Church Farm Hilperton development refused

8.26.00am BST (GMT +0100) Fri 25th Jul 2008

The application to build 29 houses at Church Farm has been refused by planning officers at West Wilts.

Here's the officer report:-

...........................................................................................................

Residential development of 29 units including conversion of existing buildings, new build and associated works

Reasons for refusal

1 The proposal by reason of its design, scale, height, roof massing, detailing and siting would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the conservation area, with Buildings F and G being particularly incongruous and visually obtrusive in a manner that would be harmful to the character of the area, the street scene and neighbouring properties, contrary to West Wiltshire District Plan - Ist Alteration policies C17, C18, C19, C20, C22, H17 and H24 as well as being contrary to PPS3 - Housing.

2 The proposal fails to provide a satisfactory level of public open space on the site, contrary to West Wiltshire District Plan - Ist Alteration Policy R4 and PPG17 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation.

3 The proposal fails to provide a satisfactory level of tree planting and landscaping throughout the site, contrary to West Wiltshire District Plan - Ist Alteration Policies C18, C32 and C40.

4 The proposal fails to meet the requirements of West Wiltshire District Plan - 1st Alteration Policy H2 in that no definitive contribution towards the provision of affordable housing has been incorporated into the scheme, nor has an open book exercise been undertaken which might justify a reduction of policy requirements. The proposal also fails to identify where the affordable housing properties would be provided in the scheme.

APPRAISAL REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

This planning application is for residential development of 29 units including conversion of existing buildings, new build and associated works at Church Farm, Church Street, Hilperton.

The site in total measures about 0.8 hectares (1.9 acres) which consists of a number of barns and outbuildings built in different materials and roof coverings. The site has a single vehicular access off Church Street which serves both the car breakers yard and the farmhouse (which is not part of the application development site). In addition to the above, the property at No.228 Church Street uses the access to drive to the rear of its property through the site (whether this access is a right or an allowance (under a grace and favour arrangement) is unknown).

The site backs onto open farmland to the east which is under the ownership of the applicant. To the north and south, residential properties and their gardens share common boundaries with the site. To the west, the site fronts onto Church Street with an existing 2 metre high stone wall defining the site boundary.

The site is located within Hilperton's Conservation Area and the proposal affects the setting of a Listed Building. No works are proposed to any Listed Buildings however.

Two of the existing outbuildings forming part of the former farm are considered by the applicant to be of "architectural merit" and are identified for retention and conversion through alteration and extension. These are the stone barn located to the north east of the farmhouse and the brick/close boarded timber barn located to the south east of the farmhouse and centrally positioned within the site.

In the submitted planning support statement the applicant makes the following assumptions:-

It would produce a range of houses and flats to meet the needs of the local and wider community;

It would provide 50% affordable housing;

It would enhance the conservation area through cleaning up the existing car breakers yard;

It would promote an "exceptional design quality "which respects the historic characteristics of the site and provide high quality modern living accommodation;

To preserve traditional buildings within the site through sympathetic conversion;

To improve vehicular and pedestrian access through the provision of a negotiated widened access with realigned boundary wall along the site frontage; and,

To develop within the existing village policy limits and be willing to enter into S106 agreements for the provision of affordable housing, public open space and highways contributions.

Of the 29 new units proposed, there would be a mixture of three and four bed houses and one and two bed flats. 43 car parking spaces would be provided.

Prior to the submission of the application, the agent had pre-application discussions with the Principal Planning Officer and former Conservation Officer. During these discussions, it was informally agreed that the application included a widened access constructed to be 4.8 metres in width with a segregated pedestrian access running parallel to the vehicular access. In addition, the existing stone walls along the site frontage and the stone wall in front of the farmhouse would be re-aligned to enhance visibility along Church Street (with splays of 2.4 m x 63.3 m northwards and 2.4 m x 49 m southwards).

SITE VISIT / STATUTORY SITE NOTICES

Date of Site Visit: The site was visited on several occasions. Initially, the application was handled by another senior planning officer who visited the site and posted the statutory site notice. This was completed on 21 January 2008.

