Case Officer: Sarah Kay File No: CHE/14/00515/REM Tel. No: (01246) 345786 Plot No: 2/6132 Ctte Date: 15 th September 2014 ITEM 1 APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS FROM APPLICATION CHE/12/00234/OUT (1) LAYOUT, EXTERNAL APPEARANCE AND LANDSCAPING AT HILLTOP, 234 HADY HILL, CHESTERFIELD, DERBYSHIRE, S41 0BJ FOR MR A STUBBINS. Local Plan: Ward: Unallocated St Leonards 1.0 CONSULTATIONS DCC Highways Design Services Yorkshire Water Environmental Services Ward Members Neighbours/Site Notice Comments rec d see report Comments rec d see report Comments rec d see report Comments rec d no objections No comments received Four letters of representation received 2.0 THE SITE 2.1 The site the subject of the application is a triangular section of No 234 Hady Hill s garden curtilage, which lies to the west of the properties built footprint. 2.2 The highway boundary of Hady Hill adjoins the immediate southern boundary of the application site; and an access road immediately west of the application site leads from Hady Hill along the northern boundary of the site, linking to two detached neighbouring properties and the Severn Trent reservoir beyond. 2.3 An electricity sub-station, fronting the access road, lies within the triangular section of land but is excluded from the red line boundary of the application site. 2.4 A London Plane tree, situated centrally adjacent the southern boundary of the application site is protected by Tree Preservation Order 4901.272. 1
3.0 SITE HISTORY 3.1 CHE/12/00234/OUT - Proposed new detached dwelling comprising 3/4 bedrooms, new pedestrian/vehicular access and parking space. Granted conditional permission 12/06/2012. 3.2 CHE/0791/0461 - Erection of two bungalows. Granted conditional permission 03/10/1991. 4.0 THE PROPOSAL 4.1 In accordance with planning permission CHE/12/00234/OUT which granted outline consent for a 2.5 storey detached dwelling, including scale and access, the current proposals seek reserved matters approval for the outstanding appearance, layout and landscaping of the site. 4.2 The reserved matters submission is accompanied by drawing no. 1951/100/2A which illustrates the external appearance / finish of the proposed dwelling; and drawing no. 1950/14/1 which illustrates the proposed site layout and landscaping details. The details submitted are almost identical to those which were indicatively submitted with the 2012 outline application. 4.3 It is noted that the agents accompanying letter dated 16 th July 2014 also includes details in respect of conditions 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the outline planning permission CHE/12/00234/OUT for discharge, however the agent has been advised that these details should be submitted separately for consideration as a Discharge of Conditions (DOC) application. 5.0 CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Local Plan Issues 5.1.1 The proposal has the benefit of an outline approval and the principle of the development on the site is therefore already established and accepted. 2
5.1.2 Policy CS18 (Design) states that all development should identify, respond and integrate with the character of the site and its surroundings and development should respect the local character and the distinctiveness of its context. In addition it requires development to have an acceptable impact on the amenity of neighbours. In addition to the above, the NPPF places emphasis on the importance of good design stating: In determining applications, great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help raise the standard of design more generally in the area. Planning permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. 5.1.3 In addition to the above, in July 2013 the Council adopted Successful Places which is a Supplementary Planning Document which guides Sustainable Housing Layout and Design. The development proposed should be assessed against the design principles set out in this supporting document. 5.2 Neighbour Effect 5.2.1 Having regard to the potential neighbouring impact of any development on this site (in relation to overlooking, overshadowing and overbearing impact) the only neighbouring property which shares an immediate boundary with the application site is No 234 Hady Hill, the applicant. 5.2.2 The layout drawings submitted show that the dwelling would be sited approximately 7m from the side elevation of No 234, in which there is only one small secondary window. Furthermore the floor layout plan demonstrates that the internal arrangement of the dwelling does not require the insertion of any window openings in the side elevation facing No 234. It is therefore not considered that the proposal would introduce any adverse overlooking impacts upon the neighbouring property. 5.2.3 Having regard to overshadowing, the layout drawings show the dwelling positioned to the south west of No 234. It is therefore acknowledged that such orientation might introduce a degree of overshadowing of No 234 in the late afternoon and onwards. Notwithstanding this however, any overshadowing is likely to be over the side elevation and rear garden area of No 234 for a short period of time, which in itself is not considered to be so harmful an impact as to warrant the refusal of planning permission. Particularly as much of the dense vegetation sited in advance of No 234, along Hady Hill, already casts their garden into shadow. 5.2.4 Finally in relation to overbearing impact, it is considered that the indicative layout submitted demonstrates that an acceptable degree of separation can be achieved between the proposal and No 234 such that the proposal is unlikely to overbear the existing property. 3
