians along Pool Barton Road and potential conflict at the junction of Pool Barton with Station Road. To make the scheme acceptable it is considered that the following off-site works are required:

1. Pedestrian facilities along Pool Barton to protect new residents and those walking to the public footpath to a scheme agreed with the Highway Authority.

2. Adequate traffic measures at the junction of Pool Barton/Station Road to ensure pedestrian and vehicle safety to a scheme agreed with the Highway Authority.

3. Surfacing of the public footpath along the site.

Subject to the above there is no highway objection.

Should it be considered that there is no fall-back position then there will be a highway objection relating to the increase in traffic, the sub-standard nature of Pool Barton and the pedestrian/vehicle conflicts likely to result.

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT TEAM (Revised Plans received 14/08/03) Revised plans have been made available in respect of the proposed passing bays and pedestrian safety along Pool Barton Road. As they stand they are not acceptable however it is considered that an acceptable arrangement can be achieved. It is noted that improvements to the lighting along the road will be made which is welcomed in terms of highway safety.

There remains no highway objection at this stage as, although plans are not acceptable as they are, it is considered that agreement can be reached.

(Revised Plans Received 06/01/04)

(Additional Comments 26/02/04) -Further to comments made previously in respect of this application. Provided the position relating to the 'fall back' remains unchanged I reiterate that it is considered that there can be no sustainable highway objection.

Discussions in the intervening period have in relation to the highways been related to pedestrian safety along Pool Barton and on lighting. The arrangement proposed in respect of pedestrian movements are accepted. In regard to the proposed lighting scheme and our lighting engineer do not consider that some of the lighting is required in respect of the passing areas and this will be resolved at technical approval stage of the S106 Agreement.

In summary, there remains no highway objection subject to a Section 106 Agreement relating to the off site highway works to Pool Barton and the footpath to the side of the site and the following conditions: -

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

Reason: In the interests of amenity and road safety.

2. The proposed development shall be served by a new access constructed as shown on submitted plans

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

3. Before the access hereby approved is first brought into use the turning space shown on the submitted plan shall be properly consolidated and surfaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Such turning space shall be kept free of obstruction at all times.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

POLICE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT UNIT (Original proposal): Further to the recent meeting between yourself and Mrs Wendy Linham of my Traffic Management Unit, I wish to put forward the following observations pertaining to the proposed development of land off Pool Barton, Keynsham.

I am aware that PC Cannon based at the Crime Reduction Unit at Bath Police Station has responded to the Developer regarding the proposals from a Crime Reduction and Community Safety perspective. PC Cannon forwarded the plans to Mrs Linham but unfortunately, these did not include any drawings showing the interface between the proposed development and the existing road network and therefore no response was made on this issue to the Developer although I am aware that Mrs Linham has been in ongoing discussion with Bath & North East Somerset Council, Highway Development regarding this proposal.

PC Cannon's response is described as a "supporting statement" in the Design Statement issued by the developer. PC Cannons' letter clearly states that his comments are confined to Crime Reduction and Community Safety issues and centres around the proposed development itself, reflecting his expertise in this field. It is not however, a letter from the Constabulary supporting the development.

I am aware that the Keynsham Civic Society has interpreted this document as broad police support as they have contacted PC Thorne, the Beat Manager for Keynsham, and made him aware of their views on this matter.

Mrs Linham has raised several road safety concerns in relation with the proposed development with Bath & North East Somerset Council Highway Development and I understand, reiterated these concerns at the recent meeting with you.

These concerns relate to the junction of Pool Barton with Station Road as

follows:

1) Traffic wishing to exit or enter Pool Barton encounters a pinchpoint

/narrowing of the carriageway before reaching the junction which has only sufficient road width for one vehicle to pass at any one time. Thus if a vehicle is exiting from Pool Barton at the same time as access is required into Pool Barton from Station Road, then there is a risk of the vehicle wishing to access Pool Barton being stranded with the rear of the vehicle in Station Road. It may be that the vehicle then manoeuvres in reverse from the junction into traffic on Station Road to enable the junction to clear. This has obvious safety disbenefits.

2) The Pioneer Public House is situated on the corner of Pool Barton

and Station Road and has a car park/hard standing which is accessed off Pool Barton close to its junction with Station Road. At an angle to the car park/hard standing is the adopted highway and footpath. A vehicle, such as a saloon car or other vehicle where the driver sight line was at a similar height, wishing to turn right into Station Road from Pool Barton could have their sight line compromised by vehicles in the car park or by groups of pedestrians on the footpath. This location is regularly used as a coach pickup point and pedestrians gather at this location.

3) The proposals show existing recessed passing places along the length of Pool Barton. I understand that there is some dispute regarding the ownership of land adjacent to the wall which runs the length of Pool Barton and which contains these recessed passing places. Should access to these passing places be in dispute, vehicles have insufficient width to pass within Pool Barton. At present, Pool Barton is extremely lightly used by vehicles but this could change and any ownership dispute could have an adverse effect upon road safety at this location.

4) When this proposal was first raised, PC Harris, the former Beat Manager for the area, spoke with the previous owner of the site who stated that when it was the storage area for his shop there was at maximum six cars a day attending the property. When he sold his shop he kept the yard as a timber merchants and again about six cars a day with an occasional lorry up to two per week. This is not reflected in the "previous usage" contained

in the developers submission as they appear to have used a table of figures to approximate the usage at that time. It is my understanding that an enquiry by the previous owner to the local authority in relation to potential development of the site was met with concerns regarding the road safety issues associated with the site and that the enquiry was not progressed.

5) With regard to vehicles turning from Station Road into Pool Barton, I have some concern that vehicles waiting in Station Road to turn into Pool Barton will be vulnerable to impact (rear end shunt type collision). In addition, such vehicles could mask the presence of pedestrians on the adjacent pedestrian crossing in Station Road.

I would welcome your observations on the potential road safety disbenefits raised in connection with this proposal."

POLICE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT UNIT: Observations on the latest revised plans are awaited.

COUNCIL'S LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT (First Revised Plans): My principal concerns on the earlier proposals were

- Safety / security in relation to use of Pool Barton

- The substantial mass of the building in relation to the site and its setting

- Lack of consideration and space for appropriate landscape provision

In addition to these my principal concern on the revised proposals presented at the meeting with the architects was

- Inappropriate extent of glazing facing the open landscape.

I will comment on each below.

Safety / security in relation to use of Pool Barton

The main concerns seem to have been addressed in the information submitted. I did however note that the response from the police referred to the need to cut back vegetation beside the wall along the OVG development. I am not clear whether this length of 'verge' is within the ownership of the developer and therefore whether this is in the control of the developer.

Building Mass - The revised layout is a significant improvement on the previous proposals as a result of the more broken outline of the development and its better relationship with the Old Vicarage Green (OVG) development. The development will generally be seen in the context of the OVG development.

The 3 storey easternmost part at the higher part of the site however would form a more prominent visual feature which because of its undulating sloping form would not fit well with the flat roof character of the rest of the scheme. The additional height would intrude into the important 'treed' backdrop seen from the open landscape and would compete with views of the church tower from certain locations. I consider having discussed this through with Steve Smith that the easternmost block should be at the 2 storey height to equate to the rest of the development.

Landscape provision - While there are trees in the vicinity of the site there appear to be only two trees actually on the site. These are two closely spaced sycamore immediately to the west of the access. It appears that one of these will be retained. A method statement for protecting and mitigating impact on this tree during construction will be required at the detail stage.

Three additional trees are proposed. The westernmost tree has potential to conflict with the normal use of the garden space and care will therefore be needed in the selection of the species to minimise potential conflict for example birch which has small leaves and casts a light shade cover may be a suitable choice. The other two trees indicated have potential to be large tree species provided they are within defined public areas. The central tree however needs to be moved further to the west to minimise impact on the central block this will require revisions to the viewpoint proposals.

Glazing along northern facades - There is a substantial area of glazing to the proposed elevations facing the open countryside. The existing developed edge is fairly free of light spillage, generally consisting only of domestic windows and occasional street lights. The glazing proposals to the stairwells and to the front of apartments 9-12 is not acceptable because of the considerable impact of lighting which would intrude into wider views to the north of Keynsham. I understand the applicants have submitted a sample of film which is presumably intended to reduce the spillage of artificial light. I have not seen it but I question whether even if it was effective whether this is a sustainable solution for the long term. I am concerned as to whether the film would satisfactorily retain its properties and whether it would last without deteriorating or separating from the glazing. I recognise that these areas need to have a light (in the sense of weight) appearance but I question whether the submitted proposals are an acceptable solution.

Other issues relating to planting details and hard materials can be dealt with at the detail design stage.

Observations on the most recent revised plans awaited.

COUNCIL'S URBAN DESIGNER (First revised plan): The completely redesigned scheme is a significant improvement on the original scheme. The scheme should now make a positive statement without dominating the green belt or detracting from views to the tower of St John the Baptist Church. The scale, massing and articulation of the three separate blocks works generally well, providing some space for new trees to mature and allowing views to the mature trees behind. The integration of planting into the buildings is a positive feature. The scale works well with the land form, stepping up from the openness of the green belt to the scale of the Old Orchard Green housing development.

I do however still have a number of significant concerns:

There is an unacceptable relationship between parked cars and entrances to the stairs:

- The stairs to flats 9-12 are accessed between parked cars. Although the car park spaces are over wide (usually width is 2.4m), this only leaves a very narrow 0.6m strip to provide access. Not only is this inconvenient and could result in cars being scratched it makes the stairs difficult to find for visitors.

- Is it is impossible to access the bin and bike stores in the western block when cars are parked in front.

- The stairs to flats 7 and 8 are impossible to access if a car is parked in space 7.

- The stairs to flats 4-6 are impossible to access if cars are parked in spaces 6 and 5.

- Cars parked in spaces 1 and 4 will obstruct access to the stairs for flats 2-4.

All stairs should have clear and convenient access of at least 1m, preferably 1.5m.

I am concerned about the third floor element of the eastern block on the highest part of the site:

- The side (north west) elevation of this three storey element will be unduly prominent when viewed from the A4. The proposed view of the site from Keynsham Bypass (1792/11(A)) shows how the three storey element would almost exceed the tree line and compete visually with the church tower.

- It could have an unacceptable visual impact when viewed from Old Orchard Green.

- The use of a sweeping roof introduces a form is not characteristic of the area or the rest of the site.

I would prefer to see the third storey element omitted for the visual reasons outlined above. This would involve the loss of one unit, but could provide greater freedom to tweak the layout to address the pedestrian circulation issues identified.

Unit 1 only has 2 small windows facing onto a 3m wall and into a very tight courtyard. This unit would be very dark and feel oppressive. It should be replanned to have an aspect onto the communal space, possibly with a private terrace area as per units 5 and 7.

I share Andrew Sharland's concern about sun glare during the day and potential light spill at night from the glazed stair towers:

- The glazed link between the eastern block and the central block does not serve any useful purpose, yet could significantly contribute to glare and light spill in future. It also solidifies the built form, blocks the main visual axis through the site and reduces visibility of the mature trees behind the site. Therefore the glazed link should be omitted.

- I do not see why all the stair towers could not be clad in a suitably recessive material such as wood.

I previously flagged up potential personal safety issues for people using Pool Barton Lane. But if PC Cannon, the Crime Reduction and Architectural Liaison Officer (who has more experience in these matters than me) does no think this area will be a problem, subject to lighting and cutting back bushes, then I will defer to him.

The coloured surface dressing to demark the pedestrian area on Pool Barton Lane must be of a suitable colour to provide a visual contrast without being discordant.

Observations on the most recent revised plans awaited.

COUNCIL'S ARCHEOLOGICAL OFFICER: No Objection

WESSEX WATER: No objection in principle.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: No objection in principle subject to the developer addressing potential contamination issues.

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY OFFICER (Revised Plans):

1. We are currently dealing with the recording of a public footpath running from Pool Barton, alongside the A4 Bypass.

2. We note from the plans associated with this planning application that public footpath has been recognised along the eastern boundary to the site, and that certain provisions have been made to cater for this fact.

3. As part of the planning conditions, we would expect the footpath to be improved by the developers of the site.

OLD VICARAGE GREEN RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION:

1. The proposed development will increase traffic hold-ups on the Bristol Road, High Street and Station Road. Since the new High Street layout which, although user friendly to pedestrians, is not all user friendly to vehicles, there has been severe congestion outside Old Vicarage Green. Often, there are long queues of vehicles in Station Road, back as far as the railway station. In the other direction any vehicle stopped in Station Road causes tailbacks down into the Bristol Road. Any extra traffic in or our of Pool Barton will only add to the congestion.

2. The above development for 12 flats makes no allowance for visitors' vehicles or service parking. At present Old Vicarage Green is the only 'free car park' left in Keynsham. Some residents of Station Road already park 3 vehicles per household on the Green, and we also accommodate residents of the Bristol Road and vehicles belonging to local traders and hairdressers on a daily basis. It is quite obvious to us that Old Vicarage Green will be expected to be an additional car park for the new development. I cant imagine that anyone living in Pool Barton is going to put their car safely away before using the facilities of Keynsham High Street - they will most likely want to leave it on our Green.

FLAMANCO (FLATS MANAGEMENT) COMPANY LIMITED: This company is the landlord of the 12 flats at 18-29 Old Vicarage Green (the Green). As you may know, the Green is a development of flats and houses lying adjacent to the site of the subject proposal. That proposal impacts directly on the residents of our flats and we object to the proposal for the following reasons.

The proposal constitutes an over-development of the existing site on a number of grounds already mentioned by others. We are particularly concerned with the insufficiency of parking at the site which will inevitably increase the demand for parking in the surrounding area which comprises Keynsham Park, the Parish Church, Station Road, High Street and Bristol Road.

Existing Parking Facilities: At present the access road (Pool Barton) to the site is used for parking by the public, mainly by the patrons of a nearby public house (The Pioneer). If the proposal were allowed, such parking would inevitably have to be prohibited because of the single-track nature of the road. This would further increase the parking demand in the surrounding area.

A public (pay and display) car park is available some distance away from site at the road known as The Park. This is barely sufficient for the existing demand in the area mentioned and motorists are constantly coming into the Green looking for parking in the few public road lay-bys within the perimeter of the Green.

Our Parking Situation: Our flats do not have any parking space at all within the area defined by our property and we experience obstructions to our garages and walk ways almost every day. The only parking available to us is in the lay-bys mentioned and we have to share these not only with the residents of the houses of the Green but also with the general public who come into the Green looking for parking.

Thus, if the proposal were allowed, the insufficiency of parking at the site of the proposal and the prohibition of parking at Pool Barton would further increase the already heavy pressure on parking space, and would fall particularly on the lay-bys within the Green which, as mentioned, are our only parking facility.

Therefore we submit that the proposal would unreasonably disadvantage the residents of our flats, and we hereby register our objection to the proposal in its present form.

LOCAL RESIDENTS: 32 letters of objection (some residents have written more than once) on the grounds similar to those of Keynsham Civic Society and the Old Vicarage Green Management Company.

PLANNING ISSUES

PLANNING POLICY: The application site lies within the housing development boundary of Keynsham defined in the Wansdyke Local Plan and in the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft(the latter policies in brackets) where housing policies HO.4 (HG.4) would apply. These require that housing developments should not adversely affect the character of the settlement and vehicular access to the site must be adequate. Developments also have to be compatible with general design policies GEN.1, GEN.2 and HO.12 (D.1, D.2, D.4, D.5, HG.7 and HG.7A) transport policy TP.1 (T.24). Policies seeking to protect the Green Belt where it could be affected by developments outside it are WGB.1 (GB.2).

The principle of residential development on this site can be accepted as the site has good physical affinity with the remainder of Keynsham's built-up area. The critical consideration would be the scale of such development and its impact on the surrounding area.

VISUAL IMPACT: The proposed scheme, albeit in outline indicates that the revised blocks of flats would in total be some 7.5 metres high (originally 11.7 metres high but with the basement largely to be buried the net height was to be around 9.5 metres). The present buildings on site are single-storey and would not exceed the height of 5 metres. In addition their gentle lean-to roofs follow the rising contours of the land from the field below.

The proposed height of all three blocks of flats would be well below the roof levels of Old Vicarage Green. However owing to the land falling away to the north (towards Keynsham bypass) they would be more visible in views from this direction. The scheme as amended would no longer create harsh and abrupt edge to the interface between the built-up area and the open countryside, as the original scheme would have done. The Old Vicarage Green site (its town houses are also 3-storeys high) have a noticeable impact but it is substantially off-set by the presence of this application site and by open space in front of the development allowing for landscaping/retention of trees (several mature specimens) which considerably screen and soften that development.

The revised development is on the very edge of the settlement with virtually no room for strategic planting/landscaping within the site (owing to lack of space) or outside the site (not under applicants' control). The impact of the revised scheme would be much more acceptable with the site 'stepping up' to the Old Vicarage Green site in a natural way. The latest revised details would also help reduce the impact of glazed areas and the solid/void relationship in the outer walls (bearing in mind the necessity of 'designing out' the noise from the bypass) is more acceptable now. Some further minor revisions would be necessary but overall the scheme would visually work much better than the original one. The proposal would thus no longer have an adverse impact on the amenity of the Green Belt beyond.

VEHICULAR ACCESS: The site can only be accessed through Pool Barton Lane which in parts is only of a single-track width. It has a difficult junction with (the busy) Station Road (A4175) and is also used for on-street parking close to this junction. In addition Pool Barton is also on the route of a popular public footpath to Keynsham Hams and Somerdale Meadows. The lane is separated from Old Vicarage Green by a 2.5 metre high stone wall with no openings and the other side is fenced against the cutting of Keynsham Bypass. The overall length of the lane is 155 metres (over 500 feet) and there is at present no provision for pedestrians.

The applicants propose to delineate a 1.5 metre wide pedestrian route alongside the 3-metre wide vehicular carriageway with three passing bays and suitable signage. They also wish to provide street-lighting in the lane. This would significantly improve upon the existing situation and would satisfy the highway safety aspects of the proposal (as recommended by the Highway Development Team). It would also satisfactorily address the issue of personal safety of the users of this route and is broadly supported by the Crime Reduction Officer.

Clearly if an alternative means of pedestrian access to the site via a much safer route through Old Vicarage Green could be achieved the proposed highway improvements would be more than adequate. The representations provided by the Police's Traffic Management Team are noted but they appear to have been based on incomplete information. The applicants' highway agents have been in further consultations with the Traffic Management Unit with a view to demonstrating that the proposed improvement were deemed acceptable to the Highway Engineers. Further clarification of this situation has been requested and would be conveyed to Members at the meeting.

NOISE ATTENUATION: The proximity of the site to the Keynsham Bypass and the main railway line would mean that adequate noise attenuating measures would have to be undertaken to secure a satisfactory living environment for future occupiers. The applicants have employed noise consultants who believe that through a combination of good design, suitable glazing and an acoustic barrier between the entrance to the site and the apartment block the noise levels within the site could be kept to an acceptable degree. The revised scheme does not propose an acoustic barrier and further information over this aspect has been sought.

RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: The proposed residential density of 79 to the hectare (33 to the acre) would be very high and well in excess of the recommended levels in PPG.3 - Housing (30-50). However, high densities alone should not dictate the suitability of a development proposal itself as regard must be had to the proposed size of the units (all 2-bedroomed, between 70 and 75 sq metres gross floor space [750-800 sq. feet], each with one parking space). The scheme as amended is therefore acceptable on this site on the edge of the built up area with undeveloped open land beyond.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY: The reduced height of the scheme would bring a significant reduction in the impact of the scheme on the nearby residents in Old Vicarage Green. The two 'handed' blocks would be over 27 metres from the frontage of the western flank of the main terrace of town houses at Old Vicarage Green and at a substantially lower height. The top of the proposed blocks would be at, or marginally above the first floor level of the town houses (ground floor is used as garaging) still allowing views over and around the proposed buildings and uninterrupted views from second floor. There would not be any serious overlooking caused by the new development. The effective height of the proposed blocks could be further reduced if parapet walls were deleted and replaced with see-through railings.

The westernmost block is very near to the western terrace of Old Vicarage Green, in particular the end property (No. 39), which has a modest garden and limited outlook to rear. The revised scheme has reduced the height of the block by over 2 metres (by dropping levels) but the resulting height would still be above that of the existing site boundary wall. A further reduction of this height and clarification of the proposed levels have been requested. Also, as with the other two blocks the parapet walls might be removed/replaced.

Overall it is not considered that the proposed development as amended would be seriously detrimental to the residents of Old Vicarage Green.

CONCLUSION

The revised scheme has substantially overcome your officers' previous concerns and objections. The proposal was reduced from 12 units to 11 units to be housed within smaller blocks of flats. There would be significant improvements to the access road to the site especially in terms of security for future occupiers. Minor issues of detail still need to be resolved but overall the scheme can be recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

Authorise the Head of Planning Services to PERMIT subject to the receipt of outstanding consultations on revised plans and resolution of the issues of detail, and with the following conditions:-

1 The development hereby approved shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the latest.

Reason: As required by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permission.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

3 Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: This is an outline permission and these matters have been reserved for the subsequent approval of the Local Planning Authority and as required by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

4 Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in Condition 01 above shall include details of:

(a) the surface treatment of any roadways and other parts of the site which willnot be covered by buildings.

(b) all external materials to be used in the development.

(c) existing and proposed ground and floor levels (also in relation to Old Vicarage Green)

(d) external lighting within the site

Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby residential properties.

5 All hard and/or soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of the development being completed, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the landscape scheme is implemented and maintained.

6 The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or the use commenced until the means of vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, and shall thereafter be retained for access purposes.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

7 No development shall take place within the application site until a programme of archaeological work has been undertaken in accordance with a detailed written scheme of investigation which has previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the completion of the approved programme of work has been confirmed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that archaeological deposits and structures are investigated and recorded to an appropriate professional standard.

8 The dwelling(s) shall not be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plan(s) for the parking and turning of vehicles and such area(s) shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

9 Any other condition(s) as a result of outstanding consultations and negotiations.

FOOTNOTE: This decision relates to revised documents and plans date-stamped 20.2.2004 which supersede previous submissions.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:02

APPLICATION NO. 03/00408/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 7th Apr 2003

WARD Bathavon South

PARISH Freshford

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Greenbelt

APPLICANT: The Secretary (Hilary Hammill) The Freshford Mill Assoc.

PROPOSAL: Creation of rural recreation area, nature sanctuary and workshops as amplified by letters and plans received 10.3.2003 and 5.1.2004

SITE LOCATION: Freshford Mill Freshford Bath BA2 7WH

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

This is one of two proposals at this site to be considered at this meeting. The two schemes are unrelated.

Members will recall that Freshford Mill is a disused former industrial site situated in the Frome Valley south of Sharpstone and south-west of Freshford. The village of Westwood and the hamlet of Iford lie to the south east in West Wiltshire. The site was used until 1993 by Peradins for the manufacture of rubber components for the car industry. Since the firm relocated to their new premises in Trowbridge the site has been essentially empty (but for a token informal use up until 1995). Its use as General Industrial premises within Class B2 of the Use Classes Order however continues to be lawful.

The site comprises a mixture of buildings the oldest dates back to the 17th century (former mill owner's house with late Elizabethan mullioned windows), three major blocks from the late 18th/early 19th centuries, all in natural stone and clay tile or slate, and three more modern buildings from the 1950's, and following fires at the site, relatively recent office block and warehouse (both built in the 1980's). Several of the buildings are linked by covered additions of more recent origin. The site features a mill channel with an internal wheel although a narrower mill leat was blocked many years ago. Approximately one (eastern) half of the site area (1.34 hectares in total) is a surfaced car park which also contains a disused former sewage plant.

It is believed the factory at its peak employed in excess of 160 people although shortly before its closure this number was reduced to around 60. The car park capacity is at present 128 spaces.

The proposal entails the demolition of the modern buildings at the front of the site with the exception of the more recent former office block, effective sealing off of the old core of the mill to create a nature conservation sanctuary, and reclaiming the site of the demolished buildings and the existing hardstanding as a landscaped rural recreation area with picnic tables and internal walkways through the site.

The applicants see their proposal as a viable alternative to the proposed redevelopment of the site referred to in the next item on the agenda. They commissioned a report from a firm of environmental consultants and landscape architects to support their scheme. The report addresses the key issue dealing with the designation of the site (Green Belt, Cotswold AONB), landscape ecology, hydrology (including flooding) and soil pollution. It also proposes a low-key use of the only modern building to remain to provide 220 sq metres of low-key workshop space with associated car parking to the rear.

The old core of the site would be sealed off by means of natural stone walls and with a solid gate providing the sole means of access to the area for periodic inspections and maintenance. There would be no public access to this part of the site. The sanctuary to be created here would benefit primarily several species of bats (protected species) which are known to occupy several buildings, otters and various bird species are also present in this locality and could benefit from this sanctuary.

The applicants have been in close contact with the Environment Agency in respect of the flooding and contamination issues on the site which have been addressed through negotiations. The public area of the site would be substantially landscaped with reinforcement of hedges; provision of wild flower areas, open grass area and mounding (from the materials reclaimed from the demolition) including a raised viewing area. A long-term maintenance management plan is also proposed.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

FRESHFORD PARISH COUNCIL: The Parish Council, on behalf of the residents, fully support this imaginative and exciting proposal. The application costs has been totally funded by parish residents, which illustrates the strong community support.

An public exhibition of the plans was held by the Parish Council on 5 March 2003 and 62 residents attended, the majority of whom commented on the proposals in the book for comments which was provided.

The major comments picked up on the benefits of the proposal included:

- the amenity value of such a site to the community, particularly for children

- the peace and tranquillity of this valley site would be restored and preserved for future generations

- the provision of workshops was viewed favourably as providing a very good amenity for local people

- the removal of the ugly modern workshop and office buildings on the site

- non-disturbance to the bats roosting on site

- preserving the wildlife on the site.

However concern was registered as to the number of car parking spaces provided and it was felt that the parking spaces for visitors should be reduced. Several residents also commented that if the site became very popular, this could lead to parking on the surrounding lanes.

Other concerns raised, which we believe could be made conditions on approval of the application, are:

- the on-going management and maintenance costs of the site should not be borne by the Parish Council

- security issues need to be addressed, both on the site boundaries and in particular for possible night time parking and the attraction the site may have for unauthorised use by travellers

- the treatment or removal of polluted spoil from the site.

WEST WILTSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL: We have no observations to make on this application, provided that any decision is consistent with the relevant development plan policies for the area.

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT TEAM: The application is supported by a report relating to the objectives, sustainability and ecological issues etc. It is considered that the report does not effectively deal with the issues of traffic generation either for the commercial use or for the recreational use of the site. Having said that it is recognised that the scale of operation of the commercial works, i.e. the workshops/offices, whilst increasing the current level of traffic movements in the local area and the local network, will in no way approach those associated with any fall-back situation of previous use. The usual method of assessment of traffic generation is by use of the TRICS database which assesses the impact of existing similar types of operation to provide a prediction of traffic growth. The figure taken for the recent application on this site was 15.88 per 100 square metres of development. On this basis some 70 trips per day would be generated. This represents a level of traffic generation if all the commercial space were to be used as offices and therefore could be the highest figure.

Similarily there are no data figures available from TRICS in respect of the level and type of operation suggested as a picnic or leisure site. It is however considered that the level of visitors in this location would be greater than identified due to the local network of footpaths etc. which, to an extent is recognised in the report where, in para 6.2 reference is made to the 'many visitors'. The level of potential movement associated with the site is considered to be higher than that identified within the application and greater than that currently on the network, but would be considerably less than that considered recently in another application. Reference is also made to the possible import of soil in respect of the creation of the bunds although this is considered to be relatively low and would be of a short duration.

Some questions remain to be fully answered i.e. the full operation of the barrier and the operation of the 'education room', however it is not considered that there could be an objection which could be sustained when set against any fall-back situation related to the previous use of the site. [The determination of the existence of the fall-back is not considered to form part Highway's role].

Should there not prove to be such a fall-back a highway objection is made under policy CH.3 [8] as it is considered that the resulting increase in traffic would constitute a material increase on existing.

WESSEX WATER: The above proposal is not located within a Wessex Water sewered area.

It is advised that your Council should be satisfied with any arrangement for the disposal of foul and surface water flows generated by the development.

Turning to water supply, there is a water main in the vicinity of the proposal. It will be necessary for the developer to agree a point of connection onto the system for the satisfactory supply of water for the proposal. This can be agreed at the detail design stage.

According to our records, there is a public water main crossing the site. Please find enclosed a copy of our sewer records indicating the approximate position of the apparatus. Wessex Water normally requires a minimum, three-metre, easement width on either side of its apparatus, for the purpose of maintenance and repair. Diversion or protection works may need to be agreed.

It is further recommended that a condition or informative is placed on any consent to require the developer to protect the integrity of Wessex systems and agree prior to the commencement of works on site, any arrangements for the protection of infrastructure crossing the site. We advise that this should be agreed as early as possible and certainly before the developer submits to your Council any Building Regulations application.

It is recommended that the developer should agree with Wessex Water prior to the commencement of any works on site.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: From the information that has now been received, the Agency are now in a position to withdraw the objection contained in our letter dated 19 March 2003, subject to the following:-

As previously indicated, the Agency does not have fundamental flood defence objections to the proposals provided any necessary mitigation works are detailed and constructed in line with a detailed Flood Risk Assessment for the site. Details of the features such as minimum ground, floor and threshold levels, access details, construction and flood resistant construction details for finishes and landscaped areas within floodable areas etc, should be confirmed by the applicant, and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Therefore, the Agency requests that any grant of permission includes the following formal conditions:-

CONDITION: No development approved by this permission shall be commended until details of all existing and proposed finished floor, threshold and ground levels have ben submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans.

REASON:

To ensure that the development is subject to minimum risk of flooding.

CONDITION: No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a detailed scheme for the provision of flood protection works to any part of the development below the design flood levels throughout the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be completed in accordance with the details and timetable agreed.

REASON:

To limit the risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of flood protection.

CONDITION: No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of compensatory flood storage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved programme and details.

REASON:

To alleviate the increased risk of flooding.

CONDITION: No development approved by this permission shall be commended until details of all proposed construction methods and finishes to exterior and internal areas including walls and floors etc below design flood levels, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans.

REASON:

To ensure that the development construction and structure is flood resistant and is subject to minimum risk of damage from flooding.

CONDITION: No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until details of all access and egress routes, designed to provide sufficient and safe access above design flood level to all operational buildings within the development, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The access to any building shall be completed before occupation of any part of that building, and shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

REASON:

To ensure that a safe continuous dry access free of flood risk is provided to all operational areas of the development.

The Agency should be consulted on any details submitted pursuant to the above conditions.

I can confirm that the conditions, informatives and comments contained within pages 2 and 3 of our letter dated 19 March 2003 remain applicable.

In order for the Agency to monitor its effectiveness in influencing the determination of planning applications, a copy of the decision notice for this application would be appreciated.

AVON AND TRIBUTARIES ANGLING ASSOCIATION: Support.

LOCAL RESIDENTS: 20 letters of full support for the scheme.

PLANNING ISSUES

PLANNING POLICY: The site lies within the Green Belt and Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and policies WGB.1 and LNC.2 of the Wansdyke Local Plan (WLP) and GB.1 and NE.2 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft (RDD) apply. Demolitions of non-listed buildings outside Conservation Areas are not normally subject to Planning controls and would not thus be subject to planning policies. However the site is archaeologically important and policies CH.11 and BH.12 apply. The proposal entails a conversion of existing building and policies CH.3 and EMP.13 of WLP and ET.9 of RDD would apply. Policies LNC.10A, 10B and 11 of the WLP and NE.7, NE.10, NE.12 of RDD seek to protect ecological interests. Recreational development are subject are subject to policies REC.2 and SR.5 respectively. The site has a lawful employment use and policies EMP.1 and ET.1D respectively seek to safeguard employment led. Due to known flood risks on the site policies PH.7 and NE.14 respectively address these issues and policies PH.2 and ES.15 address contamination issues.

GREEN BELT AND COTSWOLD AREA OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY: The proposal deals essentially with the provision of open recreation areas and creation of a natural habitat for protected species. It would bring physical and visual enhancement of the site through removal of modern buildings and provision of substantial landscaping. It would also provide for informal recreational access to the area. In this respect the proposal fully accords with the objectives of the policies protecting these designated areas and enabling their recreational use.

