|
|
APPLICATION NO. |
|
|
|
SITE |
Land at Townsend Road, Shrivenham |
|
|
PARISH |
SHRIVENHAM |
|
|
PROPOSAL |
Redevelopment of the site to provide 10 new dwellings (a net gain of 9 units) and associated parking, gardens, access improvements and landscaping, following the demolition of the existing workshops and bungalow. (as amended by details received 28 October 2020 and 4 November 2020). |
|
|
WARD MEMBER(S) |
Simon Howell Elaine Ware |
|
|
APPLICANT |
Infinity Square Developments Limited |
|
|
OFFICER |
Hannah Wiseman |
|
|
RECOMMENDATION |
|
|
Planning Permission subject to the following conditions;
Standard: |
|
|
1. Commencement three years Full Planning Permission 2. Approved plans
Pre Commencement: 3. Details of Bicycle Parking 4. Drainage Details (Surface Water) 5. Drainage Details (Foul Water) 6. Boundary Details (fence of minimum height on north east boundary) 7. CTMP 8. AMS and TPP
Prior to Occupation: 9. Specified Visibility Splays in accordance with plan 10. Parking & Turning in accordance with Plan 11. Thames Water upgrades
Compliance: 12. Landscaping Scheme as approved 13. Materials in Accordance with Application details 14. Mitigations as per the submitted PEA 15. Obscure and top hung glazing (east elevation plot 7) 16. Informative: Works within the Highway 17. Informative: CIL: General Consent (Vale)
|
|
1.0 |
INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSAL |
|
|
1.1 |
This application comes to committee at the request of the local ward councillor, Cllr Elaine Ware.
|
|
|
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
|
The application site is situated to the south west of Shrivenham on the south side of Townsend Road, outside the main built settlement of the village. It adjoins an enclosed paddock area to the south and open countryside to the west. Immediately to the east and adjoining the site are Swan Hill garage and the detached dwelling, Meadow Edge. To the north side of Townsend Road a housing development by Bovis Homes of 116 homes is well under construction, almost near completion, further to planning permissions P15/V0663/O, P17/V0800/RM and associated applications.
The proposed site currently comprises a bungalow with swimming pool plus a number of outbuildings which are understood to have been used as car servicing/valeting workshops. These buildings are located in the north-eastern corner of the site. To the front of the site there is an existing access from Townsend Road and a large hardstanding/car park area, again believed to be used for the display of cars for sale. To the rear of the bungalow is an enclosed garden which includes mature trees. The site is also understood to include areas where outdoor storage has occurred. The site is also within Flood Zone 1 and within the Western Vale area of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan Part 1 2031 and the Lowland Vale landscape area of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan.
The application is seeking planning permission for the redevelopment of the site for the erection of 10 x two storey dwellings (net gain of 9) by way of 2x 2 pairs of 3 bed semi-detached properties, 2 x 3 bed detached and a terrace row of 3 x 2 beds and a further 1x 3 bed detached dwelling with associated parking, cycle and bin stores and landscaping. Access would be taken directly from the Townsend Road.
A site location plan is below. The application plans are attached in Appendix 1. |
|
|
2.0 |
SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS & REPRESENTATIONS |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2.1 |
The full versions of the representations received can be viewed on the planning application pages of the council’s website, www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk
|
|
3.0 |
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY |
|
3.1 |
P19/V2164/PEM - Other Outcome (25/10/2019) The proposal is for the redevelopment of the site to provide 6 new dwellings (net gain of 5 units) following the demolition of the existing unoccupied workshops and bungalow.
P13/V0559/EX - Approved (02/05/2013) Extending planning permission P10/V0090/EX for the erection of three dwellings and demolition of the existing garage.
P11/V1515/DIS - Approved (11/10/2011) Request for compliance with condition for Application No: 10/02387/FUL condition 2
P10/V2387 - Approved (28/02/2011) New single storey detached dwelling & associated new detached garage building to replace existing two storey dwelling (to be demolished).