5.2.5 In respect of overshadowing and overbearing impacts / effects it is not considered that the development proposals pose the introduction of any adverse impacts / effects to surrounding neighbouring properties. The development proposals achieve adequate separation distances and orientation / siting to ensure any effects are avoided or minimised in accordance with policy CS18 and the Council s Housing Layout and Design SPD. 5.2.6 In the context of the provisions of Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy and the material planning considerations in relation to neighbour impact, it is concluded that the proposals will not impact sufficiently adversely upon the privacy and/or outlook of the adjoining and/or adjacent neighbours to justify refusal and the scheme is therefore acceptable in terms of these policies. 5.3 Appearance Issues 5.3.1 The site is considered to be an appropriate infill plot and the principal for its redevelopment is fully accepted given the fact the site is located within the built settlement of Hady and the with existence of the outline consent. 5.3.2 It is clear the site is capable of comfortably accommodating the scale of dwelling proposed and the design, albeit somewhat contemporary, is considered to be acceptable having regard to the character and / or appearance of the surrounding area. 5.3.3 It was accepted in granting outline consent that the protected tree within the application site could be retained and appropriately protected during development works and it is noted that the landscaping / layout plan submitted illustrates the siting of a protective fence line. Having now considered the external design and layout of the proposed dwelling the subject of this reserved matters submission these views are maintained and it is not considered that the development poses any harm to the future wellbeing of the protected tree. 5.3.4 Overall it is considered that the development proposed is appropriately sited and designed, will not impose any adverse amenity issues and can be comfortably accommodated in the context of the existing streetscene without comprising undue harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The development is therefore considered to accord with the design aspirations of policy CS18 of the Core Strategy and the Council s Successful Places adopted Design SPD. 5.4 Highways Issues 5.4.1 It is noted that the LPAs decision to grant outline planning permission was made contrary to the Highway Authority s recommendation that consent be refused. Notwithstanding their views consent was subsequently given. 5.4.2 This application seeks approval of the layout of the site, which accords with the indicative layout plan which accompanied the outline application. The 4
plans show that 3 no. car parking spaces can be accommodated to the northern side of the site which are served by the approved access detail considered as part of the outline permission. 5.4.3 It is noted that the Highways Authority has commented on the application in respect of the detail initially submitted in connection with condition 8 of the outline permission; however following discussion with the agent these specific details are to be considered separately in accordance with a subsequent DOC application. 5.4.4 Solely having regard to the appearance, layout and landscaping details being considered as part of the reserved matters proposals the details do not raise any adverse highway safety concerns which have not already been considered as part of the previous decision to grant outline consent. Whilst it is noted that several representations raise concerns regarding the servicing arrangements to the site these details are not material to the reserved matter submission. Furthermore access to the site from this access road has already been considered and has been deemed acceptable. 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Site notice posted on 28/07/2014. Four neighbours notified on 24/07/2014 and four letters of representation have been received as follows: Dan Sellers (by email) I like the planned buildings appearance and feel it matches the adjacent property. Noted. P Bradley (by email) This email raises several questions / queries in relation to the details submitted which are directly associated with conditions on the outline planning permission. These queries in this representation question the suitability of the design of the foul and surface water drainage detailed, the provision of a site compound during the entire construction period, the safety of access to and from the site and the importing of top soil. The details in respect of drainage, site access and top soil which accompany this application for reserved matters are in fact details which would ordinarily be examined and addressed as part of a discharge of conditions application. The applicant has been advised to resubmit these details for consideration as a DOC application. Ordinarily the views of the general public would not be sought on DOC applications concerning details of drainage, site access or soils as the suitability of these details are reviewed and commented upon by the Local Planning Authority s consultees only. Notwithstanding the above, the Council s Design Services team, Yorkshire Water Services, the Council s Environmental Services team 5