The proposed conversion of the former office block to workshops would fall within the ambit of policies EMP.13 and ET.9 referred to above and not conflict with these designations either.

NATURE CONSERVATION: The site has a colony of lesser horseshoe bats, with other bat species also recorded locally. Bats are nationally protected and the proposal seeks to maintain their existing habitat in the retained buildings. It is in accordance with the relevant nature conservation policies referred to above and would be supported. The applicants have produced an informal management plan for the whole site which could form the basis of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Act.

RECREATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS: It is envisaged the site would be accessible at all times with controls over the height of vehicles capable of accessing the small car park (with exception of the proposed business uses who would have special exemptions). The recreational area would be largely level to ensure access for the disabled. The site would have low-key security lights where necessary to allow supervision but without external light pollution. These issues would also be addressed in the management plan.

FLOOD RISKS AND POLLUTION: The applicants have been in regular contact with the Environment Agency and following intensive negotiations the Agency now accepts the proposal in principle subject to safeguards which could be conditioned. Although the scheme would not entail larger scale disturbance of the site which is known to be polluted from its previous industrial uses, some remediation measures would be necessary and could again be included in the proposed management plan.

LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT SITE: Policies EMP.1 and ET.1D respectively seek to protect existing (or vacant) employment sites. However, in the recently undertaken Land Use Study (2003) this site did not feature amongst the sites fundamental to the continued provision of employment floorspace in the district. Indeed the site has now been vacant for some 10 years and whilst its loss to employment would be regrettable in an area with few employment opportunities it would not jeopardise the Council's employment base. In addition such loss is allowed by the above policies where a significant environmental gain would accrue from an alternative development such as this proposal.

CONCLUSION

This proposal is for an alternative development of the Freshford Mill site with a low-key recreational use benefiting local ecological interests. A substantial part of the site would be lost to former employment uses but the resulting environmental and recreational benefits would outweigh this loss and would enhance recreational provision in this part of the district and the Green Belt. Subject to securing the necessary environmental safeguards outlined above through a management plan to be included in a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Act this proposal can be wholeheartedly supported.

RECOMMENDATION

A. Authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure the items referred to above:

B. On completion of that Agreement authorise the Head of Planning Services to PERMIT subject to the following conditions:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2 No development shall be commenced until a hard and soft landscape scheme has been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme shall include details of all walls, fences, trees, hedgerows and other planting which are to be retained; details of new walls, fences and other boundary treatment and finished ground levels; a planting specification to include numbers, density, size, species and positions of all new trees and shrubs; details of the surface treatment of the open parts of the site; and a programme of implementation.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

3 All hard and/or soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of the development being completed, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the landscape scheme is implemented and maintained.

4 There shall be no external illumination of the site other than in accordance with a scheme to be first submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of this rural location.

5 No development shall take place within the application site until a programme of archaeological work has been undertaken in accordance with a detailed written scheme of investigation which has previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the completion of the approved programme of work has been confirmed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that archaeological deposits and structures are investigated and recorded to an appropriate professional standard.

6 No development approved by this permission shall be commended until details of all existing and proposed finished floor, threshold and ground levels have ben submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To ensure that the development is subject to minimum risk of flooding.

7 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a detailed scheme for the provision of flood protection works to any part of the development below the design flood levels throughout the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be completed in accordance with the details and timetable agreed.

Reason: To limit the risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of flood protection.

8 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of compensatory flood storage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved programme and details.

Reason: To alleviate the increased risk of flooding.

9 No development approved by this permission shall be commended until details of all proposed construction methods and finishes to exterior and internal areas including walls and floors etc below design flood levels, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To ensure that the development construction and structure is flood resistant and is subject to minimum risk of damage from flooding.

10 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until details of all access and egress routes, designed to provide sufficient and safe access above design flood level to all operational buildings within the development, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The access to any building shall be completed before occupation of any part of that building, and shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To ensure that a safe continuous dry access free of flood risk is provided to all operational areas of the development.

FOOTNOTE:

This permission relates to the documentation and plans date stamped 10.3.2003 and 5.1.2004.

_____________________________________________________________________

Item No. 03

APPLICATION NO.: 03/02427/FUL TYPE: Full Application WARD: Bathavon South

EXPIRY DATE: 14th Nov 2003

PARISH: Freshford

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Greenbelt

APPLICANT: Surrey & Counties (Sutton) Ltd

PROPOSAL: Change of use comprising a mix made up of 21 residential units, 5 live/work units, 3 staff units & employment use, provision of improved access with associated landscaping, parking and demolition (Resubmission)

SITE LOCATION: Freshford Mill Freshford Bath BA2 7WH

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

Members will recall that a similar application for redevelopment of this site was considered by them last year and was refused for the following reason (02/01575/FUL):

The existing road network serving the site is substandard by virtue of inadequate widths, alignments and junctions, and is therefore unsuitable to accommodate the traffic likely to be generated by this proposal, in conflict with the provisions of policies CH.3(8) and TP.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan.

An appeal against the refusal is pending.

This application was submitted following further considerations by the applicants in an endeavour to overcome the previous reasons for refusal. The differences between the two schemes are described below.

SITE HISTORY : Members are reminded that Freshford Mill is a disused former industrial site situated in the Frome Valley south of Sharpstone and south-west of Freshford. The village of Westwood and the hamlet of Iford lie to the south east in West Wiltshire. The site was used until 1993 by Peradins for the manufacture of rubber components for the car industry. Since the firm relocated to their new premises in Trowbridge the site has been essentially empty (but for a token informal use up until 1995). Its use as General Industrial premises within Class B2 of the Use Classes Order however continues to be lawful (with the exception of a modern warehouse built in the 1980's whose authorised use is for storage purposes in association with the industrial use). At present there are some unauthorised travellers residing within the grounds.

The site comprises a mixture of buildings the oldest dating back to the 17th century (former mill owner's house with late Elizabethan mullioned windows), three major blocks from the late 18th/early 19th centuries, all in natural stone and clay tile or slate, and three more modern buildings from the 1950's, and following fires at the site, relatively recent office block and warehouse (both built in the 1980's). Several of the buildings are linked by covered additions of more recent origin. The site features a mill channel with an internal wheel although a narrower mill leat was blocked many years ago. Approximately one (eastern) half of the site area (1.34 hectares in total) is a surfaced car park which also contains a disused former sewage plant.

It is believed the factory at its peak employed in excess of 160 people although shortly before its closure this number was reduced to around 60. The car park capacity is at present 128 spaces.

THE NEW PROPOSAL: The proposal seeks a complete redevelopment of the site for a mixed housing/light industrial/office use (B1 Class) through conversion and partial extensions of the existing buildings. The later linked additions would be removed to allow, where appropriate, for the creation of courtyards. In addition the modern warehouse at the site frontage would also be removed. The original 7500 sq.metres of existing floorspace would be reduced to some 5100 sq.metres of which approximately 35% would be used for commercial purposes and 65% for residential use and associated parking.

The revised proposal entails conversion, extensions and alterations to create 21 residential units (13 flats, 6 maisonettes and 2 houses) in the more historic buildings, 5 live/work units (workshops/office space downstairs, flats upstairs) would be provided in the former office block at the entrance to the site. The modern factory buildings would provide B1 office/workshops (although some would have residential accommodation above and include 3 staff flats).

Compared with the previous scheme the current proposal seeks the removal of the warehouse building at the front of the site. In compensation for its loss the applicants require the provision of 3 one-bedroomed units for staff within the front factory building. In other respects the majority of the scheme is similar to the previous proposal.

Members are reminded that the only significant element of new-build is the extension of the former main mill building (now 2-storey) attached to the mill owner's house. Historical evidence exists that this building was originally at least three storeys high and it is the applicant's intention to add another full storey with three substantial dormers/lanterns to provide effectively a fourth floor. The mill owner's house would also be extended by addition of another floor (to three storeys).

With the exception of the four-storey block on the edge of the site designed by Thomas Baldwin all the other buildings are essentially of a two-storey height and would be retained as such.

The site has been subjected to flooding from time to time. Owing to a large part of it lying below the 1-in-100 year flood level a radical solution has been proposed by the applicants' hydrological agents to overcome this problem, in consultation with the Environment Agency.

The ground or basement floors of the buildings which are in the flood plain would be blocked in with their walls tanked to provide waterproof seal. These rooms would only be used as residential storerooms accessible from within the buildings. Residential accommodation would thus be restricted to upper floors and the buildings would be linked with a series of gangways mainly at first floor level.

The eastern, higher part of the site would have levels above the floodplain and suitably sealed off. It would allow for parking in the open although the largest building on site would have internal parking on a raised platform. In order to compensate for the loss of floodplain within a large part of the site a flood compensation area incorporating a pond would be proposed in the area of the present car park/old sewage plant. This would necessitate the relocation of the access further south, outside the floodplain.

The flood compensation area would form the basis of an informal parkland with access and suitable trees and shrubs. The existing hedgerows around the site would be retained and reinforced, and formal hedges would be created on the perimeter of the site where none exist at present (mainly hornbeam); linear beds of mass-planted shrubs relating to buildings would also be included. Single specimen trees would be introduced into various parts of the site to provide strong visual focus.

The surfaces within the site would comprise bound natural gravel, stone setts and natural stone paving. These are intended to complement the existing mill buildings' finishes, which are invariably in natural stone but some render or cedar cladding would also feature. These materials would reduce the surface run-off from the site.

Owing to the past uses of the site there is contamination of the site both in the buildings and in the ground by industrial pollutants. The applicants' agents undertook a series of investigations within the site between 1997 and 2002. They produced a updated contamination report with conclusions and recommendations to remediate the site. The report concludes that a full remediation of the site is possible in co-operation with the Environment Agency and the Environmental Health Officers.

The applicants also employed highway engineers to assess the impact of the revised scheme on the local highway network especially in view of the previous refusal, having regard to the narrow roads serving the site some of which are also prone to flooding. The submitted revised transport report again draws comparisons with the former industrial use and concludes that the level of traffic (especially heavy vehicles) would be substantially lower than the previous use, especially now that the warehouse building is to be demolished. The report states that the adjacent road network will be suitable for the proposed traffic levels. It advocates non-car travel and suggests bicycles would be provided to future occupiers as well as information about buses and train routes. The report again concludes the redevelopment of the site would represent an improvement to local road users compared with the industrial use.

Freshford Mill although not listed is an important historic site. The applicants recognised that and employed archaeologists to investigate it. An archaeological report has been prepared and provided useful information about the site with recommendations. The report has been referred to the Council's archaeologist whose comments are reported below. The applicants are prepared to follow the advice and undertake the necessary investigative work.

Since the site has fallen into disuse it has acquired greater ecological importance, notably with the presence of several species of bat and evidence of otter activity. The applicants' agents undertook two recent bat surveys in consultation with English Nature and the Council's ecologist and have produced an updated ecological report. They propose as a result to provide a new bat house as part of the informal parkland/flood compensation area. The bat house would be heated by a new mill wheel to be installed on the re-opened leat next to the four-storey Thomas Baldwin block. Landscaping works would include planting of night flowering and scented plants to provide feeding corridors for bats.

The applicants also propose to construct two otter holts near the river as part of the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures. Again they are prepared to enter into appropriate agreements under Section 106 of the Act to secure long-term ecological management plan for the site.

Members are reminded that there is yet another, earlier, application from the same applicants still with the Council. It is for the redevelopment of the site for 39 dwelling units (Ref: 00/02069/FUL). No action on that application has been taken at the request of the applicants' pending the outcome of this proposal.

The applicants' agents have submitted two further letters responding to and challenging the Parish Council's objections essentially stating their disagreement with the Parish Council's views. In addition the agents have offered to provide more parking on site (if required), bicycle facilities at the local railway station and a travel plan.

They have confirmed that they do not wish to provide affordable housing at the site on account of high costs involved in remediation, flood controls and ecological enhancements of the site. They also consider that they are below the required threshold (25 units) in Circular 06/98 as amplified by PPG 3.

They have recognised that the employment element must be provided simultaneously and that any approval would either be conditioned accordingly or an agreement under Section 106 of the Act would be required.

Members are also advised that in the interim an alternative application for the redevelopment of the site has been submitted by Freshford Mill Association (as reported earlier on the agenda).

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

FRESHFORD PARISH COUNCIL:

FRESHFORD MILL

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT : DECISION TO OPPOSE APPLICATION NO : 03/02427/FUL SURREY AND COUNTIES (SUTTON) LTD.

INDEX

1. Key Points.

2. Planning Policy and General Introduction.

3. Residential Development.

4. Isolated Location.

5. New Building.

6. Sociological and Economic Considerations.

7. Traffic and Access, including Flood Considerations.

8. Substantial Reconstruction of Buildings.

9. Urbanisation of the Countryside.

Appendices.

A. Access Problems and Map.

B. Access Problems Floods Map and

Flood View Photographs.

KEY POINTS : A number of key considerations as expressed in the Development Plan, and as in particular un the Wansdyke Local Plan, need to be weighed against the arguments for acceptance of this application. We maintain that the limitations placed on developments and redevelopments in the Green Belt in respect of the following factors can only, after reasonable and balanced consideration, result in rejection of the application.

Access

Traffic

Isolated Location

New Building

Sociological Repercussions

Substantial alterations to buildings

The Secretary of State's Views on Urbanisation

The reasons why we maintain that approval would breach to an unacceptable degree the Local Plan, and be contrary to the Secretary of State's views on urbanization, are developed in more detail in the following pages.

SECTION 2: Planning Policy and General Introduction

PLANNING POLICY AND GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

1. EVIDENCE BASE.

In formulating this Council's opposition to the application, we have taken into account the relevant PPG's, The County of Avon Joint Structure Plan, the Wansdyke Local Plan, the deposit Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan, Countryside Agency Policy and the Secretary of State's recently expressed views on urbanization effects on the countryside.

This document makes many references to the Wansdyke Local Plan, and these have been

included after cross checking with the other elements of the Development Plan to ensure that the Wansdyke Development Plan relates clearly to those other elements in respect of the argument being presented. Where we consider appropriate , reference is also made to the Revised Deposit Draft Written Statement 2003 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan.

As the Council for the Parish in which the majority of the site is situated, we are familiar with the realities of the site and where we are commenting on the basis of local knowledge or observation we shall indicate this clearly in the text.

2. SERIES OF APPLICATIONS.

This application is essentially a re-submission with amendments of a similar plan contained in a previous application . Prior to these two proposals , an application, which was heavily residential in intent, was "Put on ice" before officer recommendation and pending the second application being processed. The second application was thereafter unanimously rejected , contrary to the planning officer's recommendation, by the B.&N.E.S "B" Planning Committee. This decision was then submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Appeal, and the Appeal then placed in abeyance at the applicants' request.

As part of the evidence for this latest submission, the applicants' agents have introduced this Parish Council's evidence against the second application, but we have taken both applications as discrete and are treating them as such. Due to the similarity of the applications , this document therefore contains many points which are repetitions of comments made in respect of the second application .

3. THE CORE ARGUMENT.

The applicants' core argument is that their scheme represents appropriate development within the Green Belt, and does not therefore require the application of Very Special Circumstances to justify approval. Their position is that it does not represent a re-development which would normally be refused. We aim to prove conclusively that a reasonably weighted and balanced assessment of the pros and cons in the context of the Development Plan should result in refusal to approve, as the core argument is insufficiently supported by Planning Policy to allow for a recommendation to approve.

4. DEMOCRATIC MANDATE.

Freshford Parish Council advised all residents by individual household drop, and by advice on the village notice boards, of a public viewing of the application and its supporting documents in the Freshford Memorial Hall for two evenings. Written and verbal comment was requested from the residents, and the Council received overwhelming request and direction from residents to oppose this scheme.

5. THE EFFECTS OF APPROVAL .

We believe and maintain that beyond the immediate local effects of a decision to approve this application, such a decision would create quotable evidence which could and would be used by developers of other brownfield sites in green belts regionally and nationally. Such a decision would therefore have implications for implementation of

planning policy beyond the boundaries of the Unitary Authority.

PLANNING POLICY AND GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

1. EVIDENCE BASE.

In formulating this Council's opposition to the application, we have taken into account the relevant PPG's, The County of Avon Joint Structure Plan, the Wansdyke Local Plan, the deposit Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan, Countryside Agency Policy and the Secretary of State's recently expressed views on urbanization effects on the countryside.

This document makes many references to the Wansdyke Local Plan, and these have been

included after cross checking with the other elements of the Development Plan to ensure that the Wansdyke Development Plan relates clearly to those other elements in respect of the argument being presented. Where we consider appropriate , reference is also made to the Revised Deposit Draft Written Statement 2003 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan.

As the Council for the Parish in which the majority of the site is situated, we are familiar with the realities of the site and where we are commenting on the basis of local knowledge or observation we shall indicate this clearly in the text.

6. SERIES OF APPLICATIONS.

This application is essentially a re-submission with amendments of a similar plan contained in a previous application . Prior to these two proposals , an application, which was heavily residential in intent, was "Put on ice" before officer recommendation and pending the second application being processed. The second application was thereafter unanimously rejected , contrary to the planning officer's recommendation, by the B.&N.E.S "B" Planning Committee. This decision was then submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Appeal, and the Appeal then placed in abeyance at the applicants' request.

As part of the evidence for this latest submission, the applicants' agents have introduced this Parish Council's evidence against the second application, but we have taken both applications as discrete and are treating them as such. Due to the similarity of the applications , this document therefore contains many points which are repetitions of comments made in respect of the second application .

7. THE CORE ARGUMENT.

The applicants' core argument is that their scheme represents appropriate development within the Green Belt, and does not therefore require the application of Very Special Circumstances to justify approval. Their position is that it does not represent a re-development which would normally be refused. We aim to prove conclusively that a reasonably weighted and balanced assessment of the pros and cons in the context of the Development Plan should result in refusal to approve, as the core argument is insufficiently supported by Planning Policy to allow for a recommendation to approve.

8. DEMOCRATIC MANDATE.

Freshford Parish Council advised all residents by individual household drop, and by advice on the village notice boards, of a public viewing of the application and its supporting documents in the Freshford Memorial Hall for two evenings. Written and verbal comment was requested from the residents, and the Council received overwhelming request and direction from residents to oppose this scheme.

8. THE EFFECTS OF APPROVAL .

We believe and maintain that beyond the immediate local effects of a decision to approve this application, such a decision would create quotable evidence which could and would be used by developers of other brownfield sites in green belts regionally and nationally. Such a decision would therefore have implications for implementation of

planning policy beyond the boundaries of the Unitary Authority.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE SURREY AND COUNTIES (SUTTON) LTD. PLANNING POLICY AND OVERVIEW

We comment on the points made by the applicants in the Overview and quote the sections as used by them for ease of reference.

1.0 The applicants have not countered the elements in The Development Plan which militate against

the proposals made in the application.

1.1 Planning Authority advisors may have had significant influence over the detailed work on the various discrete sections of the application. However, the claim of major environmental and social benefits is not justified , as will be evident from the arguments submitted in this document. We maintain that the scheme is inappropriate and generates its own problems by contravening The Development Plan in highly significant areas. Argument that problems which are generated by the scheme are overcome by the problem solving mitigations presented is no reason for approval. They should be assessed , in our opinion, in relation to the status quo.

1.2 The sole benefit in visual terms of clearing up a site bordering on dereliction is the only one which arises from the proposals. The claim that they "Involve substantial benefits in relation to both the functions of the Green Belt and the objectives of the designations that are laid out in Government policy" in relation to land use, is not supported by the facts as we make clear in terms of the contraventions of Green Belt policy which are inherent in these proposals. In terms of AONB policy , it is evident that the site is so situated that the proposals contravene that policy. These points are expanded upon in this document.

1.3 But only if legally binding conditions are applied which by their very nature will increase substantially the cost , and therefore the socially unacceptable implications of residences on the site. An example of this is the plan to build , to the detriment of the openness of the Green Belt, a bathouse. However, the bats cannot be disturbed , by strict provisions in law, and no development on the site should take place before the bats have voluntarily moved to the new bathouse. The arguments that acceptance of this scheme is the only way to protect the bats is flawed.

1.4 A statement which is challenged in all respects. The replacement of an unconstrained (In planning terms) low grade industrial site with a development which is inappropriate in the Green Belt scarcely places the planning balance on the positive side. As proved in the various sections of this document, the number of breaches predominately in the Green Belt but also other policies is so many that our claim that these proposals represent inappropriate development is proved, and this applicant would need to prove very special circumstances to overcome these constraints.

1.5 The similar scheme was rejected after the B Planning Committee councillors heard a variety of reasons why it should be so treated. The District Councillor for the area which covers Freshford made an eight minute statement which covered many aspects of the contraventions of the Development Plan. Other councillors commented on various aspects including particularly but not exclusively traffic and the question of access which arose from their site visit. The minutes did not reflect the totality of the points raised and discussed . The rejection of the scheme was UNANIMOUS on a motion which reflected concern re traffic and access , and the Local Plan . At a subsequent confirmation meeting reference to the Local Plan was omitted.

We have made in Section 7 a detailed criticism of the Highways Consultant's report on the current application, but would suggest that the comments made by the Highway Development Officer in the "Observations made since the Preparation of the Main Agenda" which was presented at the B Committee meeting on the 13th. March 2003, made it quite clear that "In reality, as is accepted, the car will remain the major mode of travel". This is evident .

He further went on to state, as Highways Development Officer, that "It needs, however, to be recognized that problems in relation to current expectations in terms of sustainability would be equally apparent to any proposal to redevelop the site". This Council contest this "Any proposal" last point as there is now an application in hand with Planning Services, which has the full backing of this Council, which does not present such problems for Highways Development.

The Officer commented on the "Fallback" position to the effect that he considered that this needs determination and without such determination previous levels of traffic should not be encouraged. In Section 7.4 we have made it clear that the logic of applying B2 fallback principles to this site is highly suspect - in fact such a process is illogical and untenable. He also commented that approval should not be given without resolution of the insufficient parking capacity proposals as related to PPG 13.

Therefore the statement that " The Highways Authority did not object to the scheme" may be part of the picture, but it is equally accurate to affirm that they did not approve it. How could they do so when they state that "The car will be the major mode of travel". The whole direction of Government policy guidance is to discourage schemes which increase the use of this form of transport, please see Section 7, 1.5 & 1.6.

1.6 We believe that the members of the Planning Committee did not make their decision

exclusively on the figures provided.

1.7 Re-use of some of the building fabric is not challenged. However, usage proposed and

deteriorated condition indicate substantial reconstruction of most of the buildings.

1.10 The issues outstanding in regard to the new application go well beyond the matter of highway capacity and the key ones we raise in this document relate to breaches of the Development Plan which were not addressed by the Planning Officers in their report to the planning committee on the last application no. 02/01575/FUL.

1.11 The Parish Council made many cogent points against the approval of 02/01575/FUL but are treating the current application as discrete in terms of their comments. We believe that the planning officers will weigh the arguments presented on this scheme likewise in preparing their recommendation , and The Parish Council comments are made with this proper process in mind.

Notwithstanding this approach, we note that a letter dated the 21st. January 2003 and addressed to Mr. Majer of Bath and North East Planning Services from Mr. King of RPS has been included in their submission on Planning Policy and Overview which purports to answer points made on the previous application. Whilst we believe it more correct to confine our comments to the current application 03/02427/FUL there are some points in Mr. King's letter which need response as they are fundamental to the arguments proposed for both schemes.

Mr. King argues that the re-use of buildings in the Green Belt is not inappropriate development as stated by PPG2 . He states that this is the starting point. He then proceeds to argue that the "benefits" of the scheme could be viewed as very special circumstances even if the view , which we hold, that the development is inappropriate were to prevail.

This is a major conceptual leap, as after the words " Re-use of buildings inside a Green Belt is not inappropriate development" PPG2 goes on immediately to state that this is the case PROVIDING a number of sub-clauses are taken into account. From the arguments we propound elsewhere in this document it will be evident that some these apply to this case, and that therefore the scheme proposed is inappropriate development as defined by the PPG.

We feel it rather an heavy presumption that RPS feel that PPG2 3.2 is proven in favour of his clients when the PPG states that it is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted and that very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless harm by reason of inappropriateness , and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. We consider that many of the other considerations proposed by the applicants are harmful, not the contrary.

Apart from the point made below , we do not propose to comment on Mr. King's other points as we feel that the objections stated in this document stand on their own merits.

Mr. King maintains that "Any re-use will result in an increase in traffic as far as local residents are concerned. This is inevitable if the site is not to remain derelict for ever." This is another heavy and ,we maintain, incorrect assumption.

Alternative schemes are possible which would have an insignificant effect on traffic weight and flow compared to the current levels, or create any rational dispute about the provisions of PPG2. Such a scheme is already in the hands of Bath and North East Somerset planners and is in the process of application for permission.

SECTION 3 - Residential Development

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Without prejudice to provisions of PPG2 , The Wansdyke Local Plan WGB.1 , and Policy GB.1 of the Revised Deposit Draft of Local Plan, we would point out that Policy HG6 of the Revised Deposit Local Plan states :

"Residential development in those villages defined as R3 settlements in Policy SC.1 will be permitted if :

(i) it is on previously developed land

(ii) it is infilling ,or represents the sub-division of an existing dwelling or its replacement within the same site, or it involves the conversion of a non-residential building AND

(iii) it lies within the defined housing development boundary. "

Nowhere in the Plan do we find that the effect of this Policy is countered by any other relevant policy , and we conclude that this policy by exception precludes residential development outside the defined housing development boundary. The Freshford Mill site is isolated from Freshford village and the two housing development boundaries in Freshford Parish, and is much further removed from the village and housing development boundary of Hinton Charterhouse.

SECTION 4 - Isolated Location

ISOLATED LOCATION

The Wansdyke Local Plan Inquiry Inspector's report pointed out that the site is not within or adjacent to the existing settlements of Freshford and Sharpstone. Anyone familiar with the site is aware of this fact.

It is outside the Wansdyke Local Plan GB6 Housing Development Boundaries, and conversions to residential can reasonably be regarded as "Housing" where the synergetic effects of human occupation become significant . This is implied in PPG13 3.2 where the introductory paragraph leads on "Choice of means of travel to other facilities" - and thus the whole drive of 3.2 is against the residential element in the proposed application.

The location of the site relates directly to Countryside Agency Policy (1991 AONB Statement : Other Developments p.12). The creation of a residential settlement at Freshford Mill is clearly in breach of this policy as it would create a residential community distinct in location terms from the present settlements by distance along poor quality lanes and roads, by contour and by a spate river.

Residential occupation as proposed would result in car dependence (See Section 7 Traffic and Access B. 1.5 and 1.6) and therefore takes no account of the guidance in PPG13 3.2 which states that "Housing development (And in this instance this would apply to conversion to residential use as mentioned above) should be located so as to provide a choice of means of travel to other facilities. It should avoid any significant incremental expansion of "Housing" in villages where this is likely to result largely in car commuting to urban centres and where travel needs are unlikely to be served by public transport. It also discourages the development of small new settlements especially where they are unlikely to be served by public transport and ARE NOT DESIGNED TO BE LARGELY SELF CONTAINED.

The location of the site combined with the limited public transport (Which currently does not serve the site) would determine car usage as the means that residents - and of course the office workers who would be immigrant to the site - would prefer.

Furthermore, the Wansdyke Local Plan states that conversions to residential should not take place where the site is "In a position isolated from public services and community facilities and unrelated to an established group of buildings."

SECTION 5 - New Building

NEW BUILDING IN THE GREEN BELT

1. The proposal to build a bat house, on a part of the land which has at no stage previously been built upon, affects the openness of the Green Belt and is a clear breach of PPG2 3.4.. (We maintain that those of the present buildings which have provided natural migration incentive and protection to the bats, which in turn are most strictly protected from disturbance by European and English law, should be maintained by keeping them in , or adapted to, a condition which will encourage their continued use by these species). We submit that there is no planning justification for contravening PPG2.

2. The creation of a glazed atrium is new build and not covered by any of the exclusions from inappropriateness as specified in PPG2 3.4..

3. Whilst the applicants have not provided plans of the existing buildings to facilitate comparison, we suspect from observation that the height of Building H is proposed to be raised .

4. These proposals contravene our interpretation of PPG2 3.4. Only by the justification of very special circumstances could these developments be permitted . Very special circumstances are, however, not argued by the applicants.

SECTION 6 - Sociological and Economic Considerations

SOCIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY

1. As we have stated in Section 4 , Isolated Location, the Wansdyke Local Plan Inquiry Inspector's report pointed out that the site is not within or adjacent to the existing settlements of Sharpstone or Freshford. This relates directly to the Countryside Agency 1991 AONB Policy Statement : Other Developments p. 12 and which is breached by this application. The residential development as proposed would create a community locationally distinct from the present settlement of Freshford by distance along both poor link lanes, by contour and by a spate river.

2. This Parish, in common with so many other such, is suffering from an increasing reduction in social diversity in the community. The loss through price inflation of homes priced at the lower end of the market , and the loss of much of the previously available Council owned rented accommodation, has contributed to this problem , as has the inflation of property values in this "desirable" parish. There is no local need for more relatively expensive properties aimed at incoming A and B income group population , but certainly a need for a number of AFFORDABLE HOMES. This was the subject of a positive Parish Council resolution in 2000.

The Parish has seen in recent years a change for the worse in its socio demographic structure The pattern is one of growth in AB group residents and a considerable reduction in BC.

This trend would be made worse by the residential development proposed - an undesirable trend recognised by the Countryside Agency in their document "Planning Tomorrow's Countryside" of September 2000. The development would not encourage "Social and economic equity" (P. 4 of the above document) and would present a problem as revealed in the document under " Change in the Countryside" section (P.5 para.2).

The scheme portrayed in this application would be very costly to implement due to the many highly expensive mitigation (And in our view some dubiously effective) factors worked into overcoming flood, ecological and other problems, plus clearance of the site in many areas, substantial conversion of buildings , creation of hard standing for parking, private parkland etc. All this will have to be reflected, plus a profit element , in the price of the 21 urban style residences and 3 "Staff accommodation" units.

It is therefore most improbable that this scheme would contribute to social diversity through a mixed and balanced community . The contrary applies. The proposed scheme therefore breaches the guidance given in PPG3 Housing Section 70. Neither is there a need for additional housing to meet local needs, other than affordable as explained above.

3. The sociologically damaging growth of second home ownership is being felt in Freshford, and the attraction as second homes to urban main home dwellers of properties such as have been proposed, without gardens to maintain, but in beautiful rural surroundings and relatively near to the attractions of Bath, is obvious.

4. Whilst the residential properties may attract a few resident families with children, it should be noted that Freshford Primary School is seriously oversubscribed. There is absolutely no guarantee that incoming families would gain places for their children at the school.

The poor access from the site to the school is covered in Section 7 . B . 4.2.1.

5. There is no perceived significant need for the development of office space in Freshford. The Parish Council believe that there is a need for flexible small workshop, studio, lock-up accommodation - a maximum of 6 of such would meet local parish need and avoid immigrant commuting by car. There can be no reasonable argument that , in relation to demand in this rural area, the 1419.4 sq.m. is small scale. In their letter to the Parish Council of 13th. September 2001 ref. GC/DevTeam 59/21/08/01 , Bath and North East Somerset Council stated " The Council's Employment Land Study is currently underway , however, this site is not likely to be considered as being fundamental to the provision of employment in the rural part of Bath and North East Somerset".

6. The Economic Policy which has been proposed at Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft 2003 stage has not specified Freshford Mill as being considered a site necessary for employment purposes, and the "Not likely to be considered" of the above letter has been confirmed by the proposed policy insofar as it does not include Freshford Mill as a major development site and there is no reference to it in GDS1. Therefore the new economic policy has not changed the status of Freshford Mill to being a desirable site for office accommodation as part of a mixed use proposal. A possible clash between Employment and Green Belt / Transport Policy has thus , we anticipate, been avoided.

7. A mixed use residential/offices development in the Green Belt, some distance from the limited services of an R3 Rural settlement and with clear traffic and access problems on a defined "Very poor highway network" , creates questions of the desirability or necessity of (i) introducing substantial percentage population increase - the 1991 census total of 538 has scarcely changed and whilst a bed count of the residential units proposed indicates a 19% population increase, this could be between 15% and this figure ( In A and B socio-economic income groups) and (ii) creating office accommodation for which there is no significant local demand. This mixed use question is being addressed by this Council in the consultation process on the 2003 Revised Deposit Draft of the Local Plan.