P10/V0090/EX - Approved (18/03/2010) Extending planning permission reference no SHR/115/15 for the erection of 3 dwellings and demolition of existing garage
P07/V0114/EX - Approved (08/03/2007) Renewal of Outline Planning Approval SHR/115/4 for the erection of three dwellings and demolition of existing garage.
P04/V0657/O - Approved (10/06/2004) Outline application for residential use (3 houses). Demolition of garage.
P01/V1445 - Approved (08/11/2001) New and relocated spray booths.
P98/V1584 - Approved (15/03/1999) Extension of height of 2 extract/exhaust ducts from spray booths.
P95/V0502 - Approved (07/09/1995) Erection of a single storey office extension.
P91/V0049 - Other Outcome (20/11/1991) Application to determine whether permission to develop land is required under Section 51 for: 1) Servicing and repair of motor vehicles 2) repairs/paint spraying of motor vehicles 3) Sale of cars with appropriate equipment installed.
P91/V0048/O - Refused (20/05/1991) Erection of 8 x 2 bedroom houses (site area 1650m2 approx).
P89/V0056/O - Approved (13/12/1989) Demolition of derelict garage buildings and construction of a two storey office buildings (B1 use). Alterations of an access.
P87/V0054 - Approved (06/08/1987) Extension to provide new spray booth and office.
P85/V0054 - Approved (07/06/1985) Extension to two bedrooms.
P80/V0076 - Approved (09/05/1980) Erection of spray booth building.
P78/V0065 - Approved (28/06/1978) Erection of new sales building.
P77/V0058/O - Approved (09/01/1978) Alterations to existing garage forecourt. Provision of new pump islands, canopy and sales building. Demolition of existing store. Planning Application History
|
|
4.0 |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT |
|
4.1 |
The proposal is under the threshold to be considered EIA development. |
|
5.0 |
MAIN ISSUES
|
|
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
|
Principle Shrivenham is classed a larger village for the purposes of the settlement hierarchy as set out in policies CP3 and CP4 of the Local Plan part 1. Larger Villages are defined as settlements with a more limited range of employment, services and facilities. Unallocated development will be limited to providing for local needs and to support employment, services and facilities within local communities.
There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development within the existing built area of these settlements. This is site is considered to be situated outside of the main ‘built area’ of the village, although it remains closely related.
In these instances, policy CP4 states; ‘Development outside of the existing built area of these settlements will be permitted where it is allocated by the Local Plan 2031 Part 1 or has been allocated within an adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan or future parts of the Local Plan 2031. This development must be adjacent, or well related, to the existing built area of the settlement or meet exceptional circumstances set out in the other policies of the Development Plan and deliver necessary supporting infrastructure.’
The site has not been allocated within either the Local Plan or the Neighbourhood Plan.
As such, although the site is considered outside of the settlement of Shrivenham, paragraph 84 of the NPPF does allows for development of Previously Developed Land where sites are well-related to existing settlements.
Also, at paragraph 4.2.6 of the Shrivenham Neighbourhood Plan, it notes; “Paragraph 118a for NPPF 2019 states that significant weight should be given to the use of Brownfield sites within settlements and that support should be given to proposals to ‘remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land’.”
The application site includes hard-surfaced areas, the bungalow and a number of additional buildings and is considered to meet the definition of Previously Developed Land and therefore is considered a ‘brownfield’ site. The proposed site is well-related to the settlement, with direct access via Townsend Road and is close to a number of other dwellings, including the Bovis Homes site opposite, which is nearing completion, and remains within a clear ‘defensible’ edge of the village settlement.
Taking into account the above circumstances the application for the redevelopment of the site for housing, is considered acceptable in principle, subject to the more details aspects of the proposal which will be set out further, below.
|
|
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
|
Viability The site currently has a mixed residential and commercial use. Policy CP29 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1 states, ‘where there is no reasonable prospect of land or premises being used for continued employment use, a mixed use enabling development which incorporates employment space should first be considered. If a mixed use scheme is not viable, the extent to which the proposed use generates new employment will be considered in determining the relevant planning application. Proposals for alternative uses will need to demonstrate compliance with other relevant policies.’