Following the reallocation of the application, the case officer completed two separate site visits on 16 June and 30 June 2008.

CONSULTATIONS

Parish Council:- Object to the application on the grounds that it would not comply with

Policy C18a as it would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area;

Policy C18b as the plot layout, scale, form and detailed design are not characteristic of the area;

Policy C18d as open spaces and views into, out of and within the area, important to its character, will not be protected;

Policy C18e as materials and colours blending with their setting are not proposed to be used.

Policy C31a which states that new developments will be required to respect or enhance townscape and landscape features and views; existing patterns of movements, activity and permeability; the quality of architecture of surrounding buildings; and, the historic layout and spatial characteristics.

The proposal would also run contrary to the second part of Policy C31a which states that new development on prominent or sensitive sites will be required to pay attention to proportion, composition, form, massing and scale; utilise high quality materials, finishes and details; integrate landscaping into the design as appropriate and minimise the visual impact of roads, vehicles and parking areas.

Policy C38 as it will detract from the amenities enjoyed by and will cause nuisance to neighbouring properties and uses;

Policy H2b which states that where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable housing to meet local needs the intention will be to negotiate for the provision of an appropriate element of affordable housing on housing sites within defined village policy limits. It is felt by the Parish Council that Hilperton is not short of social housing and a provision of up to 25% of affordable housing would be more appropriate in this instance. This might in turn result in fewer houses requiring to be built on the proposed site.

The proposal also runs contrary to Policy H17- specifically criterion a) as the proposal would not be in keeping with the character, appearance and distinctive spatial form of the settlement and c) it would create inappropriate back land or tandem development.

It would run contrary to Policy H24d which states that new housing development must include elevation design avoiding monotonous repetition and incorporate details, materials and finishes which complement those characteristics found locally.

It would run contrary to Policy E5i as it would result in the loss of existing employment floor space.

It would run contrary to Policy E7 which states that outside the Western Wiltshire Green Belt, farm diversification proposals will only be permitted if a) the primary use of the holding remains agricultural and the new uses does not detract from the agricultural operation; b) they do not create significant highway, flood risk or environmental problems; d) the proposals are compatible with neighbouring land uses and are not detrimental to residential amenities.

Other concerns raised by the Parish Council include:-

The highway situation - access to the site will be dangerous given the proximity of the junction on the opposite side of the road and the blind bend to the right (on leaving the site). Even with the provision of the enhanced splays, there would still be a hazard.

The parking provision - Given the low level parking allocation on site, residents and visitors would need to look elsewhere to park their vehicles, either on the road side or in other parts of the village which would create nuisance and further hazards.

Public transport provision - Since the Hilperton relief road has not yet been built, the public transport (i.e. bus services) provision would be inadequate to serve the needs of the development who might wish/need to use public transport to access local services and amenities as well as to travel to and from employment. The Parish Council concluded that the transportation survey is flawed.

Overdevelopment of the site - The Parish Council argues that the site would be overdeveloped with the wrong type of building being proposed which are not consistent with the rest of the village.

Affordable housing provision - It was felt that the affordable housing should be "pepper potted" around the site and not amassed into one particular area.

The Hilperton Village Design Statement (VDS) - The proposal does not comply with the VDS as it would not be finished in a manner which complements the visual character of the locality, where stone is the predominant building material. The scheme would not be of a style or scale which in sympathy to surrounding buildings.

Lack of amenity land - It was felt that there would be insufficient amenity space in the site. It is noted that no public open space would be provided, but that a sum of money would be given instead, perhaps for the village hall.

Flood risk - There is a problem with flooding on and around the site.

Landscaping - There is inadequate landscaping provision proposed.

External:-

Highways Authority The site layout conforms to adoptable standards except where the junction radii with the B3105 are substandard and the developer should resubmit the layout showing 6 metre radius kerbs at the junction, on both sides of the access.

The wall located between the carriageway and footway at the entrance to the site will be within an area of adoptable highway and therefore would also have to be adopted by the Highway Authority. Further clarification on the details is required with an agreement requiring to be reached about commuted sums and a legal agreement.