8. PPG4 states that "Industrial and Commercial development will not normally be appropriate" in Green Belts, and PPG2 expands upon this. PPG7 3.15 proposes that "Local authorities should consider the needs of their areas for business, and residential, conversions." No local business need is met by the office proposal and the applicants have not attempted to define one, and there is no local need for housing development outside the Housing Boundaries particularly, as in this instance, if the application fails to propose the provision of affordable homes . The benefits of mixed use are therefore, in this instance , neither apparent nor real. This is not an appropriate scheme and it is not in an appropriate location in socio-demographic or employment terms.

SECTION 7 - Traffic and Access

TRAFFIC AND ACCESS

A. The Facts .

1. The Immediate Approach Lanes.

Rosemary, Mill and Crabtree Lanes. (All Single Track).

The site has not been used for B2 (General Industrial) purposes for eleven years , and was subject to a considerable run down of such activities from the mid 1980's. Since then , however, the approach lanes have benefitted from just acceptable usage with daily vehicle nose to nose and forced reversing problems particularly, but not exclusively, on Rosemary Lane. This information is based on local observation and residents' comments.

(See Section B, 4.5.2.).

The traffic historically generated by B2 usage before the cessation of B2 activity in 1992 , or likely to apply with any notional and highly unlikely future B2 usage, was mainly on a predictable shift pattern and so residents on the Rosemary Lane approach and others using the lanes were broadly able to adjust their movements to minimize confrontations or hazards. These were however frequent, and sworn statements can be obtained to this effect from residents who recollect that period. These hazards would return with much greater force should the application be approved due to the general rise in traffic already experienced since the mid 1980's and the fact that shift patterns would not apply.

Only by direct viewing of the single track approaches to the site can it be understood how inadequate they are in relation to the traffic which would be generated by the applicants' proposals.

Both the steep Rosemary and Mill Lanes are totally so, as they are narrow and Rosemary is particularly tortuous. There are blind bends on Mill Lane. It should be borne in mind that the most direct route to the site from Bath and the A36 is down Rosemary Lane. The approaches through Freshford and Westwood Villages via the narrow Crabtree Lane are also unsuitable. Arguments that there were few accidents on these lanes are countered by the fact that the levels of traffic over the past eleven years on these lanes have been very low, and that previously when the industrial site was operational the traffic was mainly shift oriented, with traffic moving in one direction at one time to supply the shift, and a slightly later flow in the opposite direction as the relieved shift left the site.

This mitigation would not apply to residential use of the site and any office hours are likely to be staggered.

However, there have been accidents of a nature which have not involved personal injury , but have involved vehicle damage.

2. The A36 to BRADFORD ON AVON/TROWBRIDGE ROAD.

The only route which serves the site which avoids the extreme limitations of Rosemary Lane is the road which runs through the centres of Freshford, Limpley Stoke and Westwood, and connects to the site via Mill or Crabtree Lanes.

This route is not suitable for heavy frequency vehicular traffic. Freshford residential and public properties bounding the road have suffered damage due to vehicles mounting the pavements, and parking on the road results in the traffic being reduced to single track. Traffic during non commuting periods is accommodated in spite of these problems, but at commuting times and during school pupil delivery periods there are frequent nose to nose confrontations forcing reversing over considerable distances . There are two tight ninety degree bends, plus other sight obscuring bends and a single track bridge on this road in Freshford parish alone.

This road has become increasingly inadequate to handle the commuting traffic since the major population increases brought about by substantial housing estate building in Trowbridge , Bradford on Avon and Westwood village. Representations about traffic generation brought about by these developments have been made by Limpley Stoke and Westwood parish councils to Wiltshire County Council. To alleviate the problem in Freshford, Bath and North East Somerset Council have accepted a proposal by Freshford Parish Council that a 20 mph limit be applied to that part of the road which passes through the centre of Freshford in order to reduce risk of accident.

3. All Highway Approaches.

We repeat the statement made in Chapter 7 of the Schedule of Changes to the Wansdyke Local Plan (7.5.2 - 7.21) :

Re : Freshford and Hinton Charterhouse - "The local highway network is very poor." "The high quality character (of the villages) combined with highways constraints limit housing opportunities to infilling only".

4. THE FAULTED LOGIC OF THE TRAFFIC DATA COMPARISONS PROVIDED.

In the light of these statements in the Schedule of Changes it amazes this Council that an approach to the frequency and pattern of traffic which would be generated by this scheme should be based upon an unsubstantiated and flimsy assessment of traffic generation of over 20 years ago and estimated hypothetical data for future B2 operations, which are more than highly unlikely to be re-instated and which future usage is discounted by the applicants' own proposals for change of use.

A decision in favour of this scheme not only would contravene CH3.(8) and TP (1) but would be based on a lack of the application of logic. If the site can continue as B2 then how strong is the case for Change of Use ? If it cannot, then how do hypothetical traffic figures (Trics) for future B2 use have any relevance?

Fallback considerations (that imply that a site with flooding problems, the presence of highly protected fauna, dilapidated buildings, soil contamination, permanent and acute seasonal flood access problems and major restriction on all new build which would adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt provide a realistic proposition for future investment in B2 operations) are highly questionable if not, as we maintain, invalid.

Efforts to market the site for industrial purposes , started in 1994 by BTR (Now Invensys) have failed. To use Trics in this instance is, we maintain, to give credibility to data based on a redundant planning classification in real terms obscuring the acceptable low traffic levels on the three immediate approach lanes, and the effect of this on flow on the inferior A36 to Bradford on Avon/Trowbridge road which feeds them, over the last eleven plus years.

The only realistic comparison is between the current levels of traffic and those which would be generated by this scheme.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS , WHICH FORM PART OF THE OVERALL TRAFFIC AND ACCESS REASONS INSOFAR AS THEY AFFECT THE APPROACH LANES, FRESHFORD PARISH COUNCIL ARE OPPOSED TO THIS SCHEME

5. Flood Risk and Access.

Nowhere do we find in the transport assessment any comment on the question of access during flood conditions. Appendix B to this document includes a map indicating the flood plain , and photographs of flood conditions taken from two indicated vantage points. During flood periods only Mill Lane is available for pedestrian, cycle and light vehicle use. Twice since and including the October 2000 floods, Freshford village and Sharpstone have been totally cut off from the site. In such conditions emergency services would not be able to use the Freshford village or the Rosemary Lane route. They would have to route through Westwood , Wilts. and then approach via Mill Lane, which is very narrow and has a very difficult double bend entrance from Staples Hill.

6. Increased private ownership of cars by residents, increased through traffic and substantially increased trips to and from Freshford School have had a significant adverse effect on road traffic conditions both in terms of the trips themselves and the parking problems on all roads in Freshford in the last eleven years. This in spite of the cessation of the traffic created by the formerly active B2 usage of Freshford Mill.

B. The Applicants' Arguments.

The David Tucker Transport Assessment and Arguments.

We refer here to the transport assessment of 8th. September 2003. For ease of reference we have quoted their sections in large bold case.

1.5 and 1.6 : The proposals are not fully consistent with Government guidance. PPG 13 clearly states in section 1.3 that :

"The location and nature of development affect the amount and method of travel and the pattern of development is itself influenced by transport infrastructure and transport policies. By planning land use and transport together in ways which enable people to carry out their everyday activities with less need to travel, local planning authorities can reduce reliance on the private car and make a significant

contribution to the environment goals set out in the Government's Sustainable Development Strategy."

Reducing reliance on the private car is key to this. This application involves a major increase in resident population ( population 538 and proposed increase approx. 104 as per a bed space capacity count of the plans proposed , i.e. 19 percent), and commuter movement in and to/from a site which also is not adjacent to the very limited services provided by Freshford village. All assessments by the Parish Council and the Highways authorities have stated that this scheme will increase car traffic. The argument provided seems to assume that the office and residential functions on the site will create little private vehicular traffic. This is evidently not the case, as the residents will need to proceed to Bath , Bradford on Avon or Trowbridge for all shopping that is not provided by the very limited grocery service of the village Post Office stores, and the new offices will inevitable draw in commuters using cars from outside the parish and (with the exception of the few workshops with live in accommodation, there is no reason to assume that the residents on the site will take up employment in the offices provided on site.

Section 1.8 of PPG 13 lists a number of aims for local authorities to pursue , and this includes

"Strengthening existing local centres- in both urban and rural areas - which offer a range of everyday community, shopping, and employment opportunities . and aim to enhance their viability and vitality."

The site is neither in, nor close to, the local centre but, as stated in the Inspector's report into the Wansdyke Local Plan Volume 1, Section 8.20, page 152 , is "In a valley south of the village and surrounded by fields ands woodland, although there are some scattered groups of houses nearby". It is connected to the village centre (School, Shop, village hall, church, public house) by two narrow single track lanes, (Both accesses to the village centre are occasionally denied by floods - three times including October 2000) and by two public footpaths . One of these footpaths is very steep and cut into the precipitous side of the hanging woods over the river Frome, and the other in the middle of the floodplain and very wet in the winter months ; it is relevant that the Transport Assessment itself states , in section 1.6, that "Walking and cycling opportunities in Freshford are constrained by the topography of the area". The site is not part of the settlement of Freshford and is geographically and topographically discrete. The application if approved would create a residential and office conurbation with a separate identity to the existing village. It would contribute only marginally to the viability of the limited services available in and to the village , and would create residences in a parish where there is no need for any, (other than affordable housing), and outside the Housing boundary . It would not, in the opinion of this Council, to any significant extent strengthen the existing local centre.

Section 1.8 also includes guidance to local authorities to adopt policies which

"Maintain and improve choice for people to walk, cycle or catch public transport rather then drive between homes and facilities which they need to visit regularly."

This site would, by both its office and its residential elements, encourage car usage to services outside the parish due to the very limited facilities available in the parish, and would encourage car usage to the village by the less agile residents. As stated in The Schedule of Changes to the Wansdyke Local Plan 7.5.2 , "Bus services are very restricted" . This provides further encouragement to car usage .

There is no proof that further local employment is needed. There is neither perceived nor proven need for office space in Freshford. The village and all areas locally have no perceived unemployment problems and the increasing amount of work in the village over the last few years is computer/home based. Affordable Housing (Certainly not the high price properties which inevitably will result from this high cost re-development, which can only attract well off (A and B bracket) potential residents and second homers), is required to engender a balanced social mix and to provide local family accommodation, but no such provision is proposed in this project. The only element in the proposed project which the Parish Council regards as desirable is the provision of a limited number of small workshops suitable for individual artisan services. The advantage of this is heavily outweighed by the disadvantages of the residential and office elements.

1.7 : The basis of comparison made excludes the current and past minimum of eleven years traffic levels. It therefore provides only a distorted view of the traffic realities pertaining to the site as explained in the foregoing Faulted Logic section.

1.9 : The points made above clearly indicate that the claim in this section by David Tucker Associates is not only not proven, but that acceptance of the arguments would be against Government guidance. The increase in resident population, and the office commuter increase over the levels that have pertained for many years, would generate substantial car movement and the alleviations claimed are refuted by the evidence.

2.7 : It is claimed that "This TA specifically addresses the reason for refusing permission of the previous mixed development scheme." It attempts to address it, but does not present adequate and incontrovertible reasons to overturn the UNANIMOUS decision of the B sub committee of the Bath and North East Somerset Council to reject the planning officer's recommendation to approve.

In the light of the strict guidance to Councillors in PPG 1, the Councillors obviously considered that the scheme contravened not only sections CH3(8) and TP.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and thus the minuted reason of an unsuitable road network , but also many other facets supporting refusal contained in the Development Plan which were discussed in detail at that meeting. One Councillor spoke for eight minutes on a wide range of reasons for rejection . The unanimous decision followed a site visit during which the councillors were able to see clearly how poor the access is to the site in general terms and in particular in relation to the application proposals.

Furthermore, we submit that, since that decision, the rejection has been reinforced by the Secretary of State's comments on urbanisation (See Section 9 of this document) , and as vehicular traffic is one result of urbanisation, we affirm that the powerful case against the previous scheme and also this application is also strengthened, insofar as, inter alia, traffic assessment is concerned.

3.1 : PPG 7 is instanced . We maintain that the statements quoted go beyond the transport consideration , but it is interesting that no account is taken of the danger of encouraging inward commuting to rural areas from urban. The office plans submitted give no indication of how this is to be avoided , as commuting to rural areas from urban is as undesirable in transport terms as rural commuting to urban.

PPG 7 goes on to touch on important and relevant sociological guidance - this is commented upon in Section 6 of this document and militates powerfully against the application.

3.2 : PPG 13 does not apparently possess a paragraph 43 and we have been unable to locate the section quoted. However, the point it makes is unrelated to the synergetic effects of the proposals in the scheme which are, in terms of daily vehicle movements , such as to make a major impact on the most unsuitable immediate access single track lanes and local roads serving these.

4.1.2 : The 1991 census is redundant in terms of the demographics of this parish. There has been substantial demographic change, and an increase in home working - a trend that is continuing. An analysis of the methodology in creating Table 1 is necessary , as much of the employment was and increasingly is on an individual self employed basis . Beyond this self employed category, the employers of staff are Rentokil in Pipehouse Lane, Iford Manor, the Doctors' surgery, the Primary School, The Inn , The Memorial Hall, and the stone mines. Whilst these are very small employers in numbers terms, most of their employees are known to be from outside the parish and to commute in to work by car . The provision of the proposed flexible office space in 13 units , amounting to 1420 sq. metres IS MORE THAN QUESTIONABLE WHERE THERE IS CURRENTLY NO LOCAL DEMAND. WHEN THIS IS RELATED TO THE PROBABILITY THAT A LARGE PROPORTION OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE PROPOSED 21 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS

(PLUS THREE "STAFF UNITS") WILL NOT TAKE UP EMPLOYMENT IN THE OFFICES, THEN IT IS REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT MOST PEOPLE WORKING IN THEM WILL COME IN FROM OUTSIDE FRESHFORD PARISH, WITH THE CONSEQUENTIAL GENERATION OF PRIVATE CAR TRAFFIC.

THIS IS PRECISELY THE TYPE OF COMMUTER TRAFFIC THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO DISCOURAGE. ADD TO THIS THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND THE WORKSHOPS WE FEEL JUSTIFIED IN CLAIMING THAT, IN ADDITION TO THE PROBLEMS OF THE IMMEDIATE SINGLE TRACK LANE ACCESS, THIS WILL HAVE A MAJOR ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE LOCAL HIGHWAY NETWORK WHICH BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET COUNCIL HAVE THEMSELVES DESIGNATED AS "VERY POOR" AND WHICH ONLY JUST COPES WITH THE CURRENT TRAFFIC THROUGH THE VILLAGES OF FRESHFORD AND WESTWOOD AT PEAK COMMUTER AND SCHOOL PUPIL DELIVERY AND PICK UP PERIODS.

4.1.6. : Lack of critical mass is claimed as being responsible for lack of public transport services in the area. Bus and train services are available at stops within the main residential curtilage of Freshford. The creation of critical mass would lead to urbanisation of the countryside and in this instance the creation of a new small community in the Green Belt geographically removed from the main village. The contribution of this scheme to critical mass would be minimal, and that minimal would be undesirable in relation to a trend towards urbanisation. Please see Section 9 of this document. This statement in the TA fails to address the effect of increase of population in this sensitive area.

4.2.1. : We consider this statement to be unacceptable. The school is safely and easily accessible on foot from the site only on the public footpath system during dry periods. The route on the Freshford to Westwood road is dangerous to pedestrians (and more so to primary schoolchildren) in frequently occurring circumstances, and the public footpaths cannot at all times be comfortably and easily traversed , and this is explained below.

Passage on footpath FP12/8 is not easy during the wetter months as the surface is subject to wetness- it is in the floodplain. In any case this footpath only leads, over stiles, to the main village road near the single track road bridge. This road is not safe for young children to walk, particularly in the winter darker hours or in poor visibility conditions, as it is in parts narrow and winding and is dangerous for pedestrians as it lacks pavements on many parts and on a dangerous corner). If the children do not use the FP12/8 then they have to extend the risk by using the main road from the bridge to the junction with Crabtree Lane and then Crabtree and Rosemary lanes, none of which distance is lit or pavemented.

The other footpath, FP 12/12 is precipitous , subject to erosion, and to being very wet on the lower meadows in rainfall periods. This route was described in the detailed Parish Council Freshford Rights of Way Survey of January 1994 as being "A steep and potentially dangerous path" and " The surface of the field (Traversed by the path) is saturated after rain and that of the path in and following such weather is poor". Subsequent works on this path have maintained it against erosion, but the statement still stands.

4.2.2. : We agree with this statement - shopping for the residents of the site would have to be undertaken by private car . Even shopping at the village store would call for a long walk on roads with no pavements and a particularly dangerous bend at the foot of the High St. near the public house. It is not reasonable to expect that residents would walk to the shop and back to the site carrying shopping and certainly not in poorer weather conditions. They would use their cars . More elderly residents would use their cars for these purposes as is already the case for customers coming from the further parts of the parish. The two public footpaths are only pleasant to use in dry conditions.

4.2.3. : Residents would go by car . The train service does not serve the two major employment sites mentioned, nor many others, and the bus services would need radical improvement to substitute for the car.

4.3.1. : Agree , except that the word "Somewhat" is inadequate to describe the impaired access.

4.4.2. : Please see comments in 4.2.1. above.

4.5.2. : This is correct, except that there are no publicly owned passing places. The only passing places, after the passing place by the bridge and the junction with Abbey Lane, are privately owned entrances to residences and a bridle path on private land. We would add , after "Totally unsuited to Heavy Goods Vehicles" that the lane is also unsuited to any increase in light vehicle traffic. A check by a Rosemary Lane resident over three days of intermittent survey, noted eleven confrontations and reversing problems for private and delivery vehicles in October 2003. As stated in Section 1 of this document, this is considered to be supportable - but only just.

4.6.1. : The conclusions are in direct contradiction to the previously expressed statements on existing site accessibility to public transport . The residential provision will, given the arguments that the TA itself proposes re the constraints on public transport , create car dependency . As there is no employment need for offices in the village of Freshford and no guarantee or likelihood that the majority of residents on the site will work in the office units , these will draw in commuters from outside the parish, thereby creating private car usage from outside the immediate area.

5.3.1 : A site visit will soon disabuse interested parties of the design of the road being created to accommodate large commercial vehicle movements. Crabtree Lane is a narrow country lane with one passing place on public highway land. Nor is frequency addressed by this statement. Furthermore, the site will not be accessed solely from the Staples Hill direction as this is not the most direct route from Bath ; this is provided by the totally inadequate Rosemary Lane. The other route from Bath is , after negotiating the bends in Freshford village , over the single track bridge over the river Frome. It should be noted that this road is severely affected by floods between the Inn and Crabtree Lane, which is itself affected by floods.

5.4.1. : The site is NOT "Within safe and easy walking distance" of the school. See 4.2.1. above.

5.4.2. : Comments as for 4.2.1. above.

6.2.4. : We contest the exclusion of statistics for the past eleven years . See comments in A4 of this Section. We are aware from observation that these excluded levels would indicate an environmentally highly desirable and insignificant generation of HGV and light vehicles over that period , and a reducing level during the late 1980's from that generated by B" use in the early 1980's.

6.3. 11 : To quote accident levels to December 1989 has no relevance to the heavy increases in traffic levels now experienced on the A36 and on the roads through the village.

7.3 : We contest the statement that the proposals are fully consistent with Government guidance to reduce both the need for travel and car dependency. In fact we submit that our refutations point clearly to the opposite conclusion that these proposals will increase car dependency for residents of the site and increase the need to travel as the services (Shopping, social , schooling and medical) needed to support the requirements of the residential element are not available without use of private cars.

These are the outcome of the remoteness of the site , the lack of public transport and , in the case of the primary school children, the poor access routes to the school for a considerable part of the year.

Furthermore, the inward office commuting will increase car traffic , as evidenced by the proposal to provide 47 spaces for the workers in the office conurbation. We feel this to be a minimum as the quantum of 1420 sqm at 1:30 sqm could well prove an underestimate of the number of cars, particularly if the figures assume that a significant number of residents will work in the proposed offices. (See Sociological Considerations" Section 6).

SECTION 8 - Substantial Reconstruction of Buildings

SUBSTANTIAL RECONSTRUCTION

1. Policy Guidelines and their Contravention.

A. PPG2 , Section 3.8a , states that the re-use of buildings inside a Green belt is not inappropriate development providing :

"it does not have a materially greater impact then the present use on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it ."

It is possible that this development raises the height of building H and also proposes the creation of a new glazed atrium Building ED). We do not have the benefit of plans of the existing buildings as they do not appear to have been submitted, but by observation feel that this could be the case. The impact of the raised building , would be observable from all four primary points of the compass including the roofscape view from the hill to the North of the site, specifically Sharpstone Lane.

It should be noted here that this refers exclusively to the re-use of certain specific buildings on the site, and not to the effects of the rest of the scheme on the openness of the Green Belt. Re-use obviously does not include buildings demolished and not to be replaced. There is neither mention nor apparent intent in PPG2 to encourage the demolition of buildings in the Green Belt, nor to permit their demolition to be used as a "Balancing" argument to allow for inappropriate use of other buildings either on a site or elsewhere. We would contest therefore any attempt to "Trade off" a demolition to allow for a reduction of openness elsewhere on the site.

We believe that this aspect should be given weight against approval in assessing the scheme as a whole.

B. When is partial demolition and rebuild considered as either "Major" or "Significant" ?

PPG2, Section 3.8c, states that the re-use of buildings inside a Green Belt is not inappropriate development providing :

"the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction and are capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction".

This is reflected by The Wansdyke Local Plan Policy CH3 3b which substitutes "Substantial" for "Major". CH3 is referred to as appropriate in WGB 1(ii). WGB .1 forbids the re-use of existing buildings except within the scope of policies AG4, CH3, HO.6, EMP.12, and EMP 13.

AG4 relates only to agriculture.

In HO.6 the permitted development clauses do not apply to Freshford. In particular the site does not fall within the defined housing development boundaries in either Freshford or Hinton Charterhouse.

HO.14 does not apply as the site does not fall within the ambit of HO. 4, HO.5 or HO.6.

EMP.12 relates to the settlement of Freshford , not the Mill site.

EMP 13. The residential element in the application is not covered by this policy which relates to B1, B2 and B8 usage in employment terms.

Therefore only CH3 applies to WGB.1 (ii) in this instance.

The revised Deposit Draft Written Statement 2003 of the Bath and North East Somerset Council Policy GB.1 reduces the number of "Except within the scope of" Policies to one, which is ET.9. This does not permit the conversion of a building or buildings to a new use if it is or they are not capable of conversion without substantial reconstruction. This therefore does not change the effect of the relevant Policies expressed in the Wansdyke Local Plan and accords with the PPG2 guidelines.

2. Substantial Reconstruction.

The plans for the dilapidated buildings, both office and residential conversions from factory use , and possibly the workshop building , require significant and certainly not insubstantial reconstruction to meet their new functions. This reconstruction, internal and external , new attic areas, windows as proposed, and roofworks and presumably internal restructuring will be necessary to meet the requirements of creating the proposed residential and office accommodation and to avoid the risks posed by being flooded. Whilst no plans external or internal of the existing buildings have been submitted by the applicants, this Council's observation of the buildings is such that by comparing the application plans with the existing buildings we arrive at the conclusion that in varying degrees by each building the new plans represent substantial reconstruction in contravention of Wansdyke Local Plan CH3 3b.. In the case of the large buildings E and H1 this is particularly the case , whilst the amount of reconstruction of B, D ,F,G, K, A1 and A2 needs determination. However, to overcome our reservations in this respect we believe that the provision of much more detail is necessary than has been given in the application and its supporting documents to enable an assessment of the degree of reconstruction for each building to be made by all interested parties.

SECTION 9 - Urbanisation of the Countryside

Urbanisation of the Countryside

The proposal would , as a consequence of the introduction of both offices and residential facilities onto this site , have effects which would , in our opinion, amount to urbanization in the Green Belt and the immediately affected countryside. Whilst the continued use of the buildings themselves would not necessarily imply urbanization , the introduction of glazing in the Atrium, the creation of a permanent resident population on the site , added to the car commuter generating offices plus the landscaping , including the pond and the car parking, would ensure an urban atmosphere. The effect would be to introduce traffic weight and patterns which would adversely affect the rural character of the local road network , create car parking as proposed , and also pressures for the introduction of street lighting on the site, on its approaches and on the road link to Freshford. Furthermore , it would encourage demand for safer approaches on the lanes, particularly Crabtree Lane and the road to the village and school in Freshford, through the building of pavements on narrow routes which are agricultural in nature and which have currently, and historically, have had no need for such urban assets. The above proposed features and their synergetic effects would create a clear impression of urban use extending into the countryside.

This proposal therefore conflicts with the purposes of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

The Secretary of State's underlying approach to such developments has been made public in the case of a Green Belt industrial brownfield site which has been threatened with a similar mixed development, although the site in question does not have the general and flood access problems which apply to Freshford Mill, and is in a less rural environment. ( Refer : Section 28 of letter dated 1st. August 2003 to Gazelle Properties Ltd. from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of application no. 00/02417/FUL Bath and North East Somerset).

ACCESS PROBLEMS

All three approach lanes are extremely narrow and single track. Rosemary and Mill lanes are twisty and have blind bends. Please refer to Section 7 .1 for a more detailed description.

HINTON CHARTERHOUSE PARISH COUNCIL: Parish Council opposes this revised application although there may be a reduction in traffic movement, this problem will still impinge on Rosemay Lane which although ruled out by the Traffic Assessment nothing in the plans bars traffic from using Rosemay Lane.

HOUSING SERVICES: Please accept the following comments regard the above planning application detailing the Councils requirement for affordable housing upon this scheme under policy HG.8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan.

The view of this department is that the need for affordable housing in Bath and North East Somerset is as great as ever and indeed likely to increase due to the current boom in the housing market which is pricing many people on modest and middle incomes out of the opportunity to buy.

Housing Need

The Council's Housing 2000 study, carried out jointly between Planning and Housing Services gives assessment of composition of the current housing stock and future households.

Housing 2000

Summary of Conclusions

Suitability of Homes:

- 11.25% of all surveyed felt that their accommodation was not adequate for their needs

- 25% of those who thought the property inadequate said that it needed improvement or repair, (representing about 4,033 properties in all); over 25% (4,099) that it was too small; 12% (1,966) that it was too costly to heat

- 14% of households in the area contain someone with a special need, suggesting about 9,400 households in all

- 914 households contain someone who is a wheelchair user, but only around 46% of households affected live in an adapted dwelling

Concealed Households:

- Around 2,295 households are living within another household ("concealed households")

- 48% of these concealed households would like to become owner occupiers but 1,776 (60%) have annual incomes below £17,500 and could not afford even the cheapest property in the district, even where a reasonable supply is available

- 83% of concealed households expressed a preference for one or two bedroom property with 57% looking for a flat and 20% a terraced property

Existing Households Moving:

- 2,234 households want to move but cannot do so - 2,175 households are unable to afford a move and 1,069 cannot find a suitable property

- 5,550 households plan to move away from the district, 935 because of lack of affordable housing. The majority (2,687) are leaving because of employment reasons

In 1999 there was an estimated 1,550 households who lived within another household (e.g. living with parents) who were looking to be housed within the next two years and who could not afford even the cheapest property in the District.

Combined with those already on the Common Housing Register or becoming homeless - and for re-lets of existing affordable homes stock it is estimated that the affordable housing need at 2006 will be 1,732 dwellings. In addition another 935 households are planning to leave the District because of lack of affordable homes. The main demand is for one or two bedrooms reflecting the predominance of demand from young single or childless couples. Affordability is a problem for all groups on the housing register particularly black minority and other ethnic households.

In addition the Council's Homeseekers Register on the 9th January 04 held an identified need for 31 units of affordable housing to rent in area 7, within which the Parish of Freshford is located. Within Freshford itself there are only 5 existing affordable homes.

Affordable housing in this context should be defined, as housing that is available to people whose income does not allow them to rent or buy at normal market prices. The Council accepts that a variety of alternative types of affordable housing may be considered, such as rented accommodation, shared ownership or Keyworker housing. These options will first need to be determined with the Council.

There is the expectation by Government in PPG3 Housing, Circular 6/98, the Wansdyke Local Plan (HO8) and the aforementioned Revised Deposit Draught Local Plan policies GDS.1 & HG.8 that affordable housing resulting from provision of a new housing scheme should be considered on all developments falling within the thresholds of the Local Plan.

The above planning application exceeds the agreed thresholds and therefore affordable housing should be provided as part of the proposed development of the site.

The Council will expect the affordable housing units to be delivered at Nil Public subsidy. The Supplementary Planning Guidance to this effect has been in the public domain for some time and went before the Councils Executive Committee on the 3rd December 03 for approval, subject to minor amendments.

A Parish Council resolution in 2000 effectively stated that `there is no local need for more relatively expensive properties aimed at the incoming population, but certainly a need for a limited number of affordable homes`.

The developer has instead chosen to ague that due to the many expensive factors into overcoming floods, ecological and other problems, there is no possibility of the scheme contributing to social diversity (affordable Housing).

However exceptional circumstances such as high land assembly cost, contamination, site clearance and other such matters are normally reflected in land value and should not therefore be used to justify the lack of affordable housing provision.

It is reasonable to expect the purchaser of the land to recognise future affordable housing obligations as affordable housing policy is well established nationally and within Bath & North East Somerset. Requirements to provide an element of affordable housing should not be unexpected. In addition, circular 6/98 sets out a number of criteria to be considered in considering the suitability of sites for affordable housing, one of which is 'whether there will be particular costs associated with the development of the site'. The government is encouraging the use of brownfield sites and thus the costs of building on these sites must be regarded as normal part of the development process that would be reflected in the land value.

To Conclude

Based upon the results of the 2000 housing survey, current housing need, the high local property prices and the lack of local supply of affordable housing, Housing Services request that consideration should be given for the provision of;

- 30% affordable housing to be included within this application.

- 30% affordable housing to be delivered at Nil Public Subsidy.

- The affordable housing is delivered via a carefully worded Section 106 agreement that ensures the `Affordable Housing is to remain Affordable Housing in perpetuity.

- The affordable elements should be delivered in conjunction with a Registered Social Landlord, preferably a member of the Councils Joint Commission Partnership, to ensure affordability in perpetuity.

- The affordable housing is delivered to the appropriate Housing Corporation `Scheme Development Standards`.

- That 60% of the affordable housing be given a footprint that allows for the full `Joseph Rowntree lifetime homes standards` to be achieved.

- That the overall mix of units shall reflect the Housing 2000 survey to secure a suitable mix of size, type and affordability.

- That a 'pepper pot' approach is adopted to ensure dispersal of the affordable units helping to ensure the creation of a sustainable environment.

- That the Council has 100% nomination rights to the affordable housing.

The whole scheme acknowledges Secured by Design principals.

HIGHWAYS DEVELOPENT OFFICER: I refer to the above application received on 06/10/03.

The current application is reduced in size from that previously considered in that there remains elements of residential, commercial (B1 Use) and live work, but overall size is reduced. In addition some of the residential accommodation is identified as site staff accommodation.

In comments related to the previous application the highway considerations were based upon the premises of the fall back position. This situation has been confirmed to the extent that the current application will amount to a full or significant fall back situation. On that basis the position of the Highway Authority has not changed in that it is considered that an objection cannot be sustained. Any consent will, as was identified in respect of the previous application, result in a significant increase in traffic when set against the current situation.

The application is supported by a Transport Assessment which looks not only at the historical situation as in terms of traffic generation and comparison, but seeks to identify the options available which may provide alternatives to car use. The proposals themselves include some live/work provision which it is claimed will reduce the need to travel. Reference is also made of the location of the site in respect to the limited local shopping facilities, the local primary school and the rail and bus facilities. The Transport Assessment confirms that major retail and employment areas are outside walking or cycling distance and will therefore be reliant upon the car. The assessment concludes that school and rail, being within safe and easy distance represents a major sustainability advantage. Whilst these fall within the distances recommended within RPG10 it ignores the lack or substandard nature of the route and provides no incentive to increase walking as a means of travel.