Although the is not currently actively used for employment (or has been for several years), the site’s potential contribution to the local and wider economy must be considered, both currently and in the long term. As such the application has been supported with a viability assessment of the site for its use as a commercial site. The Council has also appointed an independent assessment of this appraisal.
Both appraisals conclude that the investment required in order to develop and improve the site for a commercial use would not be viable in either the sale or rent yields of the site. The independent assessment carried out disagrees with some of the assumptions and methodologies used in the submitted assessment, however the outcome of both reports is the same, that the site would not be economically viable as a light industrial/commercial use.
Given this evidence, and the continued uncertainty in market conditions due the Covid pandemic, it is considered that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the site is not viable for redevelopment to a light industrial/commercial use and therefore it is considered the proposal is compliant with policy CP29 of the Local Plan part 1.
|
|
5.13
5.14
5.15
5.16
5.17
5.18
5.19
5.20
5.21 |
Design and Layout Policy CP37 of the Local Plan 2031 Part 1 states that proposals for new development will be required to be of a high-quality design that responds positively to the site and its surroundings.
The existing bungalow currently on site with car-park/forecourt to the front is not particularly visually attractive and as such this application proposes an opportunity to enhance the character and appearance of this site. The site is not within one of the identified character areas within the draft Shrivenham Neighbourhood plan, although it is noted that it is on the edge of the settlement and countryside beyond.
The proposal has undergone some amendments through the duration of the application, in respect of the layout of the dwellings and the interspersing of the parking spaces and access through the site in response to officer feedback and highways comments.
The proposed dwellings are two storeys in three main house ‘types’, A, B and C. These are arranged in a loose ‘courtyard’ arrangement looking inward to a shared space and central landscaped area. A pair of semi-detached properties will front the Townsend Road and feature small enclosed porches, windows set just under the eaves line and under a pitched slate roof, with a landscaped front garden.
House type B found on plot 3, 7 and 8 form as ‘bookends’ to the terrace of the type C and on the east elevation of the semi pair to the south west of the site. These feature a hipped gable end, again under grey slate roof with a red colour facing brick with black quoins.
Core Policy 23 which encourages the optimum use of land where there is good access to services and public transport routes. Comments have been received in relation to the proposed density of the site; there are 10 dwellings on a site of 0.34 hectares. The density therefore is compliant with policy CP23 as this site would be just under 30 dwellings per hectare.
In terms of the density in terms of character, although it is noted that the development to the immediate north and east of the site is typified by detached properties in larger plots, the character at this part of the village is now more varied due to the recent developments. The character to the west north/west of the site at Cleycourt Road and Colton Road and the newer Bovis homes site, is much different and higher in density, more akin to that proposed on this site.
The applicant has provided a drawing which shows the development in context with the surrounding area which shows that the character of this part of the village has changed in recent years.
Officers consider that the design of the site has responded to what has now become the local character of this part of Shrivenham and would not appear out of character in this context. The density, design, depths of plots and the layout is considered acceptable in terms of Policy CP37; the landscape impacts will be assessed further below.
|
|
5.22
5.23
5.24
5.25
5.26
5.27
5.28
5.29
5.30
5.31
|
Residential Amenity Policy DP2 relates to space standards to ensure that sufficient space (including internal storage) is provided for future occupants. The properties as shown comply with these standards. Each property benefits from private external amenity space and secure cycle parking.
Policy DP23 relates to impact of development on amenity and states that proposals for new development should;
‘…demonstrate that they will not
result in significant adverse impacts on the amenity of
neighbouring uses when considering both individual and cumulative
impacts in relation to the following factors:
The nearest residential property to the application site is Meadow Edge, immediately east of the site. Detailed representations have been submitted by the occupiers of Meadow Edge who are concerned regarding the impact, mainly, of plots 3-7 due to overlooking and loss of privacy.
Meadow Edge is a bungalow, whose west facing side wall is set 2.2m from the boundary. There is a bedroom and a library/study window on the side elevation, which will be set 13m from the rear elevation of plot 3. The council’s minimum distance for a rear-wall-to-side-wall relationship is 12m. Currently the existing workshop building is set on the boundary with Meadow Edge, with a closed board fence in between (see photo below). The height of the fence precludes any direct harmful overlooking to these rooms as existing. A similar boundary treatment can be conditioned in this case to achieve the same level of privacy.