The site is well serviced by public transport and therefore the moderate car parking provision is acceptable. In order to promote the use of bus services, improvements to the existing bus stops in the vicinity to the site are sought, which would consist of new kerbs and shelters to be provided at the applicant's / developer's expense.

The cycle parking provision on the site would compliment the car parking arrangement. However, to ensure that it is used it should be covered and made secure. The cycle parking shown adjacent to building F would therefore need to be upgraded to a suitable standard.

In conjunction with the Hilperton Relief road traffic calming is proposed to the B3105 and this development should also contribute towards the scheme, therefore a contribution would be required which should be secured through a legal agreement.

If the outstanding matters are resolved through submission of further information, planning conditions should be attached to any grant of planning permission.

Natural England No objections raised.

English Heritage No objections raised.

Education Officer Based on the information supplied, our assessment is on 29 units with 14 affordable. I have discounted the 6 x one bed units entirely, as per our policy, however, I've assumed that half of them are affordable (reflecting that half of the whole development is), and so half are open market. This reduces the qualifying units to 23, and I've then applied our 30% affordable discount to the remaining 11 affordable units. This reduces the qualifying units by a further 3, so the actual number of units qualifying for the assessment is 20.

20 units generate a need for 6 primary and 4 secondary places. At primary level, Hilperton CE Primary can accommodate these additional pupils within current capacity and forecasts. However, this is not the case at Clarendon Secondary. We therefore require a developer contribution of 4 x secondary places at the current (08/09) cost multiplier of £17351 each i.e. a total of £69,404, index linked.

This figure is based upon an S106 to secure the contribution being signed by 31 March 2009, as after that date, revised cost multipliers will apply. It also reflects the housing mix and numbers given (including my assumption re: the one bed units), and so is subject to the need for an updated assessment should any of those figures be revised.

Looking at the previous correspondence on this one earlier this year, I do note that some confusion arose with the developer's agent about our policy on assessing affordable housing.

If the application is subsequently approved, the contact details for the person dealing with the S106 in your legal Dept should be provided. I will then be able to arrange for our solicitors to make contact re: drafting the agreement and including our standard terms of payment etc.

County Archaeologist - No objections raised.

County Policy - Whilst 29 dwellings would not necessarily be considered to be limited in a village context, Hilperton is well related to, and could be considered to form part of the Trowbridge urban area. As such, the level of development is reasonable.

The affordable housing provision is supported by Policy DP8 of the Structure Plan. It is noted that the Swindon and Sub-Region Housing Market Assessment 2008 identifies the need for a significant increase in provision of affordable housing in villages and rural areas. It recommends that a target of 50% of new development is affordable housing.

Wessex Water - The existing water supply system is adequate to serve the proposed development. The buildings with more than two-storeys may require on-site pumped storage. The existing foul drainage system is adequate to serve the development. The adoption of new sewers should be possible under Section 104 Agreement.

Separate public surface water sewers are not available to serve the development. Soakaways may be feasible for the disposal of storm flows. Discharge to land drainage may be feasible but the developer should contact the land drainage authority to establish if this possible.

Storm flows should not be connected to the foul drainage system.

Wiltshire Wildlife Trust - No objections but requests that conditions are attached to any grant of planning permission to safeguard ecological interests.

Environment Agency - No objections subject to imposing planning conditions.

Trowbridge Civic Society - No objections raised.

Internal:-

Conservation Officer - Recommends refusal and notes his disappointment that even after fairly extensive pre-application discussions, involving several meetings in the office and on site, and detailed comments being given, the scheme does not seem to have been altered to meet that advice.

This scheme would irreparably and detrimentally damage the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Buildings B and C are shown as a conversion, but they would be significantly extended with two storey sections at each end and the roof of the single storey range would be raised to create a much taller development with chimneys. The character of the existing buildings as single storey agricultural structures would be completely lost and would end up as an overly domestic form of development that would be at odds with the historic character of this part of the Conservation Area. The extensions would comprise an unsympathetic form as well as being of an incongruous height and scale. In terms of Policy this is not a conversion, but a rebuild/new build.