Reference is made within the Assessment to the 1991 census figures with regard to travel destinations for workplace and residence in respect of Freshford and seeks to correlate these figures to the current situation. This however ignores the situation that Peradon provided a significant work provision which is now not there and that the conclusion of the 2001 census may be significantly different from that in 1991. Equally the location of dwellings at the mill and the topography of the area may well have a negative influence on the choice of means of travel as access to employment.

The Assessment provides comparison between traffic generation on the basis of historical permitted use and proposals. Generation figures provided are in the main based on the TRICS database with some reference being made to the known historical situation with this historical data broadly as per the previous application. The TRICS data has provided traffic generation figures for the permitted use and as proposed. The data from TRICS indicates that the proposal would generate less traffic than either the permitted use or the historical (although it is noted that slightly different figures are quoted in different parts of the text), but only if it accepted that the position as stated (i.e. 6507m2 GFA of B2 use) represents the effective full back with any reduction bringing the generation figures closer. At approx 70% of this fall back position using the generation figures using TRICS are virtually the same. In all cases the Assessment refers to TRICS movements at 'mean' whilst it is felt that 85%ile figures should be used. This would have the effect of increasing both the proposed and permitted traffic figures. Overall however, the proposal figures would remain below those quoted as historical.

In terms of sustainability of the site the Transport Assessment recognises that the site accessibility by foot and cycle is constrained by topography of Freshford and that public transport links are poor with limited opportunities to obtain modal shift and argues that the development would support viability of existing services by generating demand.

The Assessment seeks to use statistics to show that a significant number of journeys in Freshford are made to work by cycle or walking, and despite reference to this within the text no detail is given other than production of the table of 'Estimated Travel Destinations for Commuter Travel' in the 1991 census, which may not reflect the current position due to the closure of the Peradon factory.

It is however considered by the Highway Authority that the car will form the major mode of travel for employment, organised leisure (cinema etc) and shopping.

In terms of parking, the proposal is in accord with both national guidance and local policy applicable at the time.

If members are minded to permit the area allocated for parking on the submitted plan shall be kept clear of obstruction and shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and road safety.

The detail of the revised access shall be submitted and agreed by the Local Planning Authority and shall be provided prior to commencement of works on site.

No development, other than the formation of a new access and approach road, shall commence until the existing vehicular access to the site has been stopped up, its use permanently abandoned and the verge/footway crossing reinstated in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such works shall be completed concurrently with the provision of the new vehicular access hereby approved being first brought into use.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

The dwelling(s) hereby approved shall not be occupied until a properly consolidated and surfaced turning space for vehicles has been constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority within the site in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such turning space shall be kept clear of obstruction at all times.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Before the proposal hereby permitted is first commenced the area between the nearside carriageway edge and lines drawn between a point 4.5m back from the carriageway edge along the centre line of the access and points on the carriageway edge 70 metres from and on both sides of the centre line of the access shall be cleared of obstruction to visibility at and above a height of 600mm above the nearside carriageway level and thereafter maintained free of obstruction at all times.

ENGLISH NATURE: I have attached my previous correspondence on the above proposed development. I can confirm that English Nature still supports proposals that will protect the bats in the future in view of the potential hazards for them roosting on such a derelict site in a vulnerable position.

WEST WILTSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL: The District Council is concerned about the loss of employment/floor space in this rural area in accordance with government guidance.

However, the re-use of buildings in the Green Belt is acceptable within national Green Belt policy. This is provided that the proposals do not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the openness of Green Belt. They are capable of conversion without major reconstruction and any extensions to the re-used buildings and any associated land uses do not conflict with the openness of the Green Belt.

It would appear from the proposals that the existing buildings will be re-used but that there will be a number of extensions including walkways and balconies and also relatively major reconstruction will be required.

West Wiltshire District Council therefore objects to the proposals unless there are material considerations which Bath and North East Somerset consider to be the very special circumstances which would allow the application to be approved as a departure from Green Belt policy.

WESTWOOD PARISH COUNCIL: Thank you for inviting Westwood Parish Council to comment on this application. The Parish Council has considered this application and wishes to object to the proposed development on the same grounds as previously stated for an earlier, though similar, planning application. These objections are:

Westwood is, as you know, within two miles of Freshford and less than that from the proposed development site. This proposed major development is likely to have a long-term impact on Westwood particularly in respect of additional traffic and highway safety issues. The short-term impact is likely to be greater. The concerns of Westwood Parish Council relate primarily to highway safety.

The road (C217) from Freshford to Westwood and thence to Trowbridge/Bradford on Avon and beyond is a minor road unsuited to heavy traffic. The bends are tight and some lengths of the road particularly steep - Staples Hill (within a half mile of the development site) is especially steep, narrow and includes a double bend. The projected additional Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) traffic is likely to use this C217 through Westwood. This traffic will peak during site clearance and construction work and will remain high thereafter servicing the resulting development. This is considered by Westwood Parish Council to present an unacceptable safety hazard to the village.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: The bydrological and Hyraulic Study for this site, prepared by Lewin Fryer and Partners (LFP) has identified flood levels and the measures necessary to provide protection to areas of the site and compensatory flood storage volumes etc.

The Agency does not have fundamental flood defence objections to the proposals provided the necessary mitigation works are detailed and constructed in line with the conclusions of the Flood Risk Assessment derived from the LFP Study. Details of features such as minimum ground, floor and threshold levels, access details construction, waterproofing and tanking details to areas below design flood levels, flood resistant construction details for finishes and landscaped areas within floodable areas etc., should be confirmed by the applicant, and approved by the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Agency.

Therefore, the Agency requests that any grant of permission includes the following formal conditions:-

CONDITION:

No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until details of all proposed finished floor, threshold and ground levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans.

REASON: To ensure that the development is subject to minimum risk of flooding.

CONDITION:

No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a detailed scheme for the provision of flood protection works to any part of the development below the design flood levels throughout the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Design flood levels are identified in Lewin, Fryer _ Partners Hydrdological and Hydraulic Report for Freshford Mill dated August 2003, ref 2109.01. The works shall be completed in accordance with the details and timetable agreed.

REASON: To limit the risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of flood protection.

CONDITION:

No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of compensatory flood storage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved programme and details.

REASON: To alleviate the increased risk of flooding.

CONDITION:

No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until details of all proposed construction methods and finishes to exterior and internal areas including walls and floors etc below design flood levels, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans.

REASON: To ensure that the development construction and structure is flood resistant and is subject to minimum risk of damage from flooding.

CONDITION:

No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until details of all access and egress routes, designed to provide sufficient and safe access above design flood level to all residential areas within all buildings within the development, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The access to each building shall be completed before occupation of any part of that building, and shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

REASON: To ensure that a safe continuous dry access free of flood risk is provided to all residential areas of the development.

The proposed development is in a location served by public sewers. The Agency understands that the development could be connected to a public sewer and requests that you discuss this option with the Water Company. If connection to a public sewer is not feasible, full details of the non-mains foul drainage system to be used to serve the development must be submitted in accordance with Circular 3/99 (Planning Requirements in respect of the Use of Non-Mains Sewerage incorporating Septic tanks in New Development). The water company in this case is Wessex Water and can be contacted on 01225 526000.

CONDITION:

No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that adequate sewage disposal infrastructure will be in place to receive foul water discharges from the site. No buildings (or uses) hereby permitted shall be occupied (or commenced) until such infrastructure is in place.

REASON: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

The Agency should be consulted on any details submitted pursuant to the above conditions.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The following informatives and recommendations should be included in the Decision Notice.

Our Conservation Section would wish to see the preparation of a detailed Working Method Statement to safeguard nature conservation interests during demolition and construction, and we would strongly support provision of an 'ecological clerk of works' to oversee all ecological matters.

We wish to see a detailed management plan prepared for the flood compensation area to maximise its nature conservation interest and ensure appropriate long term management of the site. The applicant should consider who will have responsibility for management of this area, which may best be secured through an appropriate S106 agreement.

If foul water is to discharge 'direct to the river' Frome, a system should be in place to ensure the discharge will not compromise the water quality of the river. Planting of reeds around outfalls can provide a cleansing function in addition to providing wildlife benefit.

Activities carried out at this site may have caused contamination of soil, subsoil and groundwater present beneath the site and may present a threat to nearby surface waters especially as a result of the proposed development.

Consequently, we recommend that the developer should take prudent steps to assess the risks associated with potential contaminants at this site to ensure the development will not cause pollution of Controlled Waters. Such a strategy should take the form of and include the following stages:

- a desk study, which should include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information.

If the potential for significant ground contamination is confirmed, this information should be used to produce:

- a diagrammatical representation (Conceptual Model) for the site of all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors.

- a site investigation, for the site, using this information and any diagrammatical representations (Conceptual Model) undertaken. The investigation must be comprehensive enough to enable:

--- a suitable risk assessment to be undertaken relating to groundwater and surface waters associated on and off the site that may be affected, and

--- refinement of the Conceptual Model, and

--- development of a Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements.

This practice is considered important so that the site operator/owner, the regulatory authorities and other parties, such as the general public, potential purchasers or investors can have confidence in the outcome, and any subsequent decisions made about the need for action to deal with any contamination at the site.

A Discharge Consent is required under the Water Resources Act 1991 for discharges of sewage or trade effluent to controlled waters. Controlled waters include groundwaters. Such consent may not be granted is is not normally given where public foul sewer is available.

Application forms can be obtained by contacting the Agency's Authorisations Section, at this office on 01278 457333. For information the application process can take up to four months to complete and no guarantee can be given regarding the eventual outcome of an application until all the investigations associated with the determination have been completed and an evaluation of the proposal has been made.

Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, an Impounding Licence may be required from the Agency for the impounding of any watercourse, ditch or stream (e.g. by dam, weir etc.) and an Abstraction Licence may be required from the Agency for the abstraction of water from any inland water or underground strata. This is dependent on water resource availability and may not be granted.

It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the development will not affect any existing legal water interests in the area.

Site operators should ensure that there is no possibility of contaminated water entering and polluting surface or groundwater.

There shall be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site into either groundwater or any surface waters, whether direct to watercourses, ponds or lakes or via soakaways/ditches.

Contractors/developers are advised to follow the Agency's Pollution Prevention Guidelines No;% (PPG5) "Works in, near or liable to affect watercourses" during construction. A copy of PPG 5 has been forwarded to the applicant's agent for information.

In order for the Agency to monitor its effectiveness in influencing the determination of planning applications, a copy of the decision notice for this application would be appreciated.

WESSEX WATER: The above proposal is noted located within a Wessex Water sewered area.

The developer has indicated that the disposal of foul drainage will be to a 'septic tank'.

The developer has proposed to dispose of surface water to 'soakaways'.

It is advised that your Council should be satisfied with any arrangement for the disposal of foul and surface water flows generated by the development.

Turning to water supply, there is a water main in the vicinity of the proposal. It will be necessary for the developer to agree a point of connection onto the system for the satisfactory supply of water for the proposal. This can be agreed at the detail design stage.

It is recommended that the developer should agree with Wessex Water prior to the commencement of any works on site.

FRESHFORD MILL ASSOCIATION: Objections on similar grounds to those of Freshford Parish Council.

CPRE (Bath and North East Somerset Branch): Objections on similar grounds to those of Freshford Parish Council.

AVON AND TRIBUTARIES ANGLING ASSOCIATION: Objections on similar grounds to those of Freshford Parish Council.

LOCAL RESIDENTS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES: 55 Letters of objection on similar grounds to those of Freshford Parish Council and 3 letters of support.

PLANNING ISSUES

PLANNING POLICY: The site lies in the Green Belt and the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In addition it also lies in the floodplain of River Frome whose corridor is a site of Nature Conservation Interest.

The previously refused scheme was considered against the policies in the Wansdyke Local Plan as a Plan which carried substantial weight . Since that decision the emerging Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft (RDD) was approved for Development Control purposes and its policies thus carry increased weight. The respective relevant policies are referred to below.

Policies WGB.1 and GB.1 control developments in the Green Belt and generally allow them provided they entail reuse of existing buildings within the scope of policy CH.3 (or EMP.13), and EP.9 respectively. Policy CH.3 allows conversion of buildings to a new use provided inter alia that the buildings' form, bulk and general design are not out of keeping with their surroundings and the proposal respects local building styles and materials, provided the residential proposal does not deplete the stock of buildings suitable for employment-related uses and the applicants demonstrate they had made an effort to secure business re-use, provided it is not isolated from public services and community facilities, provided it would not affect the character of the area, or harm environmental conditions and local conservation interests, the proposed traffic levels would not be unacceptable, and provided it would not have a materially greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Strict control should also be exercised over extensions and alterations. Policy ET.9 of the Revised Deposit Draft essentially echoes these objectives which are based on the advice in PPG2 "Green Belts" and PPG7 "The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development".

Policies LNC.1, LNC.2 LNC.10A and 10B and LNC11 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and NE.2, NE.7 NE.9 and NE.15 of the Revised Deposit Draft seek to protect the landscape, the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and sites of special nature conservation interest, including protection of habitat of species of local or national importance from inappropriate development. Policy EMP.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and ET.1 of the Revised Deposit Draft seek to protect employment sites unless these are not capable of accommodating Class B1, B2 or B8 uses, or there would be a substantial environmental gain (including reduction in traffic level). Policy EMP.13 states inter alia that conversion of buildings for Class B1, B2 or B8 uses should meet the requirements of policy CH.3 above.

Policies TP.1 and TP.18 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and T.24 and T.25 of the Revised Deposit Draft require adequate provision for access and parking.

Policies PH.7 and NE.14 respectively deal with flooding issues and would not support development if there is unacceptable risk from flooding and inadequate mitigation measures are proposed.

GREEN BELT: Conversion of buildings in the Green Belt is appropriate development if these buildings are capable of such conversion without substantial rebuilding or alterations. Extensions could be allowed provided they do not materially affect the openness and the visual amenity of the Green Belt.

The site is a mixture of historic and modern buildings reflecting its original growth as an industrial site. The older buildings are visually important and their retention would be highly desirable. The later additions, especially the factory building with north-facing roof lights are less architecturally attractive. However even these have some merit in view of their contribution to the history of the site. Even with the neglect the site has suffered from over the last 10 years they could be brought back to positive use. The revised proposal seeks to do that with the majority of this building being put to a B1 use.

Similarly to the earlier proposal the revised scheme again takes an holistic approach to the redevelopment of the site. It recognises which buildings should be retained, which could be retained and improved and which should be demolished. The four historic buildings in the core of the site (including the mill owner's house) are built in traditional materials and command an important presence on the site. Their retention and reuse would make a great contribution to the visual appearance of the area. Their current design possesses features found in local vernacular architecture and their conversion to residential use would therefore entail relatively little alteration of their fabric (although due to some fire damage partial roof reconstruction in one of the blocks would be required).

The proposed residential extension to the main mill building would not affect the openness of the Green Belt in terms of increased footprint. Its impact would be more noticeable visually but it is considered that the proposed increase by one and a half storeys would not be so excessive as to be unacceptable having regard to the juxtaposition of this building with the remainder of the buildings on the site, and indeed its history. It is therefore accepted by your officers that the extension would not conflict with policies CH.3 or ET.9 and would adhere to the advice in PPG.2.

The more recent buildings adjacent to the historic ones would be adapted accordingly. The fringe two-storey buildings at the far end of the site would be reused as their scale allows residential conversion. Being on a visually important location on the edge of the site the improvements would entail provision of dormers and clay tiles, with rendered blockwork and natural stone quoins; these alterations would reflect the vernacular architecture of the area.

As with the earlier scheme the live/work units would be adapted from the relatively recent office block. The building has residential proportions and the adaptation of the ground floor for business use and first floor for residential use would be visually acceptable.

As stated above the main factory building (and the adjacent two-storey buildings) would be suitable, and are proposed mainly, for B1 use. The proposed glazed link between them replacing partially the exiting makeshift link would enable both buildings to be used more effectively. The main entrance would also be enhanced to provide an attractive feature. The upper floor of the front two-storey building is now proposed as three staff flats.

As stated above the existing warehouse at the very front of the site would be demolished and site landscaped. Its removal would significantly enhance the openness of the front part of the site.

A substantial amount of later additions (mainly covered links) between various buildings would be removed thus allowing more space about the buildings. This in turn would contribute to the enhancement of the openness of the site although it must be accepted that most of these areas would be within the site and benefiting mainly its future occupiers.

HOUSING MIX AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING: The proposal would provide up to 29 housing units ranging from 1-bedroomed units (staff flats and live/work units) through to 4-bedroomed units, both flats and maisonettes. It is considered that the housing mix is right and would appeal to a range of buyers, as advised by policies HO.2 (Wansdyke Local Plan) and HG.2 (Revised Deposit Draft).

It is noted above that Housing Services have requested that a provision for affordable housing be made within the site, in accordance with Policy HG 8 (Revised Deposit Draft). The applicants have addressed this issue and contend that there would be significant costs associated with the remediation of the site demolitions, flood prevention measures and ecological enhancement that would outweigh the presumption in favour of such provision in order to make the scheme financially viable. Your officers accept that in this instance the affordable housing element cannot be insisted on.

EMPLOYMENT USE: The applicants have again stated that they actively marketed the reuse of the site for purely industrial uses for a number of years. Although inquiries have been made no single occupier has been found to date partly it appears due to the site's somewhat remote location and partly due to the neglected state of the site at present. Parts of the site were let from time to time on short term lets and Members will recall a recent application for the warehouse building (now to be demolished) to be used by a roof-truss manufacturer.

The applicants feel that only a mixed residential/employment use would be feasible owing to the known problems with flooding, contamination, lack of good access and the costs involved in dealing with these issues. Your officers are satisfied that the revised balance between residential and business in terms of floor space (65:35) would secure the site's restoration without serious adverse impact on the surrounding environment, or as may be, the employment opportunities in the area. The applicants have again stated that should this revised development not be permitted they are determined to continue to seek employment uses on the site without the wider environmental benefits they feel their scheme would provide.

In order to secure the employment element (including the live/work units) a Section 106 Agreement to secure phasing should be entered into.

VISUAL IMPACT: As indicated above the proposal endeavours to enhance the site by removing unsightly later additions improving the appearance of the buildings. Of particular significance would be the removal of the modern warehouse which visually dominates the site frontage. The proposed landscape feature around the proposed flood retention area would also enhance the site frontage. It is considered the revised proposal would contribute positively to the setting of the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

TRAFFIC IMPACT: Members will be aware that the site has been inactive for many years and clearly has not recently generated any traffic. However it still has valid B2 industrial use and could be brought to such use should this proposal fail without further planning permission. The applicants' highway agents submitted a new transport assessment and again provided a comparison between the proposed use and the historic or potential industrial uses. They concluded there would be a reduction in traffic, especially heavy traffic. In comparison with the previous scheme this would be further improved by the reduction of the industrial traffic owing to the reduction of the proposed business use area stemming from the removal of the warehouse and the replacement of the business floor area with 3 staff flats.

They also stress that the traffic flows described with the previous application were misinterpreted as being one-way only instead of two-way flows. The daily two-way flows from the site would be around 403 movements (30% less than comparable calculations stemming from permitted use) with a ten-fold reduction in HGV levels.

The Council's Highway Engineers broadly accept these views. It has to be accepted that there is a fallback situation (the existing lawful use of the site has not been abandoned) against which the proposed traffic generation has to be judged. As is evident from the Engineers' submission that a highway objection cannot be sustained.

SITE CONTAMINATION: The applicants have fully addressed this issue and are prepared to undertake the necessary remediation as referred to in their agents' Contamination Report. Both the Environment Agency and the Council's Scientific Officer are satisfied that if these measures are undertaken the site would be suitable for habitation. In the long term these measures should enhance the area and the river environment. A legal agreement under Section 106 of the Act would be necessary to agree the methodology and time scale of the remedial works.

FLOOD ISSUES AND DRAINAGE: The applicants have also addressed the flooding issues in full co-operation with the Environment Agency. Their proposed method of sealing the basements/groundfloors of the affected buildings would ensure the retention of all the visually important buildings in situ whilst putting them to a beneficial use. They have taken into account the advice in PPG 25 on Flooding which in principle allows development in the floodplain provided adequate steps are undertaken to avoid potential damage. Again, similarly to the above item it would be necessary for the applicants to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Act to secure a timescale for the measures and future commitment to continued improvement.

The applicants propose to construct a small sewage plant at the front of the site, close to serve the proposed development. As connection to a suitable drainage network is not feasible the proposed solution is the only viable alternative acceptable in principle to the Environment Agency. A suitable condition can be imposed.

ECOLOGY: The site contains several types of bat, a protected species, and the applicants in negotiation with English Nature are proposing to provide a bat house and a general enhancement of the area to encourage the bats' survival in this locality. They are prepared to enter into an agreement with the Council in consultation with English Nature, to secure the relocation of the bats and enhancement of their habitat. Similarly they are willing to provide two other holts and this provision would also be incorporated into a Section 106 Agreement.

SUSTAINABILITY: This proposal deals with an existing industrial site capable of being used for alternative development though a substantial element of residential and industrial conversion. As stated above about 2/3 of the site's floor area would be used for residential purposes, 1/3 for Class B1 Business purposes. It is evident from the observations of the Highway Engineers above that in view of the fallback situation of the site a lesser amount of business/industrial use (an element which in its own right would largely not require planning permission) would be accepted as sustainable.

The residential element of the scheme (part of which would be clearly linked with the business use) then has to be judged against the criteria advocated in PPG.3 Housing. The Local Planning Authority should promote residential developments which are linked with public transport, provide mixed use, provide 'greening' of residential environment, are quality-designed and make the best use of the land. In assessing these criteria a balance has to be struck between these interests and also the desirability of using brownfield rather than greenfield sites.

In terms of access to public transport the site is in a relatively remote location served by infrequent public transport. The applicants wish to promote the use of bicycles which due to the topography of the location are unlikely to compensate for the shortcomings of the public transport provision. They are also prepared to promote the use of bus/taxi facilities for the residents. However the predominant mode of travel to and from the site would likely to be the car. In this respect it is recognised that, the development would not satisfactorily meet the sustainability criteria.

This factor must however be balanced against other aspects of the proposed development.

The scheme would actively promote a mixed-use development to reduce the need for travel and also to provide employment opportunity for the future residents or residents in the village. Through a landscape enhancement achieved by the demolition of 1/3 of the existing floor space, and especially the large warehouse, the proposal would meet the greening objective. The design solution both for the retained and extended elements is acceptable and respects the historical evolvement of the site. The proposed treatment of the modern buildings in particular would enhance the site significantly. It is also accepted that the proposal makes the best use of the site and the buildings in terms of the size of units and their suitability for conversion and adaptation.

The proosed scheme seeks to utilise an existing brownfield site as an acceptable balance of mixed-use development which would bring about a positive environmental enhancement with no adverse impact on the location's resources.

CONCLUSION

This revised scheme would no doubt still have an impact on this locality. Your officers carefully considered the proposal in the light of both local and national planning policies. They have again accepted that adequate safeguards can be secured through conditions and agreements under Section 106 of the Act. The proposed scheme would not cause harm to interests of acknowledged importance such as protection of the Green Belt and the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It would result in an environmental enhancement of the area including securing a long-term future of protection species within the site and would bring about a reuse of locally important historic site without adverse effects on the area.

RECOMMENDATION

A. Authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure the items referred to above:

B. On completion of that Agreement authorise the Head of Planning Services to PERMIT subject to the receipt of additional information and outstanding negotiations and with the following conditions:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2 No development shall be commenced until a hard and soft landscape scheme has been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme shall include details of all walls, fences, trees, hedgerows and other planting which are to be retained; details of new walls, fences and other boundary treatment and finished ground levels; a planting specification to include numbers, density, size, species and positions of all new trees and shrubs; details of the surface treatment of the open parts of the site; and a programme of implementation.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

3 All hard and/or soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of the development being completed, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the landscape scheme is implemented and maintained.

4 The existing trees and hedges shall be retained in accordance with the approved details. The development shall not be commenced unless the identified trees and hedges have been so retained. Any retained tree or hedge which within five years of the approved development being occupied or completed, whichever is the sooner, dies, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced by a similar species of a size to be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority during the next planting season or in accordance with a programme of replacement to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

5 The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or the use commenced until the means of vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, and shall thereafter be retained for access purposes.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

6 No development or demolition shall take place within the application site until a programme of archaeological work to record those parts of the building(s) which are to be demolished, disturbed or concealed by the proposed development has been undertaken in accordance with a detailed written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the completion of the approved programme of work has been confirmed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that plan form, fixtures, fittings, internal partitions, joinery and any other features of historic and architectural value are recorded to an appropriate professional standard.

7 The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until works for the disposal of sewage and surface water have been provided on site to serve the development in accordance with details to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of drainage infrastructure.

8 No development shall commence until a schedule and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out only in accordance with the details so approved.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

9 The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or the use commenced until provision has been made within the site in accordance with the approved plan(s) for the parking, turning, loading and unloading of vehicles, and such area(s) shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking, turning, loading and unloading of vehicles associated with the development.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking, turning, loading and unloading of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

10 The dwelling(s) shall not be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plan(s) for the parking and turning of vehicles and such area(s) shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

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

Reason: In the interests of amenity and road safety.

12 The detail of the revises access shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority and shall be provided prior to commencement of works on site. No development other than the formation of a new access and approach road, shall commence until the existing vehicular access to the site has been stopped up, its use permanently abandoned and the verge/footway crossing reinstated in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such works shall be completed concurrently with the provision of the new vehicular access hereby approved being first brought into use.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

13 The dwelling(s) hereby approved shall not be occupied until a properly consolidated and surfaced turning space for vehicles has been constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority within the site in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such turning space shall be kept clear of obstruction at all times.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

14 Conditions as advised by the Environment Agency

15 Any other condition as a result of outstanding consultations/negotiations.

FOOTNOTE:

This decision refers to all the documentation and plans submitted with the agents' letter date stamped 19.9.2003.

________________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:04

APPLICATION NO. 03/02217/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 19th Dec 2003

WARD Bathavon North

PARISH Batheaston

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Greenbelt

APPLICANT: Mr And Mrs L Cash

PROPOSAL: Use as residential gypsy caravan site/4 pitches/hardstandings/cesspit on Plot 29 as amended by letter and plan received 28 November 2003

SITE LOCATION: Hartley Farm Upper Swainswick Bath BA1 8AF

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

This application is for the use of an existing field at Hartley Farm on the edge of the former Charmy Down airfield as a family gypsy caravan site. The applicant's agent has submitted the following information in support of the proposal:

1. The application is for an extended family group which is a common feature of the Gypsy lifestyle, and can be classed as a sustainable way of living due to the fact that activities such as group shopping and other trips can be undertaken with fewer vehicle movements. Another plus factor is that other family members are close at hand should any problems develop and the group feels more secure from outside intrusion.

2. The proposal is to use several of the existing WW2 hardstandings along with several newer ones. Wessex Water have confirmed it is not possible to connect to any main sewer and a new cesspit will be provided. Currently no landscaping is proposed although the applicants would be prepared to enter an agreement with the Council over this if the site is permissioned.

3. The family group will comprise husband and wife, his mother, and the wife's 2 sisters.

The submitted plan shows the layout of this irregularly-shaped site some 0.8 hectare (2 acres) in area as having four pitches with an internal driveway and a cesspit in the middle. Each pitch would be formed from scalpings/gravel with caravans on concrete hardstandings, divided by post and rail fencing. The applicant is prepared to accept landscaping conditions. The site is accessed off an unmade private road which emerges onto the A46 (Trunk Road) Gloucester Road in between two bends. The speed limit along this stretch is 50 mph.

The surrounding land is largely undeveloped save for several scattered dwellings and remnants of buildings and hardstandings associated with the former war-time use of the airfield. The site is very exposed being on the top of the Charmy Down plateau.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

BATHEASTON PARISH COUNCIL: Very strongly object:-

1. Site is in both Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

2. Site is not in previous or proposed Local Plans.

3. Wessex Water comments required.

4. Are they gypsies in terms of Circular 1/94 "Persons of nomadic Habit"?

5. Comments of neighbouring Parish Councils and residents must be heeded.

SWAINSWICK PARISH COUNCIL: Oppose the application for many reasons, the most important of which are listed below:

- The site is in "Green Belt" and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty" - it is not a "brownfield site".

- Egress from Hartley Lane to the A46 is on an extremely dangerous corner.

- There is no footpath running in either direction when the A46 is reached.

- A variety of environmental issues.

Attached to this letter is a copy of a letter addressing these points and some further issues, which is more comprehensive than this short report:

With reference to the proposed development on Plot 29 of Harley Farm for use as a Residential Gypsy Caravan site of 4 pitches.

I have a number of concerns about this application and would appreciate it if these could be taken into account when the application is considered.

I apologise for the length of this letter but feel strongly that these issues need careful consideration.

1. The suitability of the site due to the access to the A46.

Please see the appended diagram and comments illustrating the risk due to vehicles joining the A46 from the Hartley Farm junction at the Hartley Bends. The upper section of the A46 is notorious for accidents and several facilities have sadly occurred in recent years.

The S-Bend on the A46, where the Hartley Farm access is situated, has regular accidents. The Hartley Farm access is probably the most dangerous access to the A46 between Bath and the M4 Motorway. Any planning permission granted which adds to this traffic hazard cannot be in the interest of the local community or the users of the A46.

2. The suitability of the site on the ecological grounds.

The site is in the Green Belt (please note that the section on the Planning Application describing the site as Derelict Brownfield land is incorrect at best and deliberately misleading at worst). The definition of a Brownfield Site (from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website) is "previously developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure (excluding agricultural or forestry buildings), and associated fixed surface infrastructure".

There has not been any planning permission granted for use of this site for car storage. It's true that the previous owner had stored some cars on the site but he had also used it for agricultural purposes. One would assume that the car storage (if not compatible with the use of Green Belt Land) was done without the knowledge of the Planning Authority and also outside of the proper use of the land. On this basis I would dispute that this is a Brownfield Site, accepting it as such could set a precedent whereby flagrant abuse of Green Belt Land could lead to it being released for development as Brownfield Land.

The site is also within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding National Beauty. There has been significant concern about development in this area, the Swainswick Valley, as demonstrated by the Secretary of State endorsing the District Council's proposal for an Article 4 Direction in the valley in February 1993, this direction took away the normal permitted development rights enjoyed by agricultural development. Surely if the valley was deemed important enough for the Article 4 Direction then it's also important enough to raise concerns about this proposed development?

The site is in an area of low population density. Most of the residents have lived here for many years and those that are not here due to agricultural reasons choose to live here through a desire for peace and quiet. Bringing a settlement of uncertain size (see comments in point 4 below) could well detract from the existing residents' peace and quiet.

3. Risk of contamination to the ground water.

In the 1991 there were a number of 'Travellers' vehicles on the Charmy Down Airfield close to the area that the application covers. The Water Board sought, and obtained, an eviction notice on the grounds that there was a risk of contamination of ground water. I would reassurance that the application has been carefully considered on these grounds.

4. The Information on the planning application form.

I have a number of concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the application.

- The number of people who will be living on this site.

The application is for four caravan pitches. The application also names five people; Mr and Mrs Cash, Mr Cash's mother and Mrs Cash's two sisters.

It does not mention whether there are other family members. Do Mr and Mrs Cash have any children? Are Mrs Cash's sisters married and do they have families?

This point is important because currently this area is sparsely populated and people who believe here choose to live here because of its isolation and peace. Should a relatively large population (say, 15 to 20) people be brought into the area it runs the risk of adversely changing the character of the area.

The small community, established for close to 50 years, would be swamped.

- Inaccuracy about the type of land. The previous owner kept pigs in this area and the primary use of the land was agricultural. It may be true that there were some cars stored on the land but this was not an authorised use. Allowing the definition of "Brownfield" to be accepted surely sets a dangerous precedent that could encourage willful abuse of the Green Belt.

5. Compatibility with Bath and North East Somerset's Local Plan.

Following a discussion with one of Bath and North East Somerset's planning team, I believe that the Wansdyke Plan (complete with the changes made following the Bath and North East Somerset Council's review of the Inspector's Report on objections to the plan) is one of the policy documents to be considered along with the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan.