There will be a pathway between the rear gardens of plots 3 and 4 and the boundary fence with Meadow Edge, to allow for the bins and bikes to be manoeuvred. This will leave a gap between the gardens of those plots and help again in limiting any overlooking at ground floor as there will be two solid boundary treatments between the boundaries. Also, with the workshop building being removed, the existing bulk of that built form will be removed from the boundary.
The proposed dwellings will be two storeys, which is noted to give the opportunity for overlooking from the first floor windows of the new dwellings towards the side elevation and the rear garden of Meadow Edge which does not currently exist. However, in any residential setting there exists a certain level of mutual overlooking between properties and surveillance over both public and private areas, the determination needs to be whether this level of overlooking would be harmful to amenities to the extent which warrant refusal of the application.
Plots 3-5 feature bedroom windows in the first floor of the rear elevation. These would lookout on to the side wall and roof of Meadow Edge. It is generally accepted that side facing windows cannot be protected to the same degree as front or rear facing windows. Officers consider the intervening boundary fencing will also provide some screening for the windows. Taking all this into account, officers consider the potential for overlooking of the two windows in Meadow Edge is not sufficient to qualify as harmful and does not warrant refusal.
There is a tree on the boundary (in the garden of Meadow Edge) which exceeds the height of the eaves of the bungalow and would obscure and partially block some views from plot 6 to the rear garden of Meadow Edge.
Plot 7 has been revised so that the window on the rear elevation will serve as bathroom and will therefore be obscure glazed, and can be conditioned to have a top hung vent only for ventilation. The bedroom window will be on the south elevation, overlooking the fields to the south. As such there will be no harmful level of overlooking to the garden of Meadow Edge from this plot.
In this case, given the orientation of the dwellings and the positioning of boundary treatments and the first-floor windows, it is considered that no harmful level of loss of privacy, light or outlook would arise as a result of this proposal. The proposal is therefore considered compliant with policy DP23 of the Local Plan part 2.
|
|
5.32
5.33
5.34
5.35
5.36 |
Landscape, Trees and Visual Impact Policy CP44 states that measures should be sought to integrate development into the landscape character of the area and that development should preserve and promote local distinctiveness and diversity. It makes clear that landscape features of the area (including trees) will be protected from harmful development.
The application is supported by a landscaping scheme and a tree protection plan. The Tree Officer has reviewed the proposals and has no objection providing conditions are imposed to ensure the tree protection measures are in place before work on site commences, and that the landscaping scheme is carried out and maintained within a specified time frame.
The site, at the southern edge is currently well-screened and contained by existing planting and includes mature trees. Most of this existing screening and mature trees are retained within the proposal. As such, the proposal is not considered to give rise to harm to the landscape character of the area and securing this by conditions, will help maintain the edge of the settlement character.
Officers have visited the site recently (18/2/21), when tree and vegetation cover is at minimum, and consider the site still remains well enclosed and screened, even in Winter months, and retains a strong defensible edge to restrict any further development or ‘sprawl’. In addition to the Bovis site opposite, it is clear this has now become the established edge of the settlement, with built form set behind these well-established, rural boundaries. (See Picture Below)
Taking into account these matters and the mitigation and protection measures proposed, the application is considered acceptable on the grounds of landscape and visual impact and therefore compliant with policy CP44 of the Local Plan 2031 part1.
|
|
5.37
5.38
5.39
5.40 |
Flood Risk and drainage The site is within Flood Zone1 and is not known for any higher than average instances or rates of surface water flooding. The application has been supported with details of a foul water drainage strategy. This notes that the site will have to discharge into Thames Water main sewerage, which does not currently have capacity to accommodate the extra usage.
Thames Water have commented on the application and made contact with the applicant as upgrades will have to be made to the system before the development can be occupied. Thames Water are satisfied that a planning condition they have suggested would be sufficient in this instance. Thames Water cannot begin to put any proposals or actions in place until such time as there is a valid planning consent. In essence, this would be a matter to be resolved between the applicant and Thames Water, pre commencement of the development, but post decision.