The new build Building D would dominate Buildings B and C and continue the unsympathetic form, scale, massing and poor and bland design features that permeate this whole scheme. Building D seemingly has no reference to the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Building E similarly has a bland and monotonous design with little visual interest and no reference to the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Buildings F and G would be 11 metres tall and sited on the highest part of the site. They would have an eaves height of approximately 5 metres and then an eaves-to-ridge height of over 5.5 metres making them appear as very top heavy structures. The roof pitch has been designed to maximise the internal space to give a full third storey. This gives the external an over-dominant and incongruous visual presence that does not relate to the other parts of the site or the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area. They would have a scale and massing that would be entirely out of keeping with the rest of the site and the Conservation Area.

Drawing PKE1821.18B shows the detrimental impact of Buildings F and G on the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area from the main road as well as within the site very clearly.

To add to their unsympathetic scale and massing, the design of Buildings F and G continues with the bland and uninteresting window form and adds very large 'stack ventilation chimneys' which themselves measure 1 metre by 2.5 metres and 1 metre in height. These seem to have no reference to surrounding features.

I am staggered at the scale of these buildings and I cannot see that any building of this scale and design would be acceptable anywhere on this site, let alone at the highest point.

I have no objections to the treatment of Building H.

My comments relating to Buildings I and J are the same as for Buildings D and E but with the added problem that they would be entirely more prominent in the street scene, being sited backing onto the grassed area as they are, and would therefore result in further harm to the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The treatment of Building K is generally satisfactory. I have concerns over the enlargement of the south eastern openings, which would result in a strange looking square window over the double doors. The design of the doors themselves should be revised to reflect a more agricultural appearance and the window above should be reduced to more sympathetic proportions perhaps with the addition of a conservation roof light above to bring light into the space if needed.

Building L suffers from the same poor design and fenestration of Buildings D, E, I and J and it would also have a very poor relationship with the historic small barn adjacent to it.

This scheme does not seem to have much in the way of references to, or respect of, the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The applicants/agents have not taken on board the comments made in the past during the pre-application discussions and consequently I consider that this application should be refused rather than negotiated.

Tree and Landscape Officer The site falls within Hilperton Conservation Area with the nearest play facility located over 400 metres away and accessed along the main road through Hilperton Village. The applicant has requested that public open space be provided off-site. Due to the distance to be travelled and the road being a significant hazard between the development and play facility, the public open space must be provided on-site. This will involve a redesign of the site to include at least 1,656 square metres of POS.

Within the planning support statement, the applicant states that the general character of the Conservation Order is enhanced by the provision of a new high quality and bespoke residential development. In landscape and tree terms, this is not the case. As one travels through Hilperton Village, each of the newly created developments accessed off of the High Street have an open and green frontage softening the built form.

The proposed development offers harsh and hard built form with little to no regard to softening it.

The application is unacceptable in tree and landscape terms and contrary to Policy C18, C32 and C40 of the West Wiltshire District Council 1st Alteration 2004 and therefore it should be refused.

Affordable Housing Enabler Objects to the application proposal on the following grounds:-

Hilperton Village is regarded as being rural and as such the Council's Affordable Housing Policy applies (i.e. requiring 50% Affordable housing on housing development sites) preferably rented on a nil subsidy basis in perpetuity and managed by an RSL - which is a member of the Council's Preferred Development Partnership. The applicant is encouraged to engage with the RSL's at an early stage to ensure that all units provided for affordable housing meet the strict guidelines set out by the Housing Corporation and the Council.

There are at present (23 January 2008) 259 households on the housing register who have a local connection to Hilperton.

The needs are supported from the waiting list and the housing needs survey. The waiting list indicates that 81% of households require 2 bed and 19% require 3 bed accommodation.

The housing needs survey confirms that the greatest desire is for 2 bed accommodation across all tenures.

In Dec 2007, the applicants' agent requested information on the required affordable housing mix for the site and was provided with the following information:-

The site is within village policy limits and therefore 50% of the units for affordable housing at nil subsidy would be sought on any planning application. This calculation will result in 14.5 units, therefore, policy states that 14 units should be provided on site and a commuted sum will be sought for the half unit.