I believe that there are a large number of inconsistencies between the aimis and strategy of the two plans and this application, a representative sample follows:

5.1 Bath and North East Somerset's Local Plan.

- Gypsy sites are only permitted according to Bath and North East Somerset Policy HG.16. The last two, of the six criteria, of this Policy are:

- adequate access is provided and no serious highway problems would result; and

- vehicle movements, noise, fumes and business activities would not cause any substantiated effect on the amenity of adjacent uses or the character of the area.

It is clear, see my notes at the end of this letter on the access to Hartley Farm, that adequate access is not provided.

Additionally, given the current character of the area (remote and quiet chosen by people who value peace and a lack of intrusion) that the potential isseus highlit in the Local Plan:

"On-site business activities associated with the gypsies can cause significant levels of pollution, noise and disturbance and have implications on highway safety from the movement of vehicles, and affect the visual amenities of the area.

(Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan Revised Deposit 2003. B7.129)

The proposed development would cause significant change in the local environment and the quality of life of the existing residents.

- Within the Housing Section (B7), point B7.127 states that:

"These general take account of Government policy as set out in Circular 1/94. Green Belt Policy as set out in PPG2 is restrictive and sites would therefore normally be inappropriate in such location.

Rural sites may be acceptable if they do not lie within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty".

According to Section C2 (The 'National' Environment), point C2.12, there are two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in Bath and North East Somerset, one of which is the Cotswolds in the East. According to Diagram 11, the proposed site lies within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

- The application does not seem to be acceptable to Policy GB.1, the exception to GB.1 is that permission will be given in "very special circumstances". The application for planning makes no mention of these very special circumstances.

- Section A3 of the Local Plan sets the Vision and Strategy. Under Housing, point L7 states that:

"To meet the District's housing needs by providing a range of housing types, including affordable homes, at locations with convenient access especially by means other than the car to employment, shops, services and other community and recreational uses".

There is not any appreciable public transport in the area of the applicants. Additionally the limited bus service does not offer a bus stop accessible to people living on the proposed site. The people on the site would either need to walk alongside the A46 (which has no verge on which to walk) or across fields containing livestock (there is no direct footpath) and potentially through other local residents' properties to reach the nearest bus stop.

- Section A3 of the Local Plan sets the Vision and Strategy. Under Sustainable Development, Policy 1 states that:

"Development will be expected to only be permitted where it is;

- accessible by a range to transport modes and is in locations which minimises the need to travel

- contributes to meeting the social needs of communities or does not harm the provision of community facilities and provides safe and socially inclusive environments (including accessible housing, community, shopping and recreational features);"

It is clear that the location does not minimise the need to travel or have accessible shopping and recreational facilities.

5.2 Wansdyke's Local Plan

- According to Section 5 (Landscape and Nature Conservation), point 5.11, there are two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in Bath and North East Somerset, one of which is the Cotswolds in the East. According to the "Proposals Map East", the proposed site lies within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

- The application does not seem to be acceptable to Policy LNC.2, "that development in the open countryside will be permitted only if it is essential to the rural economy or appropriate for the enjoyment of the natural beauty of the area".

Surely since the site is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty LNC.2 will not allow it?

- Within the Housing Section, Policy H0.10 states that:

"Outside the settlements covered by Policies H0.4, 5 and 6 permission will not be given for new dwellings unless they are essential for agriculture or forestry workers. Essential new dwellings will be expected to be sited within a hamlet or existing group of buildings and permission will be given for a new dwelling in the open countryside only when an alternative location is not feasible. In all cases new dwellings will be subject to conditions restricting both their size, which should be commensurate with the functional requirements of the agriculture or forestry enterprise, and their occupation".

Since the land at Hartley Farm Plot 29 is outside any settlement and the applicants do not work in agriculture or forestry surely the application is not acceptable.

- Within the Housing Section, point 9.90 states that

"These general criteria take account of Government Policy as set out in Circular 1/94. Green Belt Policy as set out in PPG2 is restrictive and sites would therefore normally be inappropriate in such locations. Rural sites may be acceptable if they do not lie within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty".

This site is most definitely in the Green Belt and in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

- Also from the Housing Section, Gypsy sites are only permitted according to Wansdyke's Policy H0.22. Criteria vi), of this Policy states:

- Safe vehicular access is provided on to the existing highway network having regard to environmental considerations;

It is clear, see my notes at the end of this letter on the access to Hartley Farm, that safe access is not provided.

Additionally, given the current character of the area (remote and quiet chosen by people who value peace and a lack of intrusion) it appears that criteria iii of Policy H0.22 is not satisfied:

- "the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the local environment nor on adjoining or nearby uses, including housing".

The proposed development would cause significant change in the local environment and the quality of life of the existing residents.

As you can see I am greatly concerned about this proposed development. I have lived in this area for more than 30 years and am very attached to the peace and quiet that I find this area which helps me relax outside of my professional life. I would urge you to consider carefully the concerns expressed in this letter not least the concerns about the impact on the A46.

Appendix: The Hartley Farm Access to the A46.

The A46 is an extremely busy road with a poor record for safety. I am concerned that any increase in traffic using the access to Hartley Farm would result in an increase in accidents.

The point marked "South" on the map is the point at which the Hartley Farm access is first visible from the A46 when one is heading towards the M4. The point marked "Access" on the map is the Hartley Farm access. The point marked "South" on the map is the point at which the Hartley Farm access is first visible from the A46 when heading towards Bath.

The distance between "South" and "Access" is 160 m, the distance between "North" and "Access" is slightly less than 80 m.

When driving towards Bath, the access is visible when you reach the point marked "North", the distance between "North" and "Access" is slightly less than 80 m. Assuming a vehicle was travelling at the signed speed limit (which is feasible on this road) then the driver would have just 3.6 seconds to see the vehicle and stop. At 50 mph the Highway Code tells us that the stopping distance is 53 m in good conditions. In wet weather this is doubled to 106 m.

Under wet conditions, according to the Highway Code, a driver choosing to drive at the posted speed limit would not be able to stop in reaction to a vehicle pulling out from the Hartley Farm junction. Even in dry conditions the driver would have to spot the joining vehicle within 27 m of the junction first becoming visible (27 m is covered in a little over a second at 50 mph).

For the driver joining the A46 from the Hartley Farm access the visibility is just as limited. It's not safe to reply upon the joining driver's observation avoiding accidents.

The S-Bend on the A46 is an accident blackspot with regular accidents and road closures, including fatalities in recent years. Any planning permission granted which adds to this traffic hazard cannot be in the interest of the local community or the users of the A46.

CHARLCOMBE PARISH COUNCIL: Object on the grounds similar to the above parishes.

COLD ASHTON PARISH COUNCIL: Object on the grounds similar to the above parishes.

MARSHFIELD PARISH COUNCIL: Object on the grounds similar to the above parishes.

HIGHWAYS AGENCY: Please note that the A46 is virtually de-trunked route. The Highways Agency will still comment, advise and direct on planning applications. However, it is appropriate that the inherting highway authority should comment and advise on all non-safety matters. We confirm that the Highways Agency has not received any non-safety comments or advice from Bath and North East Somerset.

We do have concerns about this application on the grounds of highway safety. The highway alignment at this location is extremely sinuous, which restricts forward visibility of queuing or turning vehicles. The access to the site is relatively inconspicuous and is difficult to spot for those unfamiliar with its location. It also has very limited visibility, which is substantially below the requirements of the design standards.

As a consequence of the substandard nature of the highway at this location the accident record is poor and in the five year period between 1998 and 2002 there were 11 injury accidents on the A46 in the near vicinity of the access. Seven of the accidents were slight injury accidents and four were serious injury accidents.

We would therefore strongly recommend that this application should be turned down on the grounds of highway safety.

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT TEAM: In considering this application I have taken into account circular 1/94, and policy HG16 of the emerging Local Plan and the Revised Deposit Draft together with advice contained in PPG13.

The application seeks to provide a residential gypsy caravan site for four pitches together with hardstanding and access. Access to the site would be from an existing track via the A46 Trunk Road. The current use of this part of the site is for the storage of abandoned vehicles. Policy HG16 in the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan and as amended in the Revised Deposit Draft 2003 sets out the Council's policy in respect of gypsy caravan sites. The current proposal fails on two points from a highway perspective i.e. it conflicts with the following:-

(i) the proposal is for permanent residential use or mixed-use and has reasonable access to local community facilities and services.

(v) adequate access is provided and no serious highway problems would result.

In considering i) above the site is remote from services and on a balance of probability is likely to be heavily dependent on the private car as a means of travel. This is in direct conflict with the key aims of PPG13 which seeks to reduce the length and number of motorised journeys especially by private car.

In respect of point v) the access junction with the A46 known as Hartley Bends has restricted visibility in particular to the north. There is a local speed restriction of 50mph in force, however available visibility falls far short of any current day safety standards. In this respect I am advised that the Highways Agency, the responsible body for this length of highway are likely to object on the grounds of road safety and I can confirm that I share this view. I recommend that the application be refused for the following reason: -

1. The proposal, located remote from services, employment opportunities and being unlikely to be well served by public transport, is contrary to the key aims of Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 which seeks to reduce growth in the length and number of motorised journeys.

2. The site has insufficient frontage to the north and south to enable an access to be satisfactorily laid out incorporating the necessary visibility splays which are essential in the interests of highway safety.

3. The generation of conflicting traffic movements resulting from the proposed development would be prejudicial to road safety.

ENVIRONMENT HEALTH: CARAVAN SITES AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1960 SCHEDULE: I refer to our consultation memo of 28th October 2003 concerning the above. This service has no record of any previous use by gypsies of this land, lawful or otherwise. There have been previous unauthorised uses which I am sure you are fully aware of, that I understand were subject to planning enforcement action.

In the event that planning permission were to be granted for this proposal, the applicant should be advised that he will need to apply for a Licence under Section 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. The licence would be subject to conditions a specimen copy of which, for multiple van sites, is attached.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: The Agency OBJECTS to the proposed development, as submitted, on the following grounds:

The site overlies a major aquifer of high vulnerability and is located within a Source Protection Zone 1 as defined by the Agency's Policy and Practice for the Protection of Groundwater (PPPG). Therefore there is a high risk of pollution of controlled waters. It is vital that pollutants such as oils (engine/fuel/heating) or sewage effluent are prevented from entering groundwaters.

The means of disposal of sewage is unsatisfactory and will create an unacceptable risk of pollution of the water environment.

The Environment Agency no longer supports the use of sealed cess pools in rural areas. The need for frequent emptying involves unsustainable use of resources to transport sewage for disposal at a licensed facility and the high costs involved can lead to unauthorised discharges being made.

A copy of the subsequent decision notice would be appreciated.

Bath and North East Somerset CPPE Branch: Objection on the grounds similar to those of the Parish Councils.

ST CATHERINE ASSOCIATION: Local residents: 120 letters of objection on the grounds similar to those of the Parish Councils.

PLANNING ISSUES

PLANNING POLICY: The site lies in the statutory Green Belt and the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the relevant policies for developments in such designated areas are WGB.1 and LNC.2 of the Wansdyke Local Plan (WLP) and GB.1 and NE.2 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft (RDD). Both plans contain policies controlling development of Gypsy Sites, H0.22 and HG.16 respectively. Transport policies T.1 and T.24 respectively are also applicable. The site also lies with groundwater protected areas of Charmy Down and Policies PH.6 (WLP) and NE.16 (RDD).

Due to the specific nature of the application reference was also had to Department of the Environment Circular 1/94 - Gypsy Sites and Planning.

GREEN BELT: Both the planning policies relating to the provision of gypsy sites and the Circular give guidance on what consideration should be given to proposals to provide such sites in the Green Belt. The advice is clear-cut in that gypsy sites would not be appropriate development in the Green Belt. Consequently if these were to be allowed very special circumstances to justify the exception to those policies would have to be put forward. None have been received in addition to the information provided by the applicants as referred above. The proposal is thus clearly contrary to the Local Plan Green Belt policies.

COTSWOLD AREA OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY: The whole of Charmy Down lies with the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is a highly exposed landscape in this locality and clearly the establishment of a gypsy site there would not contribute to the enhancement of this landscape. The Circular again stresses that it would not be appropriate to make provision for gypsy sites in areas of open land and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are specifically named. The proposal flies in the face of this advice and that of the Local Plan Policies.

HIGHWAY ISSUES: It is evident from the submission of the highway authorities above that the access to the site off the main road has severe limitations and its use would exacerbate highway problems already experienced along this stretch of the road. The proposal therefore conflicts with the highway policies referred to above.

PROXIMITY TO LOCAL SERVICES: One of the recommend criteria for suitable location of gypsy sites is that they should be within a reasonable distance of local services and facilities such as, shops, hospitals and schools. The site is well outside any existing settlement in this area with the nearest local shops in Lower Swainswick and a small primary school in Upper Swainswick, some 2-3 miles away, with no direct pedestrian links. It is not considered that even if the other objections raised above were to be set aside, the proposal meets the locational criteria either of the Circular or the relevant policies.

OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA: The Charmy Down plateau is protected as Water Source Protection Area. The Environmental Agency has raised strong objection to the proposal on environmental grounds. The proposal would conflict with above policy.

CONCLUSION

This proposal fails to meet the requirements of the relevant policies of the Local Plans and of the Government Circular 1/94 and must be refused.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reasons:-

1 The proposal is inappropriate development in the statutory Bristol Bath Green Belt and in the absence of justification providing very special reasons it would be contrary to policies WGB.1 and HO.22 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and policies GB.1 and HG.16 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft).

2 The site is located in the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the proposal would detract from the landscape character of the area, in conflict with policies LNC.2 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and NE.2 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft).

3 The proposal, located remote from services, employment opportunities and being unlikely to be well served by public transport, is contrary to the key aims of Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 which seeks to reduce growth in the length and number of motorised journeys.

4 The site has insufficient frontage to the north and south to enable an access to be satisfactory laid out incorporating the necessary visibility splays which are essential in the interests of highway safety, in conflict with policies T.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and T.24 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft).

5 The generation of conflicting traffic movements resulting from the proposed development would be prejudicial to road safety, in conflict with policies T.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and T.24 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft).

6 The proposed use of the site would be likely to result in pollution of Water Source Protection Area, in conflict with policies PH.6 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and NE.14 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft).

FOOTNOTE: This decision refers to plans and documentation date-stamped 24th October 2003 as amended by a revised location plan date-stamped 28th November 2003.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:05

APPLICATION NO. 03/02662/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 18th Dec 2003

WARD High Littleton

PARISH High Littleton

APPLICANT: D Pera

PROPOSAL: Construction of 16 no. houses

SITE LOCATION: Land Off Timsbury Road Lane High Littleton Bristol

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

The site lies to the south of Timsbury Road close to its junction with the A39, on the southern fringe of High Littleton.

Measuring some 0.56 ha, the site comprises an open field bounded by hedgerows, and rising towards the south. To the east, the rear gardens of semi-detached properties along The Batch are separated from the site by a public footpath. To the west, the site adjoins the grounds of two detached properties - 'The Lodge' and 'The Spinney'. Open farmland extends to the south.

The site lies within the Housing Development Boundary, and is identified in both the Wansdyke Local Plan and the draft Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan as a Site for Housing.

The application proposes the erection of 16 houses arranged around a cul-de-sac, and comprising 4 no. 2 bed units, 8 no. 3 bed units and 4 no. 4 bed units.

A shared surface access road off Timsbury Road would incorporate visibility splays to the east and west.

Further information and revised details relating to survey, sections and levels, and a design statement have been submitted subsequent to the initial application.

Members may recall visiting the site prior to consideration of an application in 2003, which was subsequently withdrawn.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

HIGH LITTLETON PARISH COUNCIL: In response to the initial submission the Parish Council oppose the scheme, and comment as follows:

1.1 At the Parish Council Meeting of 13 October 2003, it was agreed that the clerk would send a copy of the Hallatrow and High Littleton Village Design Statement (VDS) to Mr Pera. This was sent on 24 October, and so post dated the current application. It is not therefore known whether the applicant has made any reference to the VDS or the guidance and recommendations it contains, with respect to this application.

1.2 As this is an application in full, and is different from that (withdrawn) application (0201962 FUL) in terms of layout, form, massing, elevations and architectural appearance, and external surfacing and landscape proposals, I address it as, in effect, a new application.

1.3 I am a resident neighbour to the application site, but the comments I make in this report are in my role as a Parish Councillor, and I seek to be as objective as possible in this respect.

1.4 Whilst the application will be considered in the policy context of the Wansdyke Local Plan deposit draft 1995, amended September 2000, and the emerging Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan, the latter is now at Revised Deposit Draft Stage (October 2003), and certain policies are of increased weight as a result. Secondly, the VDS was adopted in September 2003 as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), which gives it material weight in the consideration of this application.

2.0 General

2.1 The application is on land allocated for residential development. The site lies adjacent to a registered Historic Garden (Policy BH10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan), in the setting of a listed building (High Littleton House), and directly opposite a group of houses of important village character (the Batch).

2.2 The location of the application site is such that proposed development "will need to reflect the existing built form, building pattern and scale of the village" in order to retain the distinctiveness of the village (VDS Page 3).

2.3 Importantly, as the emerging Local Plan states, "wherever development takes place, it should be of high quality, and of benefit to the area in which it is located". (A5.2).

3.0 The Proposal

Technical

3.1 The application is incomplete, given that it is an 'in full' application. Whilst a 1:200 topographic survey is included, it is not used to inform the site layout, which is at 1:500, and without any levels information.

3.2 The site layout should be at 1:200, with contours and levels shown. It is not possible to assess the potential impact and detail of change at 1:500. B&NES standard requirement (see Guidance Notes to Applicants for Planning Permission) is for 1:200 drawings.

3.3 There are no site cross sections provided, and so it is not possible to assess implications on landforms, drainage, or potential visual impact.

3.4 There is no Design Statement provided with the application. Policy D5 of the emerging Local Plan clearly states that "planning applications for all development will be expected to be accompanied by a design statement". Clear guidance is given in the Local Plan as to what information should be provided, and to show how such information has 'informed' the evolution of the scheme.

Setting and Settlement Pattern

3.5 The adopted VDS also gives clear guidance to developers as to what is expected in terms of setting, layout and design. The application does not maintain views from the village to the countryside beyond - these are blocked by dwellings 10 and 11.

3.6 House Type A is not in keeping with layouts elsewhere in the village. It is a very awkward building, and dwellings 1, 2, 3 and 4 are badly and clumsily sited with respect to the Batch. Their gardens are unpleasant, poorly designed and residual compromises.

3.7 There is no detail of boundary treatment, or of the precise boundary of the development itself or what constitutes it. There are no stone walls or native hedgerows proposed, as required by the VDS. There is no definition of what is the boundary treatment between the site and part of the Spinney, yet this marks the important boundary of the Historic Garden, and must be resolved.

Layout

3.8 Plots 7, 8 and 9 have short gardens (9 - 11 m) of which approximately 2 - 3 m will be taken up by existing mature hedgerow planting. The risk of removal or damage to this hedgerow will be considerable, and yet this hedgerow is important to the setting of the footpath (VDS).

3.9 Dwellings 1 - 4, as noted, are very poorly arranged. There is no room for turning vehicles within the parking area and so vehicles will need to reverse out into the internal road. This also appears to be the case with dwellings 9 and 10. Again this is poorly thought out design.

3.10 Plots 12 - 16 have clear rearward views over the Historic Garden, and will potentially have a considerable visual impact on it. No attempt has been made to consider boundary treatment, for example by appropriate walling and planting. Plots 15 and 16 have very small gardens, and dwellings 12 - 16 are very close to one another. This is very much of housing estate character rather than village character.

Landscape

3.11 There is only token landscape treatment, with apparent indecision in what has been included: 'Proposed hedge or dense planting' fronts and dominates buildings 10, 12 and 13 for no apparent reason, whilst that in front of dwellings 1 and 2 is entirely wrong, both for the occupier and as external space treatment at this frontage to The Batch. The letter with the application refers to structure planting being illustrated on the submitted plan. This is not structure planting, nor is what is shown detailed as to species, size and density. The information given on landscape treatment is inadequate and the design of the same is poor.

Traffic

3.12 The sight lines for the access need to be drawn at 1:200 scale. This will show that the horizontal and vertical sight lines are impeded, and that the 'y' distance is not adequate. The west sight line is substandard, and will be particularly crucial with respect to traffic backing up at the A39 junction. The telephone kiosk appears to have been relocated. Has this been agreed with British Telecom? Is the land on which it is to be located to be publicly accessible?

House Design

3.13 The individual elevations appear to be generally in character with the village, but the form, layout and arrangement of the dwellings fail to take account of the characteristics of the area, as noted in 3.5 to 3.10 above. 10 out of 16 are rendered - but this should be reversed, with the majority being clad in natural stone, as per the VDS.

Play Area

3.14 No provision is made on site, but the applicant has offered to make a contribution to improve existing off-site play provision.

Scheme Development

3.15 Whilst the proposed development is for 16 houses and so incorporates an element of affordable housing, the applicant advises that, should the Parish Council wish to see a reduction in the number of houses to 14, then he would consider this. As such, the affordable housing could therefore apparently be omitted. The Parish Council will wish to consider this proposal, being a choice between reducing the number of buildings on this site, which is desirable, and the loss of affordable housing provision as a result.

4. Conclusion

4.1 I consider that the Parish Council should oppose this application for the following reasons:

1. The application is incomplete, and an inadequate scale of site layout and related technical detail (including layout, access, boundaries and landscaping) is provided. The application does not conform with B&NES guidance in this respect, and the potential impacts cannot be properly assessed.

2. No use has been made of the topographic survey to inform the design layout, and no levels are shown on the layout plan.

3. No Design Statement has been provided with the application, as required in the emerging Local Plan.

4. The application makes no reference to the Village Design Statement, and does not appear to incorporate or adopt its guidance. The VDS is Supplementary Planning Guidance and should be given due weight. Specifically, the application:

_ is of a layout and density which cramps and erodes the setting of existing buildings, including The Batch, and the Historic Garden;

_ it provides poorly conceived and badly design 'public space' at the entrance to the development;

_ the buildings block views out of the village to the countryside beyond, and 'divorce' the village from

it

_ existing features such as the boundary hedges are threatened, and broken through at one point for a 'field access', which is in any case unnecessary. No proposals are included with respect to retention, replacement or improvement of walled boundaries.

_ traffic problems will be worsened (see below);

_ off street compensatory street parking does not appear to have been provided.

5. Generally, the development does not take account of or respond positively to the characteristics of the site or the immediate locality. The layout, form and arrangement of the dwelling, internal parking, private and public spaces, is poorly conceived and executed.

6. The sight lines provided are sub-standard, and are visually impeded, close to a very busy junction with the A39.

7. The loss of existing residential parking resulting from the access and sight line requirements has not been compensated for, and neither has off street parking been provided for the same.

8. The development considerably worsens the existing traffic problems in this part of the village, and will have a serious impact on road safety and on the local community as a result.

5.0 Request at Parish Meeting

The Parish Council requests perspectives of how the proposed development will appear in public views from The Batch/Timsbury Road.

PLANNING POLICY: The principle of housing development is acceptable as the site is allocated in both the Wansdyke Local Plan and the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan. Following consideration of the draft Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan by the Council on the 17 July, it has been agreed that the site could be developed for housing before the start of the second part of the Plan period (1st April 2006).

STRATEGIC HOUSING SERVICES: Draw attention to the Council's Housing 2000 Study, and conclude that the scheme should provide for 30% affordable housing (5 units), and with a suitable mix of size and type - 3 no 2 bed units and 2 no 3 bed units are suggested.

Concern is raised at the grouping of the affordable housing on the most unattractive part of the site; at their internal arrangement; and at their related parking provision.

The affordable units should be delivered via a Section 106 Agreement which ensures their retention in perpetuity for local people with local connections.

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT TEAM: The scheme has been revised in response to a number of initial concerns, and no objection is raised in principle. It is pointed out that the Highway Authority would expect to adopt the whole of the shared surface area, with prior approval of details relating to the provision parking and turning areas, lighting and drainage. In view of increased vehicle movements, and to support the safe routes to school initiative, a traffic island at The Timsbury Road/A39 junction should be required, and secured by legal agreement.

POLICY AND PROJECTS GROUP: Draw attention to the objectives of the Village Design Statement Query whether the narrow frontages of buildings in the surrounding area should be reflected in the proposals, and suggest that front in the proposals, and suggest that front boundaries should feature low stone walls. Concern is raised at car parking areas forward of the building line; the displacement of existing on-street parking at the site entrance; intrusion into root areas; and the means of safeguarding the existing hedge.

CONTAMINATED LAND OFFICER: No objection subject to a human health and environmental risk assessment.

WESSEX WATER: Point out that there are no existing public surface water sewers in the vicinity of the site, and that alternative methods of satisfactory disposal should be investigated.

ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY: No comment.

LOCAL RESIDENTS: 8 letters of objection have been received. They raise concern relating to the following issues:

- Overdevelopment in a form which is out-of-character with the surroundings;

- Overlooking/overbearing of neighbouring properties;

- Possible future access to adjacent land;

- Access, and related traffic and pedestrian safety;

- Loss of existing on-street parking;

- Inadequate/inappropriate materials;

- Drainage infrastructure, and the impact upon existing systems;

- Lack of detail relating to hard and soft landscaping;

- Vagaries of the site boundaries;

- Impact upon local school numbers;

- Provision of low-cost housing;

- Premature development of a greenfield site.

- Impact upon adjacent listed garden and buildings.

PLANNING ISSUES

POLICY CONTEXT: Policy H0.3 (Wansdyke Local Plan) and GDS1 (Deposit Local Plan) allocate the site for residential development. The schedule to these policies identifies the requirements of development as follows:

(i) road improvements on frontage;

(ii) childrens play provision;

(iii) off-site foul and water sewerage improvements.

Policies H0.4 and H0.12 (Wansdyke Local Plan) and D1, D2 and D4 (Draft Local Plan) identify the criteria for acceptable residential development.

Policy H0.8 (Wansdyke Local Plan) and HG.8 (Draft Local Plan) seeks the provision of an element of affordable housing (4 being the target for this site).

Policies TP.1, TP.18, T.24 and T.26 (Draft Local Plan) identify appropriate highway development control criteria.

Policies REC.8 (Wansdyke Local Plan) and SR.3 (Draft Local Plan) and the schedule thereto, seek the provision of childrens play areas.

Policy PH.8 (Wansdyke Local Plan) and ES.5 (Draft Local Plan) seek the provision of appropriate measures relating to surface water drainage.

PPG3 sets out policy objectives and criteria relating, inter alia, to the development of greenfield sites.

The Hallatrow and High Littleton Design Statement features the site, and is a material consideration.

PLANNING HISTORY: Outline planning permission was granted in 1985 for the residential development of the site (WC 11674/A).

In 1991, a further outline application was refused planning permission (WC 011674B). A subsequent appeal was allowed, although the Inspector concluded that the illustrative layout of 16 houses would have a likely adverse impact.

An alternative proposal was withdrawn in September 2003 in response to an adverse recommendation (02/01962/FUL).

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT/PHASING: The site is allocated for housing development in both the Wansdyke Local Plan and the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan. In considering the Second Deposit Draft, the Council recently resolved to remove the previous requirement for phasing, notwithstanding the objectives of PPG3.

There is therefore now no objection to the principle of development, subject to all other criteria being met.

ACCESS: The site has a narrow road frontage and the proposed access is in the optimum position. The applicant has secured an option to purchase land along Timsbury Road to enable the provision of a visibility splay which although slightly substandard, raises no formal highway objection having regard to the relatively low traffic speeds at this point.

A shared surface access road is proposed which would have a less 'urban' appearance whilst complying with adoptable standards.

Access to the adjacent field to the south is proposed. This would involve the removal of a section of established hedgerow and is regrettable, this field having an existing access point elsewhere.

PARKING: 35 parking spaces are proposed, most of which are in a tandem arrangement. This number complies with the maximum standard which is considered appropriate in this rural location. The proposed access and its associated visibility splay would impact upon a number of current (unallocated) on-street parking spaces. Whilst it is recognised that such spaces are considered important to a number of neighbouring residents, objection to the principle of development on this ground would be unsustainable.

LAYOUT/SCALE: The proposed layout comprises a mix of semi-detached and detached dwellings which, in principle, reflect the immediate surroundings. Houses would border either side of the central access road, and extend up into the highest, southernmost corner of the site.

The plot sizes are modest, although generally within acceptable limits. The orientation to a large extent is such that reasonable amenities would be provided for future occupiers, and those of existing neighbouring properties maintained. Some concern remains however with regard to those units adjacent to the site entrance, which the architect claims have been introduced in a curved form "to gently turn the corner at the site entrance". This approach is successful when viewed from the A39, but has an uncomfortable relationship with existing properties on Timsbury Road. Moreover, it produces rear gardens of limited and difficult proportions particularly having regard to their proposed designation as affordable homes.

LANDSCAPE: The layout has been revised to provide an improved relationship between the proposed houses and significant existing trees. Hedge planting is proposed, and would make some contribution to the overall landscape character. It is considered however that in the northern portion of the site, in particular, boundary walling should feature.

No children's play area is proposed, although the schedule to Policy H0.3 identifies the provision of a childrens play area as a pre requisite of development. The current policies do however provide for, as an alternative, financial contribution towards off-site provision or enhancement.

DESIGN: The houses are of reasonably traditional style and proportion. The four houses at the site entrance would be of reconstructed stone, with a mix of natural stone and rendered finishes on the remainder. Clay roof tiles are proposed throughout.

The presently proposed mix and arrangement of finishes lacks cohesion, however, and is to be the subject of further discussion.

DRAINAGE: Wessex Water have stated that an appropriate foul sewer connection can be agreed at a detailed design stage. It is pointed out however that surface water should not be discharged to the foul sewer, and that the Council should be satisfied with any arrangement for the disposal thereof. If development were to be approved, the necessary off-site infrastructure improvements would need to be secured via a Section 106 Agreement.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING/HOUSING MIX: The scheme provides 4 no. 2 bedroom units which would be available as affordable housing, and would satisfy the requirements of Policy HO.3 of the Wansdyke Local Plan, although this would be marginally less than Strategic Housing Services' current target of 30% provision. There is concern that the affordable units proposed occupy the most constrained and sensitive plots on the site. This too is to be the subject of further discussion.

CONCLUSION

The site is allocated for housing development in both the Wansdyke Local Plan and the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan.

This revised scheme introduces a layout which to a large extent reflects the semi-rural character of the site and respects the character of the surrounding area and the amenities of neighbouring properties. The layout fails to provide a play area on-site, although the applicant has agreed in principle to a financial contribution to off-site provision/enhancement.

Discussion is ongoing on points of detail and Members will be furthr advised. In the meantime, the following recommendation is made:

RECOMMENDATION

A. Authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to prepare a Section 106 Agreement to secure the provision of, or contributions to, off-site highway and drainage infrastructure and childrens play facilities.

B. Upon completion of the Agreement and subject to the submission of satisfactory revised details and further information relating to hard and soft landscaping, external finishes, and the arrangement of plots 1 and 2, PERMIT with the following conditions:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2 The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or the use commenced until the means of vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, and shall thereafter be retained for access purposes.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

3 No development shall be commenced until a hard and soft landscape scheme has been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme shall include details of all walls, fences, trees, hedgerows and other planting which are to be retained; details of new walls, fences and other boundary treatment and finished ground levels; a planting specification to include numbers, density, size, species and positions of all new trees and shrubs; details of the surface treatment of the open parts of the site; and a programme of implementation.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

4 All hard and/or soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of the development being completed, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the landscape scheme is implemented and maintained.

5 No site works or clearance shall be commenced until protective fences which conform with British Standard 5837:1991 have been erected around any existing trees and other existing or proposed landscape areas in positions which have previously been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Until the development has been completed these fences shall not be removed and the protected areas are to be kept clear of any building, plant, material, debris and trenching, with the existing ground levels maintained, and there shall be no entry to those areas except for arboricultural or landscape works.

Reason: To safeguard the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.

6 Prior to the commencement of any form of site works or clearance the Local Planning Authority shall be given not less than two weeks notice in writing of these works to ensure that appropriate measures of landscape protection required under condition 5 have been implemented in accordance with the approved plans or conditions.

Reason: To ensure that adequate protection is given to the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.

7 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no lines, mains, pipes, cables or other apparatus shall be installed or laid on the site other than in accordance with drawings first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the existing and proposed trees, vegetation and open spaces on the site.