and DCC Highways have all reviewed the application submissions and accepted the details submitted. The LPA should not question their expert advice against that of a member of the public in this respect. T Haigh & P Haigh - 238 Hady Hill We accept that planning permission was agreed in 2012 by the LPA for a dwelling to be erected on the site adjacent 234 Hady Hill; In the recent submission the application makes reference to vehicles using the private access road and it appears CBC have included this private access road into their plans as a public road and have misunderstood that it is only the 1.9m wide footway that is public; The road is private to Severn Trent, No 236 and 238 Hady Hill and as it stands the only way the applicant will be able to transport materials into the site will be by wheelbarrow along the public footpath or via 234 or 240 Hady Hill; If access is conceded along this private road there will be a problem with large vehicles making deliveries as there is no turning space and therefore they will need to reverse either into or out of the road which will be dangerous. See section 5.4 above. R Shier & C Shier 236 Hady Hill We have no representations to make concerning matters 1, 5, 6 and 9 however we do wish to make representations in the strongest terms to matter 8 site set up: The applicants agent states that it is not possible to enter and leave the site in a forward gear due to the restrictive site area and as a result vehicles leaving the site must reverse from or into the A632, furthermore as a consequence any vehicles delivering to the site blocking the access road will force other vehicles to the do the same; DCC Highway recommended refusal of the outline consent and the applicant has had similar restrictions placed on them for their sites further up Hady Hill; Hady Hill is an exceptionally busy main road, even more so than in 2012 and hospital traffic has increased. The prospect of heavy goods vehicles emerging with minimal visibility onto the A632 at this point is appalling; and The applicants agent states the access road is a quiet backwater and deliveries can take place from this without causing inconvenience to joint users. The access road is the only access to the Severn Trent reservoir, No 236 and 238 Hady Hill and it is only 4.3m wide. It is not possible for two vehicles to pass each other on this road without one of them giving way therefore a delivery vehicle would block the road completely preventing us from exercising our legitimate right of access to and from our own property. See section 5.4 above. 7.0 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 7.1 Under the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force on 2 nd October 2000, an authority must be in a position to show: Its action is in accordance with clearly established law 6
The objective is sufficiently important to justify the action taken The decisions taken are objective and not irrational or arbitrary The methods used are no more than are necessary to accomplish the legitimate objective The interference impairs as little as possible the right or freedom 7.2 It is considered that the recommendation is objective and in accordance with clearly established law. 7.3 The recommended conditions are considered to be no more than necessary to control details of the development in the interests of amenity and public safety and which interfere as little as possible with the rights of the applicant. 7.4 Whilst, in the opinion of the objectors, the development affects their amenities, it is not considered that this is harmful in planning terms, such that any additional control to satisfy those concerns would go beyond that necessary to accomplish satisfactory planning control 8.0 STATEMENT OF POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE WORKING WITH APPLICANT 8.1 The following is a statement on how the Local Planning Authority (LPA) has adhered to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 in respect of decision making in line with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 8.2 Given that the proposed development does not conflict with the NPPF or with up-to-date Development Plan policies, it is considered to be sustainable development and there is a presumption on the LPA to seek to approve the application. The LPA has used conditions to deal with outstanding issues with the development and has been sufficiently proactive and positive in proportion to the nature and scale of the development applied for. 8.3 The applicant / agent and any objector will be provided with copy of this report informing them of the application considerations and recommendation / conclusion. 9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 The proposal is appropriately designed such that it is considered in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and would not have an unacceptable detrimental effect on the amenities of neighbouring residents, highway safety or the protected tree on the site. The reserved matters details submitted in respect of appearance, layout and landscaping and therefore considered to be acceptable and accord with the provisions of policy CS2 and CS18 of the Chesterfield Local Plan: Core Strategy 2011 2031. 10.0 RECOMMENDATION 7
10.1 It is therefore recommended that the application be GRANTED subject to the following: Conditions 01. All external dimensions and elevational treatments shall be as shown on the approved plans 1950/14/1 and 1951/100/2/A, with the exception of any approved non material amendment. Reasons for Conditions 01. In order to clarify the extent of the planning permission in the light of guidance set out in "Greater Flexibility for planning permissions" by CLG November 2009. Notes 01. If work is carried out other than in complete accordance with the approved plans, the whole development may be rendered unauthorised, as it will not have the benefit of the original planning permission. Any proposed amendments to that which is approved will require the submission of a further application. 02. This permission is granted further to an earlier grant of outline planning permission to which any developer should also refer. 8