Of the 14 units to be affordable, 12 (83%) should be 2 bed units and 2 (17%) 3 bed units. The proposed mix only has 6no. 2 bed units, therefore we would require 8no. 3 bed units in addition.

The plans do not indicate where the affordable housing is to be provided on the site.

In the absence of an agreement with the applicant over the affordable housing provision and mix and position and distribution on the site, the application should be refused on the following grounds:-

The application fails to meet the requirements of policy H2 in that no contribution towards the provision of affordable housing has been included within the application, nor has an open book exercise been undertaken which might justify a reduction of the policy requirements.

Environmental Health Additional information (through appropriate planning conditions) should be provided to establish the level of contaminated land on the site.

Neighbours 23 letters of representation were received objecting to the planning application (and 18 letters objecting to the separate conservation area consent application).

The concerns and objections as raised by third parties are summarised under the following headings:-

The proposal does neither accords with Council policy nor the Hilperton Village Design Statement.

Gross overdevelopment of the site.

Would destroy the character and appearance of the historic and protected Conservation Area.

The 3 storey housing proposed to be built on rising ground would be totally inappropriate.

The building materials are unacceptable and timber cladding out of keeping with locality.

There is no demand for more housing. There are many houses on the market for sale/rent locally.

The site is subject to drainage and flooding problems.

There is poor water pressure locally.

The access onto the B3105 road is very poor with restricted visibility.

The public road is too narrow to cope with the anticipated additional traffic.

The proposed improvements would still have the blind bend to the west acting as a constraint.

Inadequate parking provision on the site.

Any residential development should be less dense with no flats.

There is no visitor parking provision proposed.

There is no public open space or landscaping proposed.

There is a lack of school places locally.

Local health services are over-subscribed.

There is no Post Office or shop in the village.

Concerns are held over possible damage to the Scheduled Ancient Monument.

The submitted Transportation Statement is flawed as it seriously underestimates the present use of the B3105.

There would be an intolerable burden placed on the public roads to the detriment of highway safety.

The marginal realignment of the sightlines by repositioning the boundary wall would do nothing to reduce the dangerous access.

The proposal is inappropriate backland development.

Properties would not only be inappropriate in terms of their height, design and detailing, they would also overlook and overbear neighbouring properties.

Why is 50% affordable housing sought? There are not enough local amenities for the young and elderly as present.

Any development on the site should be deferred until the Hilperton Relief road is completed.

The proposal would block out valued views through the site and to open fields beyond.

Residential occupiers tend to require and desire well designed homes with private gardens (not shared ones). Quality properties, fewer in number with integrated affordable housing would be much more appropriate.

The affordable housing provision appears to be segregated from the houses for sale. Why is this?

There is a lack of employment opportunities locally.

The bus service at present is poor. It is not suitable to meet the needs of people travelling to and from work or for the school run as the first bus is at 9:15 am and the last at 4:25pm.

The Transportation Statement makes the remarkable statement that "those without a parking space will be encouraged to cycle". If there are more than 43 cars owned by the residents, where would they park? Present residents and their visitors have great difficulty parking and using the 6 or 7 spaces along Church Street. The consequences of the additional traffic would be totally unacceptable.

On 24 January 2008, Yvette Cooper, the Housing and Planning Minister was quoted on the Government News Network saying "It isn't enough to build more homes. They need to be in high quality neighbourhoods with proper infrastructure and local facilities too".

The pavements are very narrow along Church Street.

The boundary wall should be retained in its present position.

The incline of the access is too steep.

Why the land behind Buildings F & G is no longer identified for all residents on the site? The agent had originally stated back in June 2007 that this would be the case during a public meeting.

There are queries raised over the content of the submitted planning supporting statement. For example, reference is made to local amenities being within 10 minutes walk, but of those identified, 6 are not in the village, but in the Paxcroft Mead estate. Minimum car use is anticipated. How can this be justified? How will the proposal benefit young people with no public open space provision or lack of facilities/amenities locally?