8 Prior to the commencement of development, a sample panel of all external walling materials to be used shall be erected on site, approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and kept on site for reference until the development is completed.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

9 No development shall commence until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out only in accordance with the details so approved.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

10 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension or enlargement (including additions or alterations to the roof(s)) of the dwelling(s) hereby approved shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Any further extensions require detailed consideration by the Local Planning Authority to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding area.

11 The dwelling(s) shall not be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plan(s) for the parking and turning of vehicles and such area(s) shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

12 The garage(s) hereby approved shall be retained for the garaging of private motor vehicles associated with the dwelling and ancillary domestic storage and for no other purpose without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To retain adequate off-street parking provision.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:06

APPLICATION NO. 03/03075/OUT TYPE Outline Application

EXPIRY DATE 30th Jan 2004

WARD Chew Valley North

PARISH Chew Magna

Greenbelt

APPLICANT: Girl Guiding Somerset North County

PROPOSAL: Extension and conversion of barn to form County Guide Centre

SITE LOCATION: Land South Of Hollow Brook Lane Hollowbrook Bishop Sutton Bristol BS18 4TX

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

This application relates to a site on the south side of Hollowbrook Lane in the open countryside between Chew Magna and Bishop Sutton, a short distance to the east of Chew Valley Lake.

The site comprises a field of approximately 0.3 hectares with a small barn at its western end. Outline planning permission is sought to convert and extend the barn to form a County Guide Centre. All detailed matters are reserved for subsequent approval.

An illustrative plan indicates an extension of single storey height of approximately 230 square metres to the existing barn, which has a floor area of 54 square metres. A turning space and 9 - space car parking area is proposed to the east of the proposed building, served from the existing access point; a second driveway is also indicated through the site to the adjoining field to the south.

The application is accompanied by a supporting statement which makes the following points:

i) the Somerset County North area has over 5000 members and has been seeking a site for a County Centre for many years;

ii) the total area of the site is 2.2 hectares, of which the application site forms a small part;

iii) a variety of indoor and outdoor activities would be catered for throughout the year.

iv) a County Centre would require a building of approximately 280 square metres. The dog leg plan form would fit the configuration of the site, and the single storey height and proposed site levels would ensure that the building would be well screened by boundary trees and hedges. The building would consist of a main hall/activity room, sleeping accommodation, showers and toilets, and kitchen and storage area. It is envisaged that the building would be clad in timber.

v) camping and outdoor activities are appropriate uses of land within the Green Belt, and most County Centres are located in the open countryside around the main urban areas. Details are provided of County Centres on comparative sites elsewhere in the country.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

CHEW MAGNA PARISH COUNCIL: We oppose this application. We feel the access would be totally unsuitable for such a site, and the proposed building is far larger than the existing one.

STOWEY SUTTON PARISH COUNCIL: In principle the Parish Council supports this application but has concerns over access to the site, drainage and sewerage, the suitability of the site for future camping, and security (as there is a public footpath running through the site).

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT TEAM: I recommend that this application be refused on highway grounds for the following reasons:

1. The proposed splays are considered to be inadequate to secure the visibility necessary for the safety and convenience of the traffic associated with the proposed development.

2. Any increased use made of the existing sub-standard access generated by the proposed development would be prejudicial to road safety.

3. The proposed development would result in vehicles turning right into the site from Hollowbrook Lane at a point where forward visibility from and of such vehicles is inadequate which would create additional hazards to all road users.

4. The traffic generated from this proposal would use a road which, by virtue of its function in the highway network and its inadequate width, alignment and junctions, is considered unsuitable to accommodate the increase in traffic from this development.

5. Hollowbrook Lane forms part of the National Cycle Network Route No.3. The traffic generated by the proposed development is thus likely to conflict with cyclists which would be prejudicial to their safety, amenity and convenience.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: no objections subject to conditions.

ENGLISH NATURE: no objections in principle.

LOCAL RESIDENTS: 20 letters received objecting on the following grounds:

i) conflict with Green Belt policy, having particular regard to the size of the new building;

ii) the existing barn is not suitable for conversion and the new extension would be of disproportionate size;

iii) the new building and car parking area would detract from the visual amenities and landscape character of the area;

iv) inadequate information has been given of the applicants' proposals for adjoining land which they are proposing to purchase;

v) the scale of the proposed use is likely to result in noise and light pollution in an area of quiet countryside;

vi) the access to the site and local highway network is inadequate to support the significant traffic generation which would arise from the proposal.

LETTERS OF SUPPORT: 19 letters of support received from or on behalf of Girl Guides which make the following points:

i) there is a need in the area for facilities for camping and outdoor activities;

ii) the site is an ideal location for facilities of this nature;

iii) the site is centrally located with the Somerset County North area;

iv) a number of alternative sites have been investigated, but no others have found to be suitable.

PLANNING ISSUES

PLANNING POLICY: In the Wansdyke Local Plan, the site and its surroundings are located within the Green Belt; relevant policy guidelines are set out in Policy WGB.1.

Policy CH.3 relates to the conversion of existing buildings in rural areas.

Policy REC.2 states that proposals for recreational development will normally be permitted, subject to no adverse impact inter alia on the Green Belt, the landscape and local traffic safety conditions.

Policies LNC.1 and TP.1 relate to general landscape and traffic issues.

These policies are carried forward by policies GB.1, ET.9, SR.5, NE.1 and T.24 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan.

GREEN BELT POLICY/INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT: Policy WGB.1(1) states that permission will not be given within the Green Belt, except in very special circumstances, for new buildings unless they are intended, inter alia, for essential facilities for outdoor recreation.

Guidance on the interpretation of 'essential facilities' is provided in paragraph 3.5 of PPG2, which states that they should be genuinely required for uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt; possible examples of such facilities include small changing rooms or small stables.

In this particular case, it is proposed to erect an extension of approximately 230 square metres; because of the size of the building and the nature of the facilities proposed, it is not considered that it falls within the definition of 'essential facilities' set out in PPG.2.

In addition, the size of the extension in relation to the existing building (more than four times the floor area) is such that the proposal cannot be regarded as an appropriate form of conversion within the Green Belt, having regard to the provisions of Policy WGB.1(2) and Policy CH.3.

The proposal therefore constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt, against which there is a strong presumption, unless it can be shown that there are very special circumstances which outweigh the harm arising from the proposal.

GREEN BELT POLICY/SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES: Whilst the proposal would result in the provision of valuable facilities for the Girl Guide movement, and such facilities require a rural location, there would not appear to be an overriding need for the proposed facilities to be provided within the Green Belt. It is not therefore considered that there are any overriding special circumstances to justify inappropriate development within the Green Belt in this case.

LANDSCAPE IMPACT: The proposed building and car parking area would transform the appearance of the small field which comprises the application site. The site is, however, well screened by mature hedgerows and the proposal could be accommodated within the site without adverse impact on the surrounding landscape, subject to careful consideration being given at detailed stage to the proposed layout, site levels, building design and landscaping details.

TRAFFIC/HIGHWAYS: The traffic implications of the proposal is of considerable concern to local residents, and the Highway Development Team objects to the proposal on the grounds of the inadequacy of the existing access and the substandard nature of the local highway network

CONCLUSION

The proposal constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt and, in the absence of any special circumstances, it is considered that permission should be refused on the grounds of conflict with Green Belt policy.

It is also recommended that permission be refused on traffic/highway grounds.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reasons:-

1 The site is located within the Bristol/Bath Green Belt, and the proposed development would, having particular regard to the size of the proposed extension, constitute inappropriate development which would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. This would be contrary to Policies WGB.1 and CH.3 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and Policies GB.1 and ET.9 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan.

2 The proposed development would result in increased use of an access with substandard visibility and in additional traffic along a local highway network which is substandard in terms of width, alignment and junctions. This would be seriously prejudicial to highway safety and would be contrary to Policy TP.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and Policy T.24 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan.

FOOTNOTE: This decision relates to justification statement, site location plan, and drawing nos. 2003/108 and 109 all date stamped 5 December 2003.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:07

APPLICATION NO. 04/00105/VAR TYPE Application for Variation of Condition

EXPIRY DATE 4th Mar 2004

WARD Farmborough

PARISH Compton Dando

Greenbelt

APPLICANT: Hinton Organics (Wessex) Ltd

PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 16 of permission 97/02626/MINW dated 2 December 1998 to increase limit on heavy goods vehicles attending site on any day from 5 to 18, and to secure the permanent inclusion of cardboard waste in condition 13

SITE LOCATION: Land At Queen Charlton Quarry Queen Charlton Bristol

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

The site is located next to the Queen Charlton Recycling site approximately 1.5 miles south of Queen Charlton near Keynsham.

The existing composting operation was granted permission in 1999, became operational during 2000 and runs until 2010. A previous application to increase the height of the stockpiles, from 3 metres to 6 metres, was approved in 2003. In addition written approval was given in 2003 for a one year trial for the site to accept cardboard waste to compost along with the green waste.

The operator now wishes to amend the current permission to accept cardboard waste for the life of the current permission (2010) and to increase the daily HGV limit from 5 to 18.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: The Agency has no objections to the proposed development but wishes to make the following comments.

The original waste management licence issued in respect of this site has been modified to permit the acceptance of cardboard waste in addition to green waste. Accordingly the Agency has no objections to the proposed variations.

For information a formal risk assessment is not likely to be required as the addition of cardboard waste would not produce any further risk in terms of bioaerosols.

HIGHWAYS: Comments awaited.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: I have no particular concern about the proposal to increase the number of vehicles movements on and off the site, provided that the existing restrictions on hours of operation and arrivals and departures are rigidly adhered to. There have been complaints from residents about noise from machinery and vehicles prior to the permitted hours but I have been unable to establish whether the culprits are associated with Hinton Organics or Kelston Sparkes.

I can advise that there have been complaints about odour from the Hinton Organics site. I have visited and established that the odour complained of appears to arise from the decomposition of green waste which I can best characterise as having a slightly acidic, mild pine disinfectant and crushed apple smell. The height of the stockpiles of rotting waste will influence the degree of dispersion of any odour generated from the site.

It is possible that the reduction in pH by the introduction of cardboard to the green waste may also improve this situation so far as odour is concerned. I suggest Hinton Organics are asked to investigate this.

COMPTON DANDO PARISH COUNCIL: The Parish Council raise a number of issues:

1) Hinton Organics at Queen Charlton Quarry.

We have opposed this application on the following grounds, taking into consideration the many complaints from local residents.

ROADS: The deterioration of surfaces as a result of an increase in heavy traffic.

Difficulty in differentiating between lorries serving Hinton Organics and others for the Quarry, therefore difficulty in monitoring numbers of vehicles.

We suggest that numbers probably already exceed those allowed under the original conditions.

CARDBOARD: The introduction of cardboard should not result in an overall increase in the quantity of material processed at the site, which is already patently operating at capacity. There is considerable concern that cardboard waste may contain pollutants in the form of glues etc which would then contaminate the surrounding area. The inclusion of cardboard would exacerbate the problem of fly tipping in an area where there is already a nuisance.

POLLUTION:

Pollen spores: Measurements have been taken for this, but not when the problem has been at its worst. Charlton Fields Bungalow already lies within the recommended safe distance (ref. HSE) of the site and therefore further expansion should not be allowed.

Smell: Many complaints have been received by us regarding this problem from quite a distance from the site.

Noise: As above. An increase in the numbers of HGVs serving the site could only increase nuisance.

Foul water: Polluted water is flowing from the Quarry area onto neighbouring lower lying farmland.

We feel that attention should be paid to the Conservation status of this area and that the original conditions imposed on this operation should be adhered to. The composting process is admirable in many ways, but the Council has a duty of care to local population. Hinton Organics should not be allowed to expand on this particular site as it is already having a negative impact on local residents.

Residents have requested and would welcome an open meeting to hear the Council's point of view (if it differs from theirs) and in order to be able to ask questions on the subject.

Please see attached letters.

PENSFORD AND PUBLOW PARISH COUNCIL: Parish Council comments: Although Hinton Organics is actually in the Compton Dando Parish, many of the residents i.e. Woollard Lane are within the Parish of Publow with Pensford.

Members of the public attending our meeting are obviously strongly opposed to the new planning variations proposed.

Concerns were raised over the increase of HGV's visiting the site travelling along roads which have recently been re-surfaced by Highways. These roads are already in a bad condition with tarmac lifting in places, it was suggested this may be due to the heavy lorries using this road.

Residents in the area already suffer fly tipping problems and it is of great concern that with the permanent inclusion of cardboard around the site the problem of litter will worsen.

It is noted that the height of the stored waste has increased above that approved initially, and the potent smell emitted whilst composting is not favourable.

The Parish Council would therefore like to register our opposition to the extension of hours and the proposed volume of traffic and suggest that a site visit be carried out to ensure Hinton Organics are complying with their original planning application before any consideration is given to the new variations applied for. It is also suggested that a request for anything agreed should be conditions and that the surrounding area be kept tidy and rubbish free.

An enhancement of the site and landscaping of the site was suggested and would be seen as more acceptable.

I hope that the above comments are taken into consideration.

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: 27 letters have been received objecting to the proposal on the grounds of increased traffic, the condition of the road and poor visibility around the site access and Charlton Field Lane; litter and fly tipping, dust, noise (in particular reversing bleepers), water pollution and run off, odour, release of pollen spores and the effect on health and the need for a risk assessment in accordance with Environment Agency advice.

PLANNING ISSUES

WASTE POLICY: National guidance and policy WM1 of the emerging Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan require that waste management facilities represent the Best Practicable Environmental Option and in assessing should be had to regional self sufficiency, the waste hierarchy, the proximity principle, the precautionary principle and whether the proposal would have an adverse impact on the environment or local communities.

The site currently receives waste from the Bristol, South Gloucestershire and bath and North East Somerset areas and is one of the few facilities of this type in the Avon sub region. It therefore makes an important contribution to achieving the national and local targets for recycling and composting waste and towards achieving regional self sufficiency in waste management facilities. The loss of this site would seriously compromise the achievement of these targets.

Also by turning waste that would have previously been landfilled in to a usable resource the facility is assisting in moving the treatment of waste up the waste hierarchy, which is the main thrust of national and local policy in waste management. Regarding the proximity principle emerging regional guidance on waste management facilities seeks to ensure that waste is not travelling more than 20 miles to an appropriate facility, which is the case here and the majority (80%) of the final product is being used on a local farm in the area. The precautionary principle is appropriate when the impacts of a development are uncertain but the impacts of a composting facility are well understood and can be assessed, having particular regard to the advice of the Environment Agency.

Whether the proposal is considered to have an adverse impact on the environment of local communities is assessed in the following sections.

TRAFFIC: Monitoring of traffic movements during 2003 revealed that the company were in breach of their current daily limit of 5 HGVs and part of the purpose of this application is to test the acceptability of a higher figure. However the traffic movements at this site are seasonal in that more green waste (and therefore traffic) is generated in the summer months than the winter months meaning that the use of a daily limit may not be the most appropriate means of controlling HGVs. Also the adjoining recycling operation does not currently have a limit on the numbers of HGVs that can visit that site on a daily basis.

Some of the concerns that have been raised regarding traffic such as the condition of Charlton Road and how is it possible to differentiate between vehicles visiting the composting site and the recycling site are noted, but the poor condition of the surface of the Charlton Road is due to faulty workmanship on recent repairs and all loads visiting each site require a ticket so they can be logged and monitored.

ODOUR: The current operation is visited on a monthly basis by the minerals and waste officer and officers of the Environment Agency and during 2003 no odour was detected at residential properties during these visits. Also during 2003 the ombudsman investigated complaints he had received regarding odour but decided that the Council's current approach was reasonable and no injustice had occurred.

However during my most recent site visit on the 24 February there was a strong wind blowing from the NE from the site towards Woollard Lane and the company were in the process of shredding the latest batch of material delivered to the site. This resulted in a faint to low odour of pine being noticeable at the top end of the lane nearest the site. Whilst this demonstrates that when the wind is from the east and north east odour from the site can reach residential properties it should be noted that the prevailing wind direction is west to south west and the odour experienced on the 20 February was not in my view sufficient to be considered to be having an unacceptable impact on residential amenity. But having regard to the concerns expressed by the local residents and Parish Councils it is considered that any permission to accept cardboard waste should be limited to a further 12 month period so that the operation can continue to be monitored and the proposed odour management plan implemented.

LITTER: The trial of including cardboard within the green waste during 2003 demonstrated that litter could be adequately controlled with no examples of litter causing a problem on or off the site. The cardboard is generally mixed with the green waste when it is deposited on the site which ensures that loose items are not blown away. However, again on the site visit of the 20 February, the company were shredding in windy conditions and cardboard was observed blowing across the site. The company were advised to cease shredding and carry out a litter pick to prevent this problem spreading off site. Again restricting the receipt of cardboard to a further 12 month period would allow this to be monitored and a litter management plan implemented.

With regard to the concerns about fly tipping in the area it is neither caused by nor linked to this operation and it is dealt with under separate powers.

POLLUTION: Leachate from the composting operation goes to a sealed lagoon and then is re-circulated over the compost. Concerns about polluted water flowing from the site onto adjoining farmland are unfounded as the site is regularly monitored by the Environment Agency who are satisfied that it is not causing pollution. In order to control surface water run off the company have also installed an additional perimeter ditch to take rain water from their own site and the adjoining recycling site which is at a higher level. Recent monitoring carried out by the Environment Agency has been in response to a complaint they are investigating about groundwater movement in the area and not about concerns over pollution.

On the issue of air borne pollutants, the concern here relates to the bio-aerosols that are generated as part of the composting process. The Environment Agency have a policy of requiring a risk assessment for composting activities that are within 250 metres of residential properties, which is the case on this site for one property when the measurement is taken from the site boundary. However the Environment Agency have responded that they do not consider a risk assessment is necessary in this case because the addition of cardboard will produce any further risk in terms of bio-aerosols. If anything the cardboard actually assists the composting process by reducing the pH of the compost and preventing it from becoming to acidic.

Pollution to water and air is regulated by the Environment Agency through the waste management licensing regime which applies to this site. Before granting a licence the Agency are required to have regard to protecting the environment and preventing harm to human health. Therefore having regard to the advice of the Agency on this proposal it is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact

In terms of pollution and that this is currently adequately controlled by the existing regulatory regime that governs the site.

NOISE AND DUST: Routine site monitoring has not revealed dust as a major issue on this site and although the site access and length of public highway to the Charlton Road can on occasion get dusty, this is more an issue for the adjoining recycling operation which is the major traffic generator and when necessary they are asked to sweep the road.

Regarding noise, again this was the subject of an ombudsman complaint in 2003 where the Council had not carried out noise monitoring in response to a complaint when it had said it would. Monitoring that has been carried out subsequently and some of the letters of representation have identified the reversing bleepers, used on vehicles working on both sites, as the principal source of nuisance. Whilst a reversing warning system is necessary from a health and safety point of view there are now more sophisticated products available to the industry and a condition is proposed to ensure that machinery used on the site is fitted with a less intrusive system. In addition discussions are continuing with the operators of the recycling site regarding the replacement of their bleepers as well.

It is therefore considered that noise and dust impacts can be adequately controlled by condition and would not have an unacceptable impact on local residents.

GREEN BELT: The principle of a composting site in this location for a temporary period has already been accepted and the proposed changes would not materially alter the impact of the development on the Green Belt or the reasons for including land within it.

CONCLUSION

The principle of a composting facility at this location has already been accepted. The road network is of an adequate standard for HGV traffic and a revised vehicle limit condition will provide an appropriate level of control. With regard to accepting cardboard waste the current trial has proved successful in contributing to national and local targets for recycling and composting waste material and the proposed odour and litter management plan will prevent the operation from having an unacceptable impact on local residents. Recommend that planning permission is granted.

RECOMMENDATION

PERMIT with the following conditions:-

1 Composting operations shall have ceased and all material removed from the site by 11 April 2010 and the site restored in accordance with the scheme required under condition 11 by the 11 October 2010.

Reason: the development is of a type not considered suitable for permanent retention in the Green Belt.

2 No material other than green garden and parks waste shall be imported to the site except for cardboard waste which will be permitted for the period 1 March 2004 until 28 February 2005.

Reason: waste materials outside of these categories raise environmental and amenity issues which would need to be assessed and to enable the local planning authority to assess the impact of the cardboard waste being imported to the site.

3 Within one month of the date of this decision notice an odour and litter management plan shall be submitted for the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include details of the following:

- a procedure for how the operator will respond to complaints,

- action to be taken to control litter and odour having regard to weather conditions and the carrying out of turning, shredding and screening operations - including the cessation of these activities when the wind is blowing from the east and north east,

- monitoring of stockpile heights, and

- maintenance of plant and machinery on site to enable all material to have been shredded within 5 working days of being on site.

On receiving approval the scheme shall be implemented in its entirety.

Reason: to ensure the development does not have an unacceptable impact on the local community.

4 No operations shall be carried out at the site except between the following hours:

0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday

0800 to 1300 Saturdays

No operations shall take place on Sundays or Public Holidays.

Reason: to protect the amenity of the locality.

5 No material shall be stockpiled, deposited or windrowed to a height exceeding 6 metres.

Reason: to safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

6 Vehicle limit condition (awaiting comments from Highways)

Reason: in the interests of highway safety.

7 All vehicles leaving the site shall be in a condition such as not to emit dust or deposit mud, slurry or other debris on the highway.

Reason: in the interests of highway safety.

8 The rating of noise emitted from plant and equipment in use on the site shall be -3dBA below the existing background noise level, determined to be 38dBA LA90, at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive premises (Charlton Fields). Measurements and assessments shall be in accordance with BS 4142:1997.

Reason: to safeguard the amenity of local residents.

9 Within one month of the date of this decision notice any plant and machinery used on site which requires a reversing warning system will be fitted with a bbs-tek backalarm system or another similarly specified product.

Reason: to safeguard the amenity of local residents by reducing the noise disturbance caused by the existing reversing bleepers used on the site.

10 No retail sale of any treated or processed materials shall take place from the site.

Reason: to prevent unnecessary traffic visiting the site.

11 The site shall be restored in accordance with a scheme to be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority within 4 years of the date of this permission. The scheme shall include details of:

- the removal of all machinery, plant, buildings, structures, concrete and other hardstandings, lagoons and haul roads;

- the nature of the intended after use, including plans and details of the habitats to be created;

- the re-spreading of material to a depth of at least 1 metre of final cover consisting of soil or other cover material suitable as a rooting medium, free of stones or other obstructions to cultivation. This final cover shall be placed in layers. Any suitable cover material previously stripped from the site being placed first as a base layer, then subsoil as an intermediate layer, then topsoil as the uppermost layer to a depth of 300mm and seeded with a suitable herbage mix;

- the ripping of any compacted layers of cover to ensure adequate drainage and aeration. Such ripping to take place before the placement of topsoil;

- the machinery to be used in soil spreading operations;

- the drainage of the restored land including the formation of suitably graded contours to promote natural drainage or the installation of artificial drainage if required;

- a scheme for the aftercare of the restored land to cover a period of five years from the completion of placement of topsoil on the site; and

- a timetable for the implementation of the scheme as approved

Reason: to ensure the site is restored to an acceptable standard.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:08

APPLICATION NO. 03/01777/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 5th Sep 2003

WARD Peasedown St John

PARISH Peasedown St John

APPLICANT: Merridian Ltd

PROPOSAL: Construction of three dwellings to replace existing garage, as amended by drawings received 15 August 2003

SITE LOCATION: Land At 25 Ashgrove Peasedown St John Bath

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

The application site is a former petrol garage fronting onto the south side of Ashgrove, the site measuring 26m frontage by 21m depth, presently containing a flat-roofed vehicle repair workshop and a large canopy formerly covering the petrol pumps. The site is located between two dwellings, No's 23 and 26 Ashgrove, and at the rear of the site is a detached bungalow, access to which is across the application site.

The proposal is to remove the existing buildings and canopy on site and to erect a terrace of 3 two-bedroom houses on the site. These would be erected on the eastern part of the plot, with the remainder of the site given over to car parking and manoeuvring space, providing two parking spaces each for each of the 3 houses proposed and also for the occupiers of the bungalow to the rear. These would be reached by a single vehicle access onto Ashgrove.

The terrace of three houses would measure 12.0m by 9.1m with a roof ridge height of 7.9m. The walls of the house would be of reconstituted stone with a roof of concrete tiles. The terrace would be set back 2.0m from the front boundary of the site and each house would have a garden 8.0m long.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

PEASEDOWN ST JOHN PARISH COUNCIL: Supports the proposal, wishes to be assured that the petrol tanks are removed.

HIGHWAY ENGINEERS: No objection in principle, wants condition requiring the formation of parking and turning areas.

LOCAL RESIDENTS: Two local residents have written. Both advise they have no objection in principle, one expresses concern about loss of privacy.

COUNCIL'S URBAN DESIGNERS: No objection to the scheme in principle.

PLANNING ISSUES

POLICY: Peasedown is an R.1 settlement as defined in the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft). Policy HG.4 of Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan refers. Policy ET.1.C of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan refers to land in employment use, also Policy EMR.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan. The proposal also echoes the objectives of the Village Design Statement.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The existing garage is of poor appearance and detracts from the appearance of the area. The proposal would be of acceptable appearance and would be in keeping with the residential area.

The new houses would be set back only 2.0m form the highway frontage, where the adjacent house No 23 is set back 5.2m from the highway. However the existing canopy on the site also extends to approximately 20m from the frontage and the houses would have a substantially better appearance. The removal of the existing canopy and the workshop building (as a commercial garage) will be of benefit to the appearance of the area.

The most recent use of the site was for employment use is present a car repair workshop and also car sales (the latter without planning permission).

However, it is understood that the lawful use of the site would generate only a low level of employment, understood to be 2-3 persons. This is outweighed by the improvement of the appearance of the site and the area, and by the creation of 3 small houses (effectively starter homes) for the village.

SECTION 106 AGREEMENT: The Council's Highway's Engineers have undertaken a substantial programme of traffic calming measures along Bath Road and Ashgrove. In view of this the Highway Development Officer recommends that a contribution towards the cost of these works is raised in respect of any new development which fronts onto this section of road. In this case, he recommends that the applicant is requested to make a contribution of £2000 towards the cost of the calming measures. This would need to be secured by an appropriate Section 106 Agreement.

CONCLUSION

The proposal would be of an acceptable appearance appropriate to this residential location. It would bring about the formation of 3 houses to add to the stock of dwellings available in the village and would result in the removal of the existing rather unattractive motor garage.

Any approval for this scheme is recommended to be linked to a Section 106 Agreement requiring a contribution to be made to the cost of traffic calming measures on the Bath Road/Ashgrove at Peasedown.

RECOMMENDATION

A. Authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure the items referred to above:

B. On completion of that Agreement authorise the Head of Planning Services to PERMIT subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement requiring a contribution of £2000 to be made by the applicants towards the cost of traffic calming measures in the area, and also subject to the following conditions:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2 No development shall be commenced until a hard and soft landscape scheme has been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme shall include details of all walls, fences, trees, hedgerows and other planting which are to be retained; details of new walls, fences and other boundary treatment and finished ground levels; a planting specification to include numbers, density, size, species and positions of all new trees and shrubs; details of the surface treatment of the open parts of the site; and a programme of implementation.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

3 All hard and/or soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of the development being completed, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the landscape scheme is implemented and maintained.

4 The dwelling(s) shall not be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plan(s) for the parking and turning of vehicles and such area(s) shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension or enlargement (including additions or alterations to the roof(s)) of the dwelling(s) hereby approved shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Any further extensions require detailed consideration by the Local Planning Authority to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding area.

6 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no garages or other free standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than those expressly authorised by this permission, without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The introduction of further curtilage buildings requires detailed consideration by the Local Planning Authority to safeguard the appearance of the development and the amenities of the surrounding area.

7 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no lines, mains, pipes, cables or other apparatus shall be installed or laid on the site other than in accordance with drawings first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the existing and proposed trees, vegetation and open spaces on the site.

8 The front boundary of the site is to be marked by a natural rubble stone wall 600mm high, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of the visual amenity of the area.

9 Provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water so as to prevent its discharge onto the highway, details of which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

FOOTNOTE: This decision refers only to drawing ref. 358/02 date-stamped 11th July 2003 and 358/01a date-stamped 15th August 2003.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:09

APPLICATION NO. 03/01830/OUT TYPE Outline Application

EXPIRY DATE 11th Sep 2003

WARD Bathavon West

PARISH Dunkerton

Greenbelt Housing Development Boundary

APPLICANT: Hillside Farm Investments Ltd

PROPOSAL: Construction of 4 no. dwellings.

SITE LOCATION: King William IV Inn Tunley Bath BA2 0EB

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

The King William IV Public House occupies a plot measuring approximately 69m frontage by 43m depth fronting onto the north side of the Bath Road at Tunley. The proposal is to develop an area measuring 34m by a maximum of 43m, comprising the western half of the site, for the erection of four dwellings.

The proposed site currently forms the pub garden and part of the car park of the site. The public house and its outbuildings plus an area of car parking occupying the eastern part of the site and would not be affected by the proposal.

The concept plans originally submitted showed 5 dwellings erected on the site, comprising two pairs of semi-detached houses plus a single detached house. The scheme has since been amended and now shows 4 detached dwellings on the site. This is an outline proposal with all matters reserved and detailed plans of the houses have not been provided.

The plans show that vehicle access is intended to be via a short service lane at the front of the houses, the drive leading to an access onto the Bath Road which would be shared by the public house.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

DUNKERTON PARISH COUNCIL: (in respect of original proposal) The Council oppose this application on the following grounds:

a) The proposal is considered to be unacceptable overdevelopment of the site and as such will have a detrimental effect on the existing openness and aesthetic appearance on this part of the village of Tunley.

b) There are current problems with lack of capacity of both of water supply and mains sewerage system, the development would add to these problems.

c) There are concerns that given the current levels of traffic on the B3115, particularly at peak periods - the ingress/egress to the proposed dwellings would create a further road safety problem.

d) The generation of extra traffic from the whole site (existing public house and the new development) would create unacceptable traffic and safety problems.

e) They feel that the proposed development could have an adverse effect on the viability of the public house, which could endanger its future as a village facility.

f) They also comment on the "supportive statement" submitted by the applicant:

(i) the garden was not used for some years due to the fact that it was used to house a horse, they do not feel the statement concerning garden maintenance is valid;

(ii) They do not feel that the proposed requirement of 12 car parking spaces at the inn is a realistic option. There are frequent overflows from the existing car park onto the B3115, to lower the capacity would have real road safety implications.

(in respect of amended proposal): The Council wish to re-state their opposition to this application (submission dated 13 August 2003 refers). In addition they wish to make the following points:

(a) The amended ingress/egress via the public house car park would only serve to exacerbate the road safety problems on the B3115.

b) The lack of provision for visitor car parking would lead to use of the public house car park for this purpose - this in turn would lead to a reduction of the car parking facility for the commercial use of the Public House, leading to vehicles being parked on the B3115, thereby creating a real road safety hazard.

c) This application should be dealt with in conjunction and together with that at The Old Forge Garage (03/02389/FIL) on the grounds that they are very much inter-related.

d) Council, reflecting the views of the village, remain firmly opposed to the application on the grounds that the development would be unacceptable development on a green belt site.

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER: Revised plans received 2/12/03. The latest proposals have resulted in a reduction in numbers of dwellings and alteration of the access to utilise the current access to the public house rather via a short private drive rather than direct access onto the B3115.

In proposing the above it becomes more acceptable to the Highway Authority.

The proposals will result in the loss of parking for the public house. Current standards to be used in assessing their on-going need is based upon the areas of bar and restaurant available for public use, with an additional provision as a residential dwelling. Based on the figures supplied by the Planning Officer the parking requirement would be 12 (2 residential, 10 for the public house). The parking layout shown is not considered to comply with standards but is felt that an appropriate layout with the required spaces can be achieved.

It is not therefore considered that an objection of the proposal could be sustained and no recommendation for refusal is made subject to details of the private drive and parking provision for the proposed dwellings and the existing public house being resolved at the detail stage.