NEGOTIATIONS / DISCUSSIONS

Pre-application discussions held with Principal Planning Officer and the Council's former Conservation Officer - with two letters sent to the applicant's agent on 20 September 2006 and 5 March 2007.

The original case officer had several telephone discussions with the applicant's agent as noted on the file.

The current case officer also met with the agent on 12 June 2008.

CONSTRAINTS

Conservation Area

Affects Setting of Listed Building

POLICIES

Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan 2016 (adopted 2006)

Policies DP1, DP3, DP8, DP9 & HE7

West Wiltshire District Plan First Alteration (adopted 2004)

Policies C6a, C7, C17. C18, C19, C20, C22, C23, C31a, C32, C37, C40, E5, H2, H17, H21, H24, I3, S1, T3, T9, T10, T12, U1, U1a, U2, U3.

National Planning Guidance

PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS3 - Housing

PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

PPS10 - Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

PPG13 - Transport

PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment

PPG17 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation

PPS23 - Planning and Pollution Control

PPG24 - Planning and Noise

PPS25 - Development and Flood Risk

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

04/00082/EUD - Application for established use certificate for the specialist dismantling of used motor car spare parts - Withdrawn 03.02.2004.

04/00160/CON - Demolition of wall - Refused 19.03.2004

KEY ISSUES

Principle of residential development

Design, layout, positioning and detailing of the residential development

Impact on the Conservation Area

Impact on the Street Scene

Impact on neighbouring amenities and nuisance

Impact on highway safety

Loss of employment floor space

Local amenities and lack of public open space/landscaping provision

Flood Risk and servicing

OFFICER APPRAISAL

Principle of residential development

This 0.8 hectare site forms part of a former dairy farm which has been used as a car breakers and reclamation yard within the Village Policy Limits of Hilperton and its Conservation Area. Whilst it is recognised that Policy H17 outlines general support for limited residential development within the defined village policy limits, in this particular case, the number and siting of the houses proposed on the former farmyard site, appears to be discordant with the established character, appearance and distinctive spatial form of the settlement.

The comments of the Conservation Officer and Tree and Landscape Officer are of particular relevance in this regard. Whilst the Council recognises that the Government seeks to achieve effective and efficient use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed providing at least 30 dwellings per hectare- as contained within PPS3 (paragraphs 40 and 47), the national planning policy statement stresses the importance of good design and delivering appropriate development built in the right location (paragraph 49) and ensuring it is well integrated and complements the neighbouring buildings and local area (paragraph 16).

Design, layout, positioning and detailing of the residential development

As paragraph 48 of PPS3 outlines, "Good design is fundamental to using land efficiently". Both PPS3 and the West Wiltshire District Local Plan stress the importance of respecting and reflecting existing characteristics to ensure that development is appropriate to the site. In this particular case, the design, layout, positioning and detailing of the proposed development conflicts with the national planning policy guidance/statement and the established local policies.

The scheme would, as the Council's Case Officer, Conservation Officer and Tree and Landscape Officer, the Parish Council, numerous local residents identifies, irreparably and detrimentally affect the special historic and protected character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The detailed consultation response from the Conservation Area summarises the design, layout, positioning and detailing based policy objections.

It is regretful that the applicant's agent chose to ignore key pre-application advice from Council officials; and, as a consequence, it should come as no surprise to the agent/applicant that the Council cannot support the proposals (please refer to the two letters in September 2006 and March 2007 referred to above, from the PPO to the applicant's agent giving pre-application advice). Please also refer to the most recent letter dated 3 July 2008 from the case officer to the applicant's agent which gave the applicant the opportunity to withdraw the application to avoid receiving a delegated refusal decision.

It should be noted that during an office meeting in June 2008, the applicant's agent had intimated that following the transfer of the planning application to the newly appointed case officer, further negotiations and site meetings could be planned at a later stage. However, following analysis of the proposals and acknowledging the pre-application history, it was clear that the proposal would require wholesale amendments and a total redesign to become acceptable in policy terms, which would be materially different to that as submitted. In short, it would be a totally different scheme, hence the need for a separate application; and rather than keep the application in abeyance, the agent was advised that it would be more appropriate to withdraw the application and renegotiate, if the applicant so wished.