LOCAL RESIDENTS: The original proposal drew letters of objection from 5 local households, the principle reasons for objecting being:-

a) increase in traffic movements onto and off the highway, to the detriment of road safety.

b) loss of parking for public house, and parking generated by the proposed houses.

c) effect on neighbouring dwelling, loss of daylighting, of views and possible noise and disturbance.

Some letters comment that a development of bungalows would be more in keeping with the location than two storey houses.

In respect of the amended proposal, 5 letters were received (all but one from persons who had previously written) objecting to the proposal, and emphasising that these individuals felt the amendments made did not overcome their objections to this scheme.

PLANNING ISSUES

POLICY ASPECTS: The application site lies within the designated Green Belt, which washes over the whole of Tunley village, and Policy GB.1 of the Deposit Draft Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan includes a general presumption against new buildings in the Green Belt, as does Policy WGB.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan.

Tunley is defined as an 'R.3' settlement in the Draft Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan. Policy HG.6 advises that within R3 settlements, residential development will be permitted if it is on previously developed land, it lies within the Housing Development Boundary of the settlement, and is considered to be infilling.

The application site would appear to fulfil these criteria and your officers view is that there is no policy objection to the use of the land for housing.

EFFECT ON APPEARANCE OF AREA: The King William IV lies within an established residential area, with development lining the Bath Road and also extending to the west of the site along Sarabeth Drive. The area includes a mix of types of housing, with detached and semi-detached houses and also detached bungalows being represented. However on the north side of Bath Road opposite this site the predominant form is semi-detached houses built in natural stone.

While the concept plan suggests a development of 4 detached houses, two pairs of semi-detached houses would be more in keeping with the area and would enable cars to be parked at the sides of the houses rather than in front, giving a better appearance to the development.

EFFECT ON NEIGHBOURING OCCUPIERS: The west boundary of the site abuts the rear garden of No.1 Sarabeth Drive, a detached bungalow, the site boundary being some 6m from the rear of the bungalow itself. Other than this the site is not very close to existing housing, abutting the highway on the south side and the public house on the east side, with the north side abutting the large garden of No.2 Sarabeth Drive.

An appropriate form of development of this site could be achieved without a detrimental effect on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

HIGHWAY ISSUES: The original proposal showed each house having its own individual access onto the highway, which was unacceptable to the Highway Development Officer. The amended scheme shows an access track serving the four dwellings in the scheme, leading to an access onto the highway which would be shared with the Public House.

This arrangement is acceptable to the Highway Development Officer in principle, and details of the access would need to form part of the subsequent detailed application.

CONCLUSION

The use of this site for housing is in accordance with local policy guidance and is acceptable in principle. The site is adjacent to existing housing on the west side, and any detailed scheme must ensure that the amenities of these occupiers are not prejudiced.

The Highway Development Officer considers that an acceptable means of access onto the highway could be created at this site.

In view of these aspects, it is considered that the granting of outline planning permission is appropriate at this site. While the views of the Parish Council are appreciated, they cannot be supported in this case.

RECOMMENDATION

PERMIT with the following conditions:-

1 Approval of the details of the siting, design, and external appearance of the buildings, the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: This is an outline permission and these matters have been reserved for the subsequent approval of the Local Planning Authority, and as required by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 The development hereby approved shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the latest.

Reason: As required by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permission.

3 Application for approval of reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: As required by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permission.

FOOTNOTES: (1) This permission refers only to drawing nos.902/1/A, date stamped 17 July 2003, 902/4/B date stamped 6 October 2003 and the location plan, which is not date stamped.

(2) This permission is for outline planning permission only and does not indicate approval of the layout or form of housing shown on the permitted plans.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:10

APPLICATION NO. 03/02323/OUT TYPE Outline Application

EXPIRY DATE 5th Nov 2003

WARD Keynsham South

PARISH Keynsham

APPLICANT: Hobbs And Roach

PROPOSAL: Construction of single dwelling and garage

SITE LOCATION: Land (fronting Berkeley Gardens) To The Rear Of 31 Queens Road Keynsham Bristol

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

This application site is located at the northern end of a residential cul-de-sac adjacent to the highway turning head. The site currently forms part of the rear garden of 31 and 33 Queens Road which are located approximately 50 metres to the north. The land is currently in use as private garden.

The land immediately to the east has been developed as a detached dwelling which is accessed from Berkeley Gardens, permission was granted for this development following an appeal in 2000. Planning permission was refused for a single dwelling during 2002, however the current scheme significantly increases the site area.

The current application proposes the erection of a detached single dwelling and garage. The applicant has provided additional information that indicates the provision of 3 parking spaces and turning.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

KEYNSHAM TOWN COUNCIL: Support - The Committee commented that the condition on car parking detailed in the Planning Inspector's decision on application 00/00687/OUT 28.9.00 relating to land at the rear of 29 Queens Road should be similarly applied.

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT TEAM: Recommend that no highway objection be raised to this application subject to conditions. The conditions should ensure the proposed access point is located centrally on the highway frontage of the site and gates, if fitted, should open into the site. The remained of the frontage should not have walls that exceed 900 mm above the edge of the carriageway.

Secondly the onsite parking and turning space for 4 vehicles should prevent any overspill parking into the highway. This is in line with the Inspector's decision for the adjoining house and referred to by Keynsham Town Council and should be hard surfaced and provided prior to occupation.

LOCAL RESIDENTS: The application has been the subject of notification to residents in both Queens Road and Berkeley Gardens and this has resulted in 5 letters of objection. 1 letter encloses a petition signed by 36 residents.

The grounds of the petition are 'All being residents of Berkeley Gardens, we wish to register our objections to the proposed development at the bottom of the garden of No.31 Queens Road, Keynsham.'

Other grounds of objections raised by objectors are:

1. The width of the access from Berkeley Gardens is no more than 10ft, part of this being across an existing pavement.

2. The proposed dwelling would be situated at the end of a cul-de-sac, and turning and parking facilities in this area are already congested, and a further dwelling would add greatly to the problem, including the potential for visitors to park in the turning head and on both sides of the road leading to the site.

3. A similar application at the end of the garden of 27 was turned down for the same reasons as above a few years ago.

4. It is unlikely the site can provide sufficient parking and manoeuvring space to adequately accommodate residents and visitors parking.

5. Services to the recently built dwelling adjacent to the site is through the garden of Queens Road as there is no direct access to services in Berkeley Gardens.

6. The proposed development would have an impact upon the character of the area

7. If the proposal is granted it will result in overlooking and affect adversely property values.

In relation to the additional information received in the form of amended plans 1 additional letter has been received that sets out particular highway problems associated with parking and reiterates the previous concerns regarding increased use of the highway would lead to highway dangers.

PLANNING ISSUES

POLICY CONTEXT: The application site is located within Keynsham where policy HO.4 (Wansdyke Local Plan) indicates that residential development will be permitted if the development lies within the Housing Development Boundary, would not adversely affect the character of the settlement and vehicular access is appropriate for the proposed development. Policy HG.4 (Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft) indicates that development will be permitted if the land is previously developed and lies within the defined housing development boundary.

SUITABILITY OF THE SITE FOR A DWELLING: In this case the site forms part of two existing private gardens and as such is represents previously developed land. The scheme is in outline only but indicates that a dwelling could be located on the land that retains significant gardens for the existing dwellings in Queens Road. Furthermore the drawings indicate that the property can be sited to avoid overlooking of adjacent properties particularly if designed as a single storey dwelling. The submitted drawing indicates that parking provision for 4 vehicles can be made, one space is within a garage. The scheme being in outline does not provide information regarding the detailed design of the building, however, suitable design and choice of materials can be achieved to meet the character of the area. The site therefore is appropriate for residential development.

HIGHWAY IMPLICATIONS: The site is accessed from the public highway and the application indicates the site can accommodate additional vehicles over and above the number normally required for a new dwelling. This should reduce the likelihood of vehicles associated with proposed development parking on the highway. No objections are raised by the Highway Development Team to the access and route through Berkeley Gardens to this site and planning permission can therefore be granted.

RECOMMENDATION

PERMIT with the following conditions:-

1 Approval of the details of the siting of the building(s), design and external appearance and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: This is an outline permission and these matters have been reserved for the subsequent approval of the Local Planning Authority and as required by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 The development hereby approved shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the latest.

Reason: As required by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permission.

3 The proposed dwelling shall be constructed as a single storey dwelling, with no accommodation above ground floor level.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers.

4 The dwelling(s) shall not be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plan(s) for the parking and turning of vehicles and such area(s) shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

5 The garage(s) hereby approved shall be retained for the garaging of private motor vehicles associated with the dwelling and ancillary domestic storage and for no other purpose without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To retain adequate off-street parking provision.

6 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension or enlargement (including additions or alterations to the roof(s) of the dwelling(s) hereby approved shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Any further extensions require detailed consideration by the Local Planning Authority to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding area.

7 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no garages or other free standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than those expressly authorised by this permission, without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The introduction of further curtilage buildings requires detailed consideration by the Local Planning Authority to safeguard the appearance of the development and the amenities of the surrounding area.

8 The access to the proposed development shall be a minimum width of 3 metres and located at the mid point of the highway frontage. Access gates if fitted shall open inwards only.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

9 There shall be no obstruction to visibility over 900mm above the level of the adjacent carriageway within Berkeley Gardens from a point 2metres back from the boundary of the site at the centreline of the access and the points at each end of the frontage with the highway.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

FOOTNOTE: The decision relates to drawing nos. date stamped 19 January 2004 and site plan date stamped 10 September 2003.

REASONS FOR GRANTING APPROVAL:

The decision to grant approval has taken account of the Development Plan, relevant emerging Local Plans and approved Supplementary Planning Guidance. This is in accordance with the Policies set out below at A.

All other material considerations, including the views of third parties, have been considered, and they do not outweigh the reasons for approving the proposed development.

A. Policy H0.4 of the Wansdyke Local Plan, adopted for development control purposes, September 2000.

Policy HG.4 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Draft) Deposit.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:11

APPLICATION NO. 03/02390/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 17th Nov 2003

WARD Keynsham East

PARISH Keynsham

Greenbelt

APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs G King

PROPOSAL: Two-storey side extension following demolition of existing garage

SITE LOCATION: 3 Ellsbridge Close Keynsham Bristol BS31 1TB

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

3 Ellsbridge Close is a detached house of 1930's appearance, having rendered walls painted white and a roof of brown concrete tiles. It stands on an irregularly shaped plot of 7 metres frontage by a maximum depth of 64 metres, the house fronting onto the circular head of this cul-de-sac.

The proposal is to build a two-storey extension onto the west side elevation of the house. The extension would project 3.3 metres from the existing side of the house and would be 11.2 metres deep, extending 3.1 metres beyond the main rear wall of the house. The eaves height would be 5.8 metres, matching the existing house, and the roof ridge height would be 7.6 metres, which is 0.6m lower than that of the present house. The extension would reach to approximately 0.5m from the side boundary of the site.

The extension would provide a garage, utility room and family room on the ground floor with two bedrooms and a shower room above. An existing lean-to garage built onto the west side elevation of the house would be removed to make way for this proposal.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

KEYNSHAM TOWN COUNCIL: Supports application and commented that the property is located within the Green Belt.

LOCAL RESIDENTS: No representations received.

PLANNING ISSUES

POLICY ASPECTS: Design Issues are the subject of Policy D2 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft), and extensions to houses in the Green Belt are referred to in Policy HG15 of the same Plan.

Policy HO20 of the Wansdyke Local Plan also refers to extensions of dwellings in the Green Belt.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY: This would represent a substantial increase in the size of this house within the Green Belt, representing an increase of 43% in the footprint and 31% in volume, taking account of the loss of the existing lean-to garage.

However in this suburban location this is not considered to represent a disproportionate increase to the size of the house.

The existing house projects approximately 2.9 metres in front of the neighbouring house, No.4 Ellsbridge Close. The proposed extension would reach almost to the main front wall of No.3 (being set back 0.1m from the frontage) and would reach to 0.4m from the side boundary with No.4.

A two-storey extension of the size proposed would represent a large addition to the house and the extended house would represent a large structure, out of scale with the neighbouring houses enclosing this cul-de-sac land. Also it would protrude forward in front of the neighbouring house, No. 4, largely closing the gap between the two houses.

This would cause the extended house to have a dominant appearance in this location, disruptive of the present attractive 'sythem' of development in this location, which constitutes significantly to the street scene.

In addition, the location of this extension would cause it to dominate the front of No.4 Ellsbridge Close and its front garden area to an unreasonable degree, and would significantly detract from the amenities of the occupiers of No.4.

Negotiations have taken place with the applicants to seek to reduce the impact on the neighbours by setting back the first floor element of the extension from the front of the building by 3.0 metres, to reduce the impact on the neighbour. However the applicant advises that this would result in the loss of one of the two bedrooms to be formed, which he states he needs for family reasons.

The extension would present a long side elevation facing the neighbours at No.4, and would extend behind the existing house. In your officers view these neighbours would not be unreasonably affected, although a side-facing bedroom window at first floor level would lose some of its outlook. However the impact on this neighbouring property due to the close proximity at the front would be unreasonable.

CONCLUSION

The proposal in its present form would dominate the front of the neighbouring house to an unreasonable extent and the amenities of the occupiers would be unreasonably affected. Whilst the Town Council's support is noted, their views cannot be supported in this case.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reasons:-

1 The proposed extension, by reason of its size and position, would cause this house to detract from the overall street scene in this location, contrary to Policy D.2 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft).

2 The proposed extension would cause this house to form an over-dominant and disruptive feature in the local street scene, and would also detract from the amenities of neighbouring occupiers to an unreasonable extent contrary to Policy D2 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) and Policy HO20 of the Wansdyke Local Plan.

FOOTNOTE: This refusal refers only to drawing nos.319-1, 2, 3 and 4 all date stamped 22 September 2003.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:12

APPLICATION NO. 03/02648/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 30th Dec 2003

WARD Farmborough

PARISH Farmborough

Greenbelt

APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs D Hitchings

PROPOSAL: Erection of garage building after removal of existing garage structure.

SITE LOCATION: Heath Cottage Tilley Lane Farmborough Bath BA2 0BE

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

Heath Cottage is a detached house on a plot measuring 140m by 28m located in the countryside to the south of Farmborough. The site includes a number of outbuildings including a stables building and a modern garage for 4 cars.

The proposal is to remove the existing garage and erect a new building on the same site. The new building would measure 12.6m by 5.8m with a roof ridge height of 6.7m, and would be built of natural rubble stone with a roof of clay double roman tiles. It would provide garaging on the ground floor with a playroom/store formed within the roof space.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

FARMBOROUGH PARISH COUNCIL: Supports proposal.

LOCAL RESIDENTS: No representations received.

PLANNING ISSUES

POLICY ASPECTS: The site lies within the designated Green Belt. Within the Green Belt, Policy GB1 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) and Policy WGB1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan both confirm that there is a presumption against the erection of new buildings in the countryside.

VISUAL IMPACT: The proposed new building would replace an existing garage building on the site, the existing building having a footprint of 60.8m and a volume of 183.7 cubic metres. The proposed new building would be substantially larger, with a footprint of 80.7 square metres (an increase of 33%) and a volume of 380.3 cubic metres (a 107% increase).

The design of the proposed garage building would be in keeping with local vernacular architecture and would be an attractive building. However, the proposal is for the construction of a new building in the Green Belt, contrary to the above Green Belt policies, which reflects Government advice set out in PPG2, in particular with reference to the open character of the Green Belt.

Although it would bring about the removal of the existing garage building, which is of utilitarian appearance, the new building would be substantially larger than the existing building and would have a significantly greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the encroachment of the countryside.

The proposal is thus directly contrary to local and national policy guidance, which seeks to control the erection of new buildings in the Green Belt, and would represent 'inappropriate development' in the Green Belt.

CONCLUSION

The proposal would replace an existing smaller garage with a substantially larger one of a more attractive appearance in keeping with local vernacular architecture.

However, it would result in the erection of a larger new building in the countryside within a designated Green Belt. The erection of the new building would detract from the open rural character of the Green Belt and would be contrary to local and national policy guidance.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reason:-

1 The proposed building would have a seriously adverse impact on the open character of the Green Belt and would represent 'inappropriate development' within the designated Green Belt, contrary to policy GB1 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft and Policy WGB1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan, and national guidance in Planning Policy Guidance PPG2.

FOOTNOTE: This refusal refers only to drawing no VLDG.2003/30/02 and set of drawings showing the existing building, collectively numbered VLDG.2003/30/1.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:13

APPLICATION NO. 03/02656/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 2nd Feb 2004

WARD Bathavon South

PARISH Monkton Combe

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Greenbelt

APPLICANT: E D Huntley

PROPOSAL: Use of dining room (associated with bed & breakfast business) to permit use by non-residents on Fridays and Saturdays

SITE LOCATION: The Manor House Mill Lane Monkton Combe Bath BA2 7HD

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

The Manor House is an attractive stone house which is used as 'bed and breakfast' accommodation for up to 28 guests. It is sited to the south of the main developed area of the village beside the stream which serves Monkton Combe Mill.

Access to this site is via Mill Lane, a narrow and steep lane forming part of the public highway, which leads onto a private access lane about 35m long reaching the site. The hotel has a car park for about 12 cars.

This proposal relates to the existing dining room on the ground floor of the building, which has a capacity for between 20-28 diners depending on how the room is set out. This is presently used to serve breakfast to residents, however the applicants wish to expand its use to enable meals to be served in the evenings to guests, and also on Fridays and Saturdays only, to allow non-residents to eat in the dining room.

The use for serving guests in the evening is considered to be ancillary to the existing use of the site as a hotel and does not require planning permission. However, the serving of outside guests would represent a material change in the use of the building and requires permission.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

MONKTON COMBE PARISH COUNCIL: Some of the local residents are concerned as to increase in traffic, late night noise and parking problems which would be associated with the change of use. As such the Parish Council objects to the application.

HIGHWAY ENGINEERS: Comments awaited.

LOCAL RESIDENTS: 5 local residents and one nearby business have written to object to the proposal or to express concern. All these take the view that the access lane to the site is inadequate to accept any further traffic, and some also fear that there would be noise and disturbance resulting from the proposed use.

In addition 9 letters of support of the proposal have been received, some from residents of Monkton Combe and others from elsewhere in the locality. These take the view that the use would provide a facility for local people and also parents visiting their children at Monkton Combe School.

Monkton Combe Junior School has also written to support the proposal, considering that it would provide a service to parents and other visitors to the school. A motor garage close to Monkton Combe has also written in support of the scheme.

PLANNING ISSUES

POLICY ASPECTS: Policy ET.11 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) advises that the development of an existing tourist facility will be permitted provided it does not have an adverse impact on the rural character of the area.

Similar advice is included in Policy REC.12 of the Wansdyke Local Plan.

IMPACT ON THE LOCALITY: This application is to allow the existing dining room only at the Manor House to accommodate 'non-resident' diners in addition to guests staying at the hotel, on two days a week only. The dining room has a maximum capacity of 28 diners, but the applicants consider that the principal use will be by residents, with only a small number of outside diners.

This level of use would be unlikely to lead to a significant level of noise and disturbance in the area, bearing in mind that guests for the bed-and-breakfast use already normally arrive at the site in the evening.

The highways issues are more difficult to assess. While the number of additional vehicles would be small, the lane to the site is very narrow and steep and even a small number of additional vehicles could have a significant impact.

The comments of the Highway Development Officer are awaited, and will be reported at the meeting. As the highway issues are significant in this case officers are not able to make a recommendation until the highway aspects are received.

In view of local concerns about the use, any permission granted could be made on a temporary basis initially, to enable the effect on the area to be assessed.

There could also be a different situation if for any reason the bed & breakfast use should cease but the restaurant use continue, and this would also need to be prevented by condition.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is to allow non-resident as well as resident guests to eat in the dining room at this hotel. Some local residents have expressed concern about additional traffic in the access lane to the site and also about noise and disturbance in the area.

RECOMMENDATION

A further report will be made at the meeting.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:14

APPLICATION NO. 03/02677/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 11th Feb 2004

WARD Midsomer Norton North

PARISH Norton Radstock

APPLICANT: Jonathan Chard

PROPOSAL: 1 metre high front boundary fence as amended by revised drawings received 13 February 2004

SITE LOCATION: 49 Beaufort Avenue Midsomer Norton Radstock BA3 2TG

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

The detached property is located on the north side of and parallel to Beaufort Avenue; its access is from a short cul-de-sac serving seven dwellings. Most of the properties in this development were built with no front boundary demarcation. There is a permitted development removal condition in respect of fences/walls forward of buildings. The property is a corner plot with a larger than average front garden. The boundary abutting the spine road has a hedgerow between the front corner of the house and the cul-de-sac entrance.

The proposed fence would enclose all of the front garden around its perimeter (excluding the driveway entrance) and would be behind the hedgerow referred to above.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

TOWN COUNCIL: (comments on originally submitted drawings). Object on the following grounds:

1. The proposal would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area and is contrary to the original design and layout arrangements for the development as a whole.

2. To permit this would create an undesirable precedent.

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER: (comments on original submissions). No objection subject to the proposed fence not exceeding 0.9 m in height adjacent to the shared accessway in the interests of vehicular and pedestrian safety.

PLANNING ISSUES

VISUAL AMENITY: Following negotiations the applicant has reduced the height of the proposed fence (to the top of the posts) from 1.0 m down to 0.61 metres. It would comprise vertical posts at 2 metre centres and two horizontal rails (105 mm x 20 mm) set 150 mm apart. The original proposal would have had three rails.

It is considered that the proposal as revised would not have a material effect on the character or appearance of the area and would not compromise the generally open feel of the gardens forward of dwellings as they front the highway or private drives because of the very limited height of the fence and its simple open design.

From inspection there are other instances of low fences around front gardens, with vicinity but there is no record of any complaints or objections been received.

HIGHWAY SAFETY: At 0.6 metres maximum height the fence would satisfy the requirements of the Highway Development Officer having regard to safety issues.

CONCLUSION

On balance it is considered that the fence would not, having regard to the limited impact of other similar constructions elsewhere on the estate, materially detract from the visual amenities of the area, and would be acceptable in respect of highway safety issues.

RECOMMENDATION

PERMIT with the following conditions:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2 Prior to the commencement of development the colour of the fence shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

FOOTNOTE: This decision relates to three A4 sized drawings date stamped 13 February 2004.

REASONS FOR GRANTING APPROVAL:

The decision to grant approval has taken account of the Development Plan, relevant emerging Local Plans and approved Supplementary Planning Guidance. This is in accordance with the Policies set out below at A.

All other material considerations, including the views of third parties, have been considered, and they do not outweigh the reasons for approving the proposed development.

A. Policies H0.19 and TP.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan, adopted for development control purposes, September 2000.

Policies D1, D2, T1 and T24 of the Bath and North East Somerset (Revised Draft) Deposit.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:15

APPLICATION NO. 03/02846/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 6th Jan 2004

WARD Timsbury

PARISH Timsbury

Greenbelt

APPLICANT: Mr M Young

PROPOSAL: Detached dwelling for security officer

SITE LOCATION: Unit 3 Timsbury Industrial Estate Hayeswood Road Timsbury Bath

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

This application relates to the Hayeswood Industrial Estate which is located on the northern side of Hayeswood Road approximately 1km west of Timsbury. The application proposes the replacement of an existing industrial unit located on the western side of the industrial estate with a dwelling to be specifically occupied by security officer. The current operator of the estate recently died and therefore it is not possible for his widow to maintain the necessary levels of security. Goods are delivered and collected frequently out of hours and on several occasions prowlers have been disturbed within the complex.

The application proposes a modest single-storey 2-bed dwelling with a garage.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

TIMSBURY PARISH COUNCIL: The Parish Council wished to object to the proposed dwelling as the site lies outside the housing development boundary.

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT TEAM: As an existing unit will be given up in exchange for a new dwelling for a site security officer, I consider there will be an overall nil effect in highway terms. However, at present a portable sign is displayed within the visibility splay in the highway verge to the site to the east of the access which severely detracts from visibility. To overcome this a condition to ensure the visibility splay is maintained clear of obstructions is recommended.

LOCAL RESIDENTS: No comments received.

PLANNING ISSUES

POLICY BACKGROUND: The Wansdyke Local Plan and Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) both identify the site as being within the open countryside but outside the Green Belt.

Policy EMP.2 (Wansdyke Local Plan) indicates in areas not covered by the Green Belt the expansion, intensification, of existing business, industrial or distribution uses in classes B1, B2, and B8 or the redevelopment of the uses of such sites for the same use will be permitted unless the proposed location, scale, design of the design including open areas are not environmentally acceptable or compatible with other users and the amount of vehicular traffic likely to be generated is unacceptable. Policy ET.5 (Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan) indicates proposals for B1, B2, and B8 outside the scope of SC.1 and outside the Green Belt will be permitted where it is small scale and where the proposal represents a replacement building, and it does not lead to a dispersal of activity that prejudices town or village activity.In the open countryside policies HO.10 (Wansdyke Local Plan) and policy HG.10 Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan apply. In the open countryside outside the settlements identified in the Local Plan new dwellings are normally not acceptable, however, a special need may arise for accommodation which is essential for the efficient operation of the local economy. In many cases the need may be met by the provision within a nearby settlement. In this case the dwelling is required in connection with the provision of amenity and can not be provided on site. The policy indicates that dwellings where required should be linked in size.

In this case the application proposes a build that is of smaller footprint than the existing unit it will replace. The unit chosen by the applicant to replace is near the end of its useful life and will require replacement in the relatively near future. In relation to the proposed use as dwelling for a site security officer the location offers views over the access to the highway and the internal single road into the complex of buildings whilst being largely screened from the highway. The design is simple and appropriate for the location in which it is proposed and will beaccessed through the industrial estate.

In highway terms the effect is likely to be neutral and will not significantly increase or decrease vehicle movements to and from the site.

CONCLUSION

While the development of a dwelling in the open countryside is not normally permitted however, having regard to the applicant's need to provided enhanced security within the site and the location within this existing group of industrial buildings permission subject to the imposition of a condition restricting occupation to a site security officer permission is considered acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION

PERMIT with the following conditions:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2 No development shall commence until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out only in accordance with the details so approved.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

3 Before the dwelling hereby permitted is commenced the nearside highway verge for a minimum of 150 metres on both sides of the access shall be cleared of any obstruction to visibility, including signage, at and above ground level and there after maintained free of obstruction to visibility at all times.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

4 The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly working as a security officer or other employee providing supervision at the Timsbury Workshop Estate, or a widow or widower of such a person and to any resident dependants.

Reason: An unrestricted occupation of a new dwelling would not accord with the policies of the Council.

FOOTNOTE: This decision relates to drawing nos. MY/2, MY/2003/2 and MY/2003/3 date stamped 11 November 2003.

REASONS FOR GRANTING APPROVAL:

The decision to grant approval has taken account of the Development Plan, relevant emerging Local Plans and approved Supplementary Planning Guidance. This is in accordance with the Policies set out below at A.

All other material considerations, including the views of third parties, have been considered, and they do not outweigh the reasons for approving the proposed development.

A. Policy EMP.2 of the Wansdyke Local Plan, adopted for development control purposes, September 2000.

Policy ET.5 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Draft) Deposit.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:16

APPLICATION NO. 03/02960/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 20th Jan 2004

WARD Keynsham East

PARISH Keynsham

Housing Development Boundary

APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs P Harris

PROPOSAL: Two-storey side extension (in accordance with amended plans received 6 February 2004)

SITE LOCATION: 18 Lambourn Road Keynsham Bristol BS31 1PR

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

This application relates to a semi-detached dwelling located at the eastern end of Lambourn Road. The dwelling is constructed from face brick and is located within a group of similar properties around the turning head. The property currently has a single-storey garage and larger garden area than many of the surrounding properties due to its corner location. To the rear of the property are houses in Cherwell Road.

The application has been amended with a view of improving the design and appearance of the original submission and now proposes the erection of a two-storey side extension to incorporate 2 bedrooms at first floor and a kitchen extension and play room at ground floor. The proposed extension would be built in matching materials.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

KEYNSHAM TOWN COUNCIL: Original plans - Opposed on the grounds of overdevelopment.

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT TEAM: No Comment.

LOCAL RESIDENTS: One letter of objection has been received from the occupier of a property in Cherwell Road at the rear of the application site. This raises concerns related to the original plans to the original plans and whilst he has no objection to the principle of an extension, the scheme included a large roof that would obscure the sun and result in a loss of light in his property during the autumn and spring.

The objector has raised similar objections to the revised proposals.

PLANNING ISSUES

POLICY CONTEXT: The application proposes the erection of a house extension and falls to be considered in conjunction with Policy HO.19 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and Policy D.1 and D4 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft).

The application proposes an addition that has been designed to maintain the elevation of the existing semi-detached house by setting the front elevation of the extension behind the line of the existing dwelling and reducing the ridge height below that of the existing house. The extension is of significant proportions, although other properties close by have similar proportions. The proposed extension would not adversely affect the character of the locality and would be of a suitable design in relation to the existing dwelling.

Objections have been made to the proposed development from a property at the rear of the proposed development. The objector's dwelling is approximately 37 metres distant back to back with the application dwelling. The concern that has been expressed relates to the loss of sunlight late in the day particularly in autumn and spring and suggests the scheme should be modified by altering the design to change the roof element. However, having regard to the distance between the properties such objection could not be sustained, as the objector's property would still receive adequate light levels for most of the time.

RECOMMENDATION

PERMIT with the following conditions:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2 All external walling and roofing materials to be used shall match those of the existing building in respect of type, size, colour, pointing, coursing, jointing, profile and texture.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

FOOTNOTE: The decision relates to drawing nos. LAMB-01revA and LAMB-02A date stamped 6 February 2004.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:17

APPLICATION NO. 03/03003/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 12th Jan 2004

WARD Bathavon North

PARISH Batheaston

APPLICANT: Mr And Mrs H Batley

PROPOSAL: Access to side to provide vehicular disabled access

SITE LOCATION: 1 Fairhaven Cottages Northend Batheaston Bath BA1 8ES

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

The site is located in the countryside to the north of the village of Northend, and is an attractive traditional Bath stone house which fronts directly onto the east side of St Catherines Lane. The house has a garden 110m long at the rear which slopes quite steeply downwards towards the east.

The house at present has no off-street parking space, the applicants' car is parked on the highway. There is no footway to the highway outside this house, the front door opening directly onto the carriageway.

Abutting the side (south) boundary of the site is an open grassed field, which also slopes towards the east. This has a rubble-stone wall approximately 1.0m high on the highway boundary, and the ground level of the field at the highway boundary is about 750mm lower than the highway.

The proposal is to form an access through the boundary wall and to create a vehicle parking and turning area within the field. The area involved would measure 16m by 10m within the field, this area being enclosed by a rubble-stone wall up to 2.4m high, the ground level within the enclosure being raised by a maximum of 1.8m to accommodate the slope of the land.

The works are required for one of the applicants, who is disabled. The proposal would allow wheelchair access directly from a vehicle into the rear door of the house (the present access via the front door is unusable for wheelchair access as it opens onto a staircase). The applicants state they could not remain at the house without new access arrangements.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

BATHEASTON PARISH COUNCIL: Supports application.

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER: No highway objection, subject to condition relating to set-back of gates from highway, steepness of gradient and dispersal of surface water.

LOCAL RESIDENTS: One neighbouring occupier has written in support of the proposal.

PLANNING ISSUES

POLICY ASPECTS: Policy GB1 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) confirms that there is presumption against development in the Green Belt, and similar advice is included in Policy WGB1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan.

Both these policies however do permit limited alterations and extensions to dwellings.

The site also lies within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Policy NE2 of the Bath and North East Somerset Plan and Policy LNC2 of the Wansdyke Local Plan state that any development which harms the natural beauty of a designated AONB will not be permitted.

This application results from the personal circumstances of one of the applicants. Planning Policy Guidance Note No.1 (para.38) advises that while the personal circumstances of an applicant can exceptionally be a material consideration in assessing a planning application. However, it advises that such requirements will seldom outweigh more general planning considerations, and points out that if the proposed works are of a permanent nature, they will remain long after the personal circumstances of the applicant will have ceased to apply.

ASSESSMENT: The proposal represents a substantial construction work, raising the ground level by up to 1.8m over an area of 160 square metres and erecting a new wall of up to 2.4m high within an undeveloped field.

The visual impact of the scheme seen from the highway would be reduced by the adjacent ground level, the parking and turning area formed would be at a lower level than the adjacent St Catherines Lane and would have a limited visual impact seen from this location.

Viewed from land to the east , however, the proposal would be seen against the rising land in this area, and the parking and turning area would be significant feature, taking a segment 16m by 10m from the present green field, raising its level by up to 1.8m and replacing its grassed surface with cobbles. The retaining wall, which would be 2.7m high in the rear (east) elevation, would be an especially prominent feature.

However, seen from the east the proposal would be viewed as part of a pattern of sporadic development along both sides of St Catherines Lane. Buildings on the east side of the lane, because of the ground levels have terraced gardens or farmyards, built up from the adjacent ground level and anchored by stone walls in a similar fashion to this proposed development.

The proposal would however lead to an intensification of development along St Catherines Lane and would represent an erosion of the very open character of this part of the Green Belt. In policy terms, the proposal does not comply with local and national policy guidance, and represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

As an intensification of development, the proposal would also represent an erosion of the natural beauty of this part of the St Catherines valley, which forms part of the Cotswolds AONB. The proposal is therefore contrary to the policy guidance relating to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The applicants have provided evidence of the personal circumstances relating to this case and these are not disputed. However Government Guidance in this respect, set out earlier in this report, is that personal circumstances should not override normal planning considerations when assessing an application.

The proposal would have the advantage that it would reduce the present on-street parking in St Catherines Lane. This lane is narrow and winding and on-street parking is often a cause of congestion in this area. This aspect represents a material consideration in support of this proposal, but in your officers' view this is not sufficient to outweigh the effect on the Green Belt and the AONB.

CONCLUSION

This proposal represents a substantial engineering project which would be contrary to policy guidance relating to the Green Belt and the Cotswolds AONB. Although the proposal stems from the personal circumstances of the applicants and would reduce the level of on-street parking in St Catherines Lane, it would have an adverse impact on the Green Belt and the Cotswolds AONB.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reasons:-

1 The proposal represents 'inappropriate development' within the Green Belt, contrary to Policy GB1 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft and Policy WGB1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan.

2 The proposal would represent an erosion of the natural beauty and rural character of this part of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, contrary to Policy NE.2 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft and Policy LNC2 of the Wansdyke Local Plan.

FOOTNOTE: This refusal refers only to the Location Plan and drawing ref.316, and 316/2, 3 and 4 all date stamped 17 November 2003.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:18

APPLICATION NO. 03/03019/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 26th Jan 2004

WARD Keynsham North

PARISH Keynsham

Conservation Area

APPLICANT: A Bessell

PROPOSAL: Change of use of existing commercial premises to residential use, as amended by drawings received 9 February 2004

SITE LOCATION: 13 Station Road Keynsham Bristol BS31 2BH

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

13 Station Road is a small former shop premises, currently vacant, fronting onto the west side of Station Road opposite the St John the Baptist Church. It has an internal space measuring 4.8 m wide by 4.5 m deep and is presently open to the roof, having no first floor. The building opens directly onto the footway of Station Road and has no outdoor space.

The proposal is to convert the building to a single residential unit having one ground floor room, which would comprise a living room/kitchen, a w.c. off, and a new floor would be installed to provide a first floor bedroom and bathroom.

A previous application for conversion of this unit to a dwelling was refused permission in May 2002 under delegated powers, on grounds that the proposal did not meet the appropriate housing standards and had no off-street parking (application ref 02/00867/FUL refers).

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

KEYNSHAM TOWN COUNCIL: Opposes the proposal, on grounds that the proposals are below the appropriate standard for residential recommendation, and there is inadequate provision for off-street parking.

KEYNSHAM CIVIC SOCIETY: Objects to proposal, on grounds that the building is listed, has no permanent parking available nearby, and cannot meet the housing standards.

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER: Comments awaited. Had no objection to previous proposal.

COUNCIL'S PRIVATE SECTOR RENEWAL: Objected to proposal as originally submitted, on grounds of space standards and lighting/ventilation requirements.

Following receipt of revised plans, considers that the sizes of the living room, kitchen and bathroom are now acceptable. Lighting and ventilation requirements for the bedroom are also now met.

The bedroom is still slightly under the recommended space standards, but overall the proposal is now considered acceptable.

LOCAL RESIDENTS: No representations received.

PLANNING ISSUES

POLICY ASPECTS: Keynsham is defined as an 'Urban Area' under Policy SC.1 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft). Within such areas, Policy HG.4 of the same plan advises that there is no policy objection to the principle of conversion of buildings to residential use.

The equivalent policies of the Wansdyke Local Plan are Policies H4 and H0.14.

The site does not form part of the 'Primary Shopping Frontage' defined by Policy S.5 of the Draft Bath and North East Somerset Plan, and there is no policy objection to conversion of this building away from retail use.

THE PROPOSED CONVERSION: The application site is presently a small shop unit and the dwelling produced by this proposal would be of small scale, with rooms sizes only just meeting the required housing standards. The housing unit formed would be of one-bedroom only and would be suitable only for a single person or a couple.

However the building itself is of an attractive and distinctive appearance, and this combined with its town centre location could make it attractive to some occupiers.

The site has no outdoor amenity space and has no rear access. No off-street parking is available and parking on the highway outside the site would not be permitted as it is the approach to a pedestrian crossing. The remainder of the street is double-yellow lines on the west side (adjacent to the site) and on most of the opposite side of the road. Parking is available on the road bridge over the A4 to the north of the site.

Off-street parking, while desirable, is not regarded as essential in a town centre location such as this site, as many dwellings are in a similar situation.

CONCLUSION

The site is within the Housing Development Boundary of Keynsham and does not form part of the Primary Shopping Frontage, and there is no policy objection to the principle of the conversion of this building to residential use.

While a small building, the proposal as amended meets the appropriate housing standards and overall it is considered that the proposed as now submitted can be supported.

RECOMMENDATION

Authorise the Head of Planning Services to PERMIT, subject to Outstanding Consultations and the following conditions:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2 Other than is permitted by the application, no alterations to the shape or form of the roof of this building shall be undertaken without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the appearance of this building and the Keynsham Conservation Area.

FOOTNOTE: This permission relates only to the site location plan and drawing nos. 284.01 both date stamped 1 December 2003 and 284.02B and 03B both date stamped 9 February 2004.

REASONS FOR GRANTING APPROVAL:

The decision to grant approval has taken account of the Development Plan, relevant emerging Local Plans and approved Supplementary Planning Guidance. This is in accordance with the Policies set out below at A.

All other material considerations, including the views of third parties, have been considered, and they do not outweigh the reasons for approving the proposed development.

A. Policies H.4 and H0.14 of the Wansdyke Local Plan, adopted for development control purposes, September 2000.

Policies SC.1, HG.4 and S.5 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Draft) Deposit.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:19

APPLICATION NO. 03/03028/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 3rd Feb 2004

WARD Peasedown St John

PARISH Peasedown St John

APPLICANT: Mr S Parkinson

PROPOSAL: Two-storey side extension

SITE LOCATION: 19 Axford Way Peasedown St John Bath BA2 8DD

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

This application relates to a modern end-terraced dwelling which is located within a cul-de-sac of similar properties. The dwelling currently has two bedrooms and is located adjacent to a parking area on the southern side of the cul-de-sac.

The application proposes the erection of a two-storey side extension which would contain two additional bedrooms and shower room at first floor and lounge and utility area at ground floor. To gain access to the proposed extension at first floor the access is through an existing bedroom.

An application for the erection of a new dwelling was refused in August 2003 for the following reason:-

The proposed development by reason of its size, design, and location would result in an overintensive form of development that would adversely impact upon the character and amenities of the area and is therefore contrary to Policy H0.4, H0.12 and TP.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

PEASEDOWN ST JOHN PARISH COUNCIL: Oppose - recommend that refusal should be on the same grounds as given to the previous proposal for this site. This alternative proposal does not address our original objections.

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT TEAM: No highway objections are raised subject to the provision of the parking area prior to the occupation of the extension.

LOCAL RESIDENTS: Two letters of representation have been received raising the following grounds of objection.

The estate including Filer Close, Axford Way and Ford Close has a mix of housing to cover all social economic groups from two bedroomed linked houses to four bed detached houses and houses a good cross section of the village community. The development of the extension will in fact remove from the first floor buyer affordable list a 15 years old property and increase its market value.

The other comments on the untidy nature of the existing parking area adjacent to the application site.

PLANNING ISSUES

POLICY BACKGROUND: The application proposes the erection of a domestic extension and falls to be considered in conjunction with Policy H0.19 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and Policy D.1 and D.4 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft).

The proposal would result in an enlargement of the property in conflict with the objectives of the Village Design Statement and the proposed matching materials would be consistent with the original development.

Concern regarding overdevelopment of the site which resulted in refusal of the previous scheme for a self contained dwelling is not applicable in terms of this extension. The previous scheme required the provision of parking and amenity space for each of the dwellings proposed. The current proposal for an extension would retain appropriate parking and amenity space for a single dwelling.

Whilst it is recognised that the proposal conflicts with the Village Design Statement there is adequate room to accommodate the extension to provide improved conditions for the occupiers. It would not result in overdevelopment or cramped conditions. Refusal on the grounds of the loss of this dwelling as a starter home cannot therefore be sustained.

RECOMMENDATION

PERMIT with the following conditions:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2 All external walling and roofing materials to be used shall match those of the existing building in respect of type, size, colour, pointing, coursing, jointing, profile and texture.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

FOOTNOTE: This decision relates to drawing updated 8 December 2003 date stamped 9 December 2003.

REASONS FOR GRANTING APPROVAL:

The decision to grant approval has taken account of the Development Plan, relevant emerging Local Plans and approved Supplementary Planning Guidance. This is in accordance with the Policies set out below at A.

All other material considerations, including the views of third parties, have been considered, and they do not outweigh the reasons for approving the proposed development.

A. Policy H0.19 of the Wansdyke Local Plan, adopted for development control purposes, September 2000.

Policies D.1 and D.4 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Draft) Deposit.

_____________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:20

APPLICATION NO. 03/03059/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 27th Jan 2004

WARD Bathavon North

PARISH Bathford

Greenbelt

APPLICANT: C D Austin And Sons

PROPOSAL: Lean-to extension to Building 1 and additional concrete hardstanding

SITE LOCATION: Bathford Gardens Box Road Bathford Bath BA1 7LR

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

Bathford Gardens is a former pig farm located adjacent to the north side of Box Road to the east of Bathford.

Planning permission was granted in April 2001 for the conversion of two large buildings at the farm to use for employment purposes within the Classes B1, B2 and B8. This application relates to one of these buildings, a large block-built shed which has been converted and upgraded under the existing planning permission.

Before it was upgraded, on the north (rear) side of the building was a lean-to addition to the building formed of blockwork and timber with a roof of corregated material, and which housed pig sties. On the approved plans this addition is shown to be removed except for the rear blockwork wall, and the open area used for storage and for rubbish, this space measuring 18.0 m by 6.5 m. The blockwork wall, now removed, acted as a retaining wall, the ground level at the rear of the building being at a level 1.5 m higher than the floor of the building.

This lean-to building has been demolished as shown on the approved plans, but has been replaced without planning permission by a partially-built steel-framed lean-to building having the same dimensions as the removed lean-to. At present the building comprises the steel frame and a roof of profiled steel. It is presently open-sided but when completed the extension would have blockwork wall to match those of the main building.

The planning permission granted also included the formation of a vehicle parking area for lorries and cars, and the present proposal includes the formation for a further hardstanding measuring 17 m by 6.0 m. Formation of this would involve the excavation of soil to a maximum depth of about 900 mm.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

BATHFORD PARISH COUNCIL: Supports application.

LOCAL RESIDENTS: No representations received.

PLANNING ISSUES

POLICY ASPECTS: Policies GB.1 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) and WGB.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan both confirm that within the Green Belt, there is a presumption against the erection of new dwellings.

Policies ET.5 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) advises that permission for buildings for employment uses in the courtyards are not acceptable if they fall within the Green Belt reflecting advice in Policy EMP.3 of the Wansdyke Local Plan.

Policy ET.8 of the same plan advises that when considering schemes for farm diversification proposals will only be permitted where existing buildings are used.

THE WORKS CARRIED OUT: The extension is on the rear (north) elevation of the building and will be screened by the building from the Box Road and land to the south. At the rear of the building the ground level is approximately 1.5 m above that of the building, and this would reduce its visual impact seen from the north.

The applicants also point out that there was formerly a lean-to extension of virtually the same proportions when the building was in agricultural use.

However that former lean-to has been removed and the present addition on the site is a new building built within recent months, and is not intended for any agricultural purpose but rather for an employment use. The applicants point out that the intended use would be as a workshop for agricultural machinery and is this related to the agricultural use of the site.

However, in planning terms the extension represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt contrary to Policy GB.1 of the Bath and North East Somerset (Revised Deposit Draft) and Policy WGB.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan.

Although the proposal would create employment space, it does not comply with the criteria set out in Policies ET.5 and ET.8 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan, and is thus also contrary to these policies, and also to Policy EMP.3 of the Wansdyke Local Plan.

CONCLUSION

The proposal relates to an extension to an existing building, formerly an agricultural building and now being refurbished as a building accommodating Class B1, B2 and B8 uses. However the extension does not reflect local policy guidance relating to 'employment' buildings in the Green Belt, and represents 'inappropriate development' in the Green Belt.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reasons:-

1 The extensions represents 'inappropriate development' in the Green Belt, contrary to Policy GB.1 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) and Policy WGB.1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan.

2 The proposed is for new building for employment use on land forming part of the Green Belt, contrary to Policy ET.5 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) and Policy EMP.3 of the Wansdyke Local Plan.

3 The proposal would represent an erosion of the rural character and natural beauty of this part of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, contrary to Policy NE.2 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) and Policy LNC.2 of the Wansdyke Local Plan.

FOOTNOTE: This refusal refers only to the site location plan and drawing nos. CDA/EXT03/01, 02 and 1835:1 all date stamped 2 December 2003.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:21

APPLICATION NO. 03/03138/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 4th Feb 2004

WARD Keynsham East

PARISH Keynsham

APPLICANT: Ernest Anthony Property Management

PROPOSAL: Detached house and garage

SITE LOCATION: Land Adjacent To 179 Bath Road Keynsham Bristol

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

This application site forms part of the garden of a dwelling located on the northern side of Bath Road. The property is approximately 300 metres west of the roundabout junction at the eastern end of the Keynsham By-pass. To the west of the site is Ellsbridge House (Norton Radstock College). To the east are dwellings with an area of unused land in between. To the rear of the site are industrial premises in Ashmead Road.

The application indicates the erection of a 4 bed detached dwelling which is set back into the site. The proposed materials would be face brick and render. The application also proposes the erection of a garage and new access from the A4 with turning areas for both the existing and proposed dwellings.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

KEYNSHAM TOWN COUNCIL: Support - The Committee noted that the proposed development would be in the Green Belt but considered that on this occasion the application should be supported.

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT TEAM: No comment received.

HIGHWAY AGENCY: Please note the A4 is a virtually de-trunked route. The Highways Agency will still comment, advise and direct on planning applications. However, it is appropriate that the inheriting highway authority should comment and advise on all non-safety matters. We confirm that the Highways Agency has not received any non-safety comments or advice from Bath and North East Somerset.

No dimensions have been provided on the drawings of the access to the property although the drawings show a widened access. It is therefore recommended that the existing access is widened to provide a total dropped kerb width of 8 metres between dropped kerbs.

Alteration of the access will affect the trunk road and all works affecting the trunk road must be carried out by, or on behalf of the Secretary of State's trunk road agents for this area. Therefore, before carrying out the works, the applicant must first contact our agent at the following address.

PLANNING (POLICY) TEAM: The proposal is contrary to Policy HG.4 of the new Local Plan. Not only is the property outside the Housing Development Boundary, it would also contribute to the consolidation of existing ribbon development in an area where the Local Plan does not encourage residential development. Neither is this residential development proposal in an ideal location in terms of distance from the town centre and its access onto the busy A4.

LOCAL RESIDENTS: Norton Radstock College have indicated no objection to the proposal. A letter of no objection has also been received from the occupier of 179 Bath Road.

PLANNING ISSUES

POLICY BACKGROUND: The application is located outside of the settlement boundary identified for Keynsham both in the Wansdyke Local Plan (Policy S1 and H0.4) and in the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft (Policy SC1 and HG.4).

Both the Wansdyke Local Plan and the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan indicate that the application site is located outside the defined housing development boundary for Keynsham. Policy HG.4 indicates development will be permitted where it falls within such a boundary. Policy H0.4 indicates that development will be permitted where it falls within a defined housing development boundary and the impact of the proposed development does not affect the character of the settlement. The site is located within an area where a further dwelling is considered to reinforce this ribbon of development and while the site is not in the Green Belt further development would reinforce the urban character where the development pattern is of a transitional nature from the urban area of Keynsham to rural areas beyond.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reason:-

1 The application site is located outside an identified housing development area of Keynsham boundary therefore the proposed dwelling would be contrary to Policy S.1 and H0.4 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and Policy SC.1 and HG.4 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft).

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:22

APPLICATION NO. 03/03167/LBA TYPE Listed Building Consent (Alts/exts)

EXPIRY DATE 6th Feb 2004

WARD Farmborough

PARISH Farmborough

Listed Building Grade II

Housing Development Boundary Listed Building

APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs A Hardacre

PROPOSAL: Replacement of rear first and second floor modern softwood windows with double glazed leaded casements.

SITE LOCATION: The Manor The Street Farmborough Bath BA2 0AR

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

Dating from c1667 and attributed to the Popham Family the building is a small linear Manor House of a single room depth so typical of the Medieval and C17th houses of North East Somerset.

Built of coursed rubble walling with coped gables and projecting porch bay to the front elevation, the building is listed grade II in recognition of its Special Architectural and Historic Interest.

The works involved the removal of four windows (each made up of two casement lights) located in the rear gables at attic level together with the removal of three windows (each made up of two casement lights) at first floor level on the rear elevation, and their replacement with double glazed units with superficially applied lead glazing bars.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

PARISH COUNCIL: The Parish Council support the application.

LOCAL MEMBER: A request to present this application to the Committee has been received from the local member, Councillor Sally Davies.

PLANNING ISSUES

The works of replacing the windows with double-glazed units was undertaken prior to a listed building consent application being submitted. A local resident noted the unauthorised works taking place, informed the Enforcement Officer in the Historic Buildings Team and asked that action be taken.

The inserted windows are considered to be inappropriate in terms of their design detailing and the introduction of double-glazing.

The principle of inserting double glazing into historic buildings is considered to be inappropriate and not in keeping with the established historic detailing. This is established in PPG15, (Planning Policy Guidance: Planning and the Historic Environment) in paragraph C.50 which states that:-

It is usually impossible to install double-glazed units in existing frames or to replicate existing frames with new sealed units without making noticeable changes to the profiles of glazing bars, styles, and rails.

This point is further emphasised in the English Heritage Publication - Building Regulations and Historic Buildings 2002- which discusses how to balance energy conservation with building conservation.

As a result of the windows being designed to incorporate double-glazing the thickness of the frame members has had to be increased, thereby altering their integrity and appearance. The original lead detail is also compromised with the lead work now applied to the face of the windows i.e. applied to one complete sheet of glass, as opposed to being an integral to the construction of the window. Historically the lead would have been of an 'H'-shaped construction with the glass being divided into square quarry lights set within the lead.

The new glass in such units may also significantly alter the appearance of the window. Such changes are rarely acceptable in listed buildings. This view has recently been upheld in an appeal decision in the District.

The replacement double-glazed window frames inserted into the second floor level, set within the rear gables, are unbalanced. The area of glazing in the opening casement is smaller than that of its immediately adjacent fixed casement which is architecturally inappropriate in the context of a listed building and more the approach adopted on modern housing estate developments. This in turn has had a knock on effect on the proportions of the leaded lights within the frame. In the opening casement the applied lead work divides the windows into four panes horizontally whereas in the fixed pane, it is divided into five panes. As a result of creating deeper frames to accommodate the double-glazed element the vertical proportions are also seriously compromised.

CONCLUSION

The insertion of double-glazed units into this important Manor House at Farmborough is considered to have a detrimental impact upon its character and appearance.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reason:-

1 The windows by virtue of their design, location and detailing fail to preserve the special architectural and historic interest of this statutory listed building. The implemented works are contrary to policy CH1 of the Wansdyke Local Plan and to policy BH2 of the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan.

FOOTNOTE: Drawings nos Written Justification, 4 x 4 photograph sheets, drawings 13, 15A. 16A, 17A, 18A, 19A, 20A, 21A, 22A dated 12th December 2003.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:23

APPLICATION NO. 03/03204/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 12th Feb 2004

WARD Bathavon South

PARISH Monkton Combe

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Greenbelt

APPLICANT: School Governors

PROPOSAL: Extension to science lab M7

SITE LOCATION: Ralph Allen School Claverton Down Road Combe Down Bath BA2 7AD

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

Ralph Allen School fronts onto the south side of Claverton Down Road and comprises a large group of buildings which has developed incrementally on the site over the years.

The existing science block is a two-storey flat-roofed building built of Bath stone ashlar with large panels coloured red beneath the windows.

The proposal is to add an extension onto the ground floor only of the building to increase the size of the present science laboratory. The extension would project 3.0 m from the existing side wall of the building and would be 10.4 m long. The extension would be of ashlar stone with insulated panels below the glazing, both to match the existing building. It would have a roof of profiled metal sheeting coloured red to match the wall cladding.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

MONKTON COMBE PARISH COUNCIL: No objection.

LOCAL RESIDENT: No representations received.

PLANNING ISSUES

POLICY ASPECTS: Policy D1 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan (Revised Deposit Draft) requires that any development which does not maintains the character of an area will not be permitted. Policy CF.2 of this same plan advises that the development of community facilities such as schools will be permitted provided they are well related to the surrounding area.

The equivalent policies in the Wansdyke Local Plan are Policies GEN.2 and CS.3.

EFFECT ON THE AREA: The proposal extension would be of relatively minor size in relation to the complex of buildings forming the school, it would also fit well with the existing two storey science block, improving its appearance by adding some interest to the presently rather bland side elevation.

The site of the extension is enclosed by existing school buildings and the extension would not be visible from outside the site. No neighbouring occupiers would be affected.

The improvement of facilities at the school is also a material consideration in this case.

CONCLUSION

The proposed extension would be of relatively modest size and would to some extent improve the appearance of the building onto which it would be built. No neighbouring occupiers would be affected.

RECOMMENDATION

PERMIT with the following conditions:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2 All external walling materials to be used shall match those of the science block onto which this extension would be built in respect of type, size, colour, pointing, coursing, jointing, profile and texture.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

FOOTNOTE: This decision relates only to drawing nos. E0 76A9/AL/01 date stamped 18 December 2003.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:24

Item No:

APPLICATION NO. 03/03212/LBA TYPE Listed Building Consent (Alts/exts)

EXPIRY DATE 10th Mar 2004

WARD Farmborough

PARISH Compton Dando

Listed Building Grade II

Greenbelt

APPLICANT: Mrs G Rice

PROPOSAL: Rear conservatory

SITE LOCATION: Pows Cottage Vicarage Lane Compton Dando Bristol

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

Pows Cottage was formerly a structure within the curtilage of Priory Farmhouse, which is a Grade II listed building. It is therefore a curtilage listed structure. It was built at right angles to the main farmhouse and very close to it. The cottage/former dairy was a simple two storey rubble structure which was derelict for many years, but was rebuilt with planning permission granted in 1996. Much of the historic character of the building has been lost due to the dereliction and extensive re-building. This application is for the erection of a new conservatory on the side (west) elevation of this cottage.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

PARISH: Support.

PLANNING ISSUES

PLANNING HISTORY: 03/00793/FUL: Planning permission was granted on 4 July 2003 for the erection of a conservatory.

CHARACTER AND SETTING OF LISTED BUILDING: The proposed conservatory will be located on the west end of the building, which although furthest from the public road, will be clearly visible in the setting of the elevated building, along the private drive to this and other properties. It has been designed in the Victorian style with white painted timber details and a simple shape which is considered to be appropriate in this setting.

REASON FOR APPLICATION BEING REPORTED TO COMMITTEE: The applicant is an employee of the Council.

CONCLUSION

The proposed conservatory will not harm the now limited architectural or historic interest of this curtilage listed building.

RECOMMENDATION

CONSENT

1 The works hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this consent.

Reason: To comply with Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

2 All works of making good shall match the existing original work in all respects.

Reason: To safeguard the special architectural and historic character of this Grade I listed building.

ADVICE NOTE:

This consent refers to the erection of a conservatory only and does not grant listed building consent for the alterations to the building carried out during the rebuilding of the cottage as shown on the plans as existing. These works remain unauthorised.

REASONS FOR GRANTING CONSENT:

The decision to grant consent subject to conditions has been made in accordance with Government Policy Planning Guidance and in the light of views of third parties. The Council regards that the proposal because of its location, design, detailing and use of materials will preserve the building, its setting and its features of special architectural or historic interest.

______________________________________________________________________

Item No:24

APPLICATION NO. 04/00009/REG03 TYPE Regulation 3 Application

EXPIRY DATE 13th Feb 2004

WARD Chew Valley North

PARISH Chew Stoke

Greenbelt

APPLICANT: Bath & N E Somerset Council

PROPOSAL: New music block

SITE LOCATION: Chew Valley School Chew Lane Chew Magna Bristol BS40 8QB

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

It is proposed to erect a new music block at the north-eastern end of the existing complex of buildings, to the rear of a former caretaker's house and adjacent to the derelict former swimming pool. Two detached buildings would be demolished to make way for the proposal, and a rear access drive re-aligned.

The proposed building would be of an irregular plan form, with an asymmetrical ridged roof. The building would have a floor area of approximately 270 square metres, and a maximum ridge height of 6 metres. It would be faced with brickwork and concrete roof tiles, to match the adjoining buildings as closely as possible.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

PARISH COUNCIL: Chew Stoke Parish Council have no objection to this application - this looks to be a fantastic facility. The only comments we would like to make are as follows:

1. We are concerned about the proposed position for re-siting the garage block.

2. We are concerned that there seems to be no provision for replacing the existing cycle shed.

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT TEAM: I have no objections to the proposal in principle, as it would appear to be a new block for existing levels of pupils rather additional classrooms. However I am concerned with the potential for general public usage, out of school hours for performances, etc, as this may result in an increase of traffic movements and there may be a need for additional parking provision.

PLANNING ISSUES

PLANNING POLICY: The site is located within the Green Belt in the Wansdyke Local Plan, and relevant policy guidelines are set out in Policy WGB1.

Policy CS.3 encourages new community facilities, subject inter alia to no adverse impact on the Green Belt, landscape character, residential amenity or highway safety.

These policies are carried forward by Policies GB.1 and CF.2 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan; Policy GB.3 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan identifies Chew Valley School as a Major Existing Development Site where limited infilling and redevelopment for educational use will be permitted.

GREEN BELT: The proposed building is well related to the existing complex of buildings in terms of its size and siting, and would have little impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal would comply with Policy GB.3 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan concerning Major Existing Development Sites within the Green Belt.

SITING AND DESIGN: The proposed building would be well contained between the existing buildings and boundary vegetation, and the scale, massing and design treatment are considered to be appropriate.

LANDSCAPE TREATMENT: The proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to:

(i) minor amendments to the site layout in order to protect existing trees and vegetation;

(ii) clarification of existing and proposed site levels;

(iii) appropriate protection measures for existing trees and vegetation;

(iv) a good quality landscaping scheme incorporating additional planting.

It is anticipated that amended plans will be submitted before the Meeting.

CAR PARKING: The Highway Development Team has no objections to this application, subject to further clarification of public usage and performances outside school hours which might generate additional traffic movements and a requirement for additional car parking.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES: The proposed building would be located approximately 150 metres from the closest dwelling and would therefore be unlikely to have any significant impact on residential amenity.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is considered to be acceptable, subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans and additional information, and the imposition of appropriate conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

Authorise the Head of Planning Services to PERMIT, subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans and additional information, and with the following conditions:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2 No development shall commence until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out only in accordance with the details so approved.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

3 No development shall be commenced until a hard and soft landscape scheme has been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; such a scheme shall include details of all walls, fences, trees, hedgerows and other planting which are to be retained; details of new walls, fences and other boundary treatment and finished ground levels; a planting specification to include numbers, density, size, species and positions of all new trees and shrubs; details of the surface treatment of the open parts of the site; and a programme of implementation.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

4 All hard and/or soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of the development being completed, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the landscape scheme is implemented and maintained.

5 No site works or clearance shall be commenced until protective fences which conform with British Standard 5837:1991 have been erected around any existing trees and other existing or proposed landscape areas in positions which have previously been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Until the development has been completed these fences shall not be removed and the protected areas are to be kept clear of any building, plant, material, debris and trenching, with the existing ground levels maintained, and there shall be no entry to those areas except for arboricultural or landscape works.

Reason: To safeguard the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.

6 Prior to the commencement of any form of site works or clearance the Local Planning Authority shall be given not less than two weeks notice in writing of these works to ensure that appropriate measures of landscape protection required under condition 5 have been implemented in accordance with the approved plans or conditions.

Reason: To ensure that adequate protection is given to the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.

7 There shall be no musical performances within the building or in the outdoor performing area other than on Mondays-Fridays (inclusive) and between 0800 hours and 1700 hours (inclusive) without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

______________________________________________________________________

 

Item No:26

APPLICATION NO. 04/00010/FUL TYPE Full Application

EXPIRY DATE 16th Feb 2004

WARD Mendip

PARISH East Harptree

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

APPLICANT: Mr A Barlow

PROPOSAL: Conversion and extension of existing garage to form annex for elderly parent as amended by drawing received 13 February 2004

SITE LOCATION: Copse End Coombe Lane East Harptree Bristol BS40 6BG

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

The site is situated at the western end of Coombe Lane on its northern side. The proposal is for the extension of the existing garage and its conversion to form a residential annexe for a parent. The proposed extension would form a 'L' shaped addition on the northern end of the garage and would be 4.8 x 3.5 metres and would add an additional 2.5 metres to the length of the garage.

CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

PARISH COUNCIL: Oppose.

1. It takes away a garage and potentially results in more car parking in a narrow lane.

2. It creates a separate detached dwelling.

HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT TEAM: No objections subject to conditions:

1. The development remains permanently tied to the main dwelling and shall not be come a separate residential unit.

2. Applicant to provide details of proposed car parking arrangements.

TWO LOCAL RESIDENTS: Oppose on the following grounds:

1. Conversion of garages would worsen the traffic congestion problems in the village.

2. Would be an invasion of the privacy of the next door property and would overlook its conservatory.

PLANNING ISSUES

The two main issues are the impact on off-street parking availability and the creation of a self-contained detached dwelling unit having regard to planning policies. The property is located within the Housing Development Boundary of the village and within the Mendip Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

NEW RESIDENTIAL UNIT: The annex would be created by conversion and extension of the existing detached garage, and would comprise 1 bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and living room. The actual increase in footprint (new build) would only be 13 sq metres. It is considered that the proposal, in view of the limited increase in mass, would not have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the area. There are no adjacent dwellings that could be materially affected by the development. It is usual in these circumstances to prevent independent occupation by imposition of a condition.

PARKING: As a result of the concerns expressed by interested parties the applicant has submitted a drawing which shows that three cars can still be parked within the curtilage of the house despite the loss of the garaging. This would satisfy the requirements of the Highway Development Team.

CONCLUSION

It is considered that the proposed annex would not harm any matters of acknowledged importance provided the way in which it is occupied is limited to that applied for.

RECOMMENDATION

PERMIT with the following conditions:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2 All external walling and roofing materials to be used shall match those of the existing building in respect of type, size, colour, pointing, coursing, jointing, profile and texture.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

3 The development hereby approved shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as Copse End and shall not be occupied as a separate dwelling unit.

Reason: The accommodation hereby approved is not capable of independent occupation without adverse impact on the amenities of existing or future residential occupiers.

FOOTNOTE: This decision relates to two drawings, A4 1:1250 scale site location plan date stamped 21 December 2003 and drawing no. 994/2A date stamped 13 February 2004.

REASONS FOR GRANTING APPROVAL:

The decision to grant approval has taken account of the Development Plan, relevant e