Impact on the Conservation Area

The proposed layout of the housing development would not respect the historic urban form of housing development infill locally. The Tree and Landscape Officer notes that the proposed development runs contrary to the manner in which housing was development at St. Michael's' Close and Cherry Gardens. Whilst the housing in both cases, is different to the historic properties, built prior to 1948, it is planned and detailed in such a way so as to be complementary to the locality.

Having the highest properties with large expansive roofs on the highest points of the site is a basic error in terms of minimising impact and integrating new developments within the existing built landscape. The proposals incorporate very few references to, or respect of, the special character and appearance or local distinctiveness of the Conservation Area; and consequently, the proposals conflict with Local Plan Policies C17, C18, C19, C20 and C22 as well as C31a.

Impact on the Street Scene

As noted above, the Council cannot support the proposals on the grounds that the layout and heights of the houses proposed would have a significant detrimental affect to the street scene, but the change to the boundary wall (as negotiated) is also cause for concern. The realignment of the historic stone wall along the site frontage to both the existing orchard and farmhouse would improve the visibility splays, but would damage the visual appearance of the street scene through the formation of an unusually wide footpath (measuring about 2.3 metres in width in some places). Due regard should also be had for the need to form 6 metre wide radii at the site entrance (as required by the Highways Authority), which could damage the historic locality through inappropriate over engineering.

The fact that the blind bend would still remain along Church Street would still act as a constraint. However, should the applicant return with a suitable scheme with a revised access - meeting the Highway Authority's requirements as referred to above, the Council would reluctantly accept the engineering advice from the Roads Authority.

Impact on neighbouring amenities and nuisance

Measuring approximately in excess of 9.5 metres, Building G, at two and a half storeys would lead to amenity conflicts with the occupiers of the neighbouring properties, especially No. 220 Church Street. Ignoring the pre-application advice provided by officers advising no more than 2-storeys at the south-east corner of the application site is of significant relevance in this regard. Similarly, Building D, proposed at the north-east corner of the site, would potentially have a detrimental affect on No. 2 Cherry Gardens due to its height, orientation and siting on one of the highest points of the site (as far as the northern section of the site is concerned).

The traffic generation associated to the proposed 29 houses onto the public highway would also reduce neighbouring amenities. However, given the position of the vehicular access, this would be mostly likely be associated to inconvenience caused by the additional traffic volume onto the public highway and possible car parking displacement.

The proposals would conflict with Local Plan Policy C38.

Impact on highway safety

Notwithstanding the strong objections raised from the Parish Council and third parties, providing that the applicant satisfies the County Council's Highway Authority, there should be no objection raised in terms of highway safety.

Loss of employment floor space

Under Policy E5, the Council can support development on sites which would involve the loss of employment floor space, providing the set criteria are met. In this particular case, the existing land use only employs 1 full time employee. Whilst the number of employees on such a site is not identified as one of the criterion, it is nevertheless material to the overall proposal. If the proposal involved the loss of a significant number of employees, which could not be re-integrated into other employment, the Council would take a firmer line, however the Council must be reasonable and acknowledge the potential benefits additional housing could bring to the locality (e.g. the provision of affordable housing). In short, the Council should not object to the loss of what is a bad neighbour development in principle, providing the housing scheme is appropriate in density, scale, design and detail.

Local amenities and lack of public open space/landscaping provision

The lack of public open space and limited landscaping throughout the proposed scheme is a major weakness. The proposals fail to accord with Local Plan Policies C18, C32 and C40. The Council does not agree with the applicant that there should be an off-site contribution in this particular case. The comments of the Council's Tree and Landscape Officer are of particular relevance in this regard.

Flood risk and servicing

The Environment Agency reports that the site and the proposals would not raise significant flood risk, subject to conditions. The concerns raised by third parties in terms of surface water flooding from the east (off the fields) could be properly managed through appropriate engineering; therefore this issue should not be identified as a justifiable reason to refuse the application.

Water and foul drainage infrastructure would be designed to meet the requirements and standards set by Wessex Water.

RECOMMENDATION

Refuse