The County Council as the Local Lead Flood Authority has no comment to make on the proposal. Officers suggest that both and Surface Water and Foul Water drainage pre commencement conditions are imposed to ensure these details are acceptable and agreed prior to any commencement on site.
The proposal is not considered to pose a flood risk and there is an available mechanism (through working with Thames Water) which will accommodate the additional demands of the development on the local network. As such the proposal is considered compliant with policy CP42 of the Local Plan Part 1.
|
|
5.41
5.42
|
Traffic, parking and highway safety The County Councils’ Senior Transport Planner has commented on the proposal and sought additional highway information throughout the course of the application.
As is stands, the application has been provided with details of the parking layout, tracking drawings, swept paths, visibility splays and cycle parking. More recently speed surveys have been carried out and assessed. There are no overall objections to the proposal in terms of highway safety, however, at the time of writing there are some matters that the applicant is working to clarify; these are
· The plan submitted should show the pedestrian footway is raised and surrounded by a 125mm high kerb · Some form of pedestrian footway across the site via the green area to the north of spaces 9 should be shown, through the site · The visibility splay to the south west (left) is 9m short of the standard; the speed survey shows that the speeds at this location (location B for the survey) are higher than 30mph. The applicant needs to provide details of mitigation measures (such as gateway feature) to show where the national speed limit reduces to 30mph.
A verbal update on these matters will be provided at the committee meeting along with any additional suggested conditions.
|
|
5.43
5.44
5.45 |
Biodiversity The application has been submitted by a preliminary ecological survey and a further bat survey, which has confirmed there is no presence of any roosting bats in the buildings proposed to be demolished. Both reports make recommendations for proposed mitigation and enhancement; subject to a condition securing these enhancements, the countryside officer has no objections to the proposal.
As such the application is considered compliant with policy CP46 of the Local Plan Part 1.
Community Infrastructure Levy The proposal relates to the construction of new residential floorspace and therefore would be CIL liable at a rate (index linked) for Zone 1 per m2 of new floorspace over and above that to be demolished. The relevant liability notice would be sent out at the time of the decision. |
|
6.0 |
CONCLUSION |
|
6.1
6.2
6.3
|
It is considered the proposal makes efficient use of a brownfield site, which has been demonstrated to be no longer viable as a commercial site, in accordance with paragraph 118 of the NPPF. The proposal is of an acceptable design and density and will provide a number of smaller scale accommodation, as sought by the emerging Shrivenham Neighbourhood Plan.
The proposal does not give rise to any harmful impacts on residential amenity, flood risk, highway safety or landscape and biodiversity. The application will provide an opportunity for the local economy in terms of the trades, skills and materials which would be required during the construction phase, albeit a relatively short-term boost, as the economy recovers post the Covid pandemic.
Taking into account all of the above matters which have been set out and assessed in the above report, the application is considered to represent and acceptable form of sustainable development and is compliant with policies CP3, CP4, CP29, CP35, CP37, CP42, CP44 and CP46 of the Local Plan 2031 Part 1 and policies DP2, DP16 and DP23 of the Local Plan 2031 Part 2 and is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out at the head of this report.
The following planning policies have been taken into account:
|
|
|
Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1 policies;
CP01 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development CP03 - Settlement Hierarchy CP04 - Meeting Our Housing Needs CP23 - Housing Density CP29 - Change of Use of Existing Employment Land and Premises CP35 – Promoting Public Transport, Cycling and Walking CP37 - Design and Local Distinctiveness CP42 - Flood Risk CP44 - Landscape CP46 - Conservation and improvement of Biodiversity
Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2 policies:
DP02 - Space Standards DP16 - Access DP23 - Impact of Development on Amenity DP28 - Waste Collection and Recycling
Shrivenham Draft Neighbourhood Plan:
The publicity period on the draft Shrivenham neighbourhood plan concluded on 1 October 2019. The proposed referendum has been postponed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Only limited weight can therefore be given to the draft policies at this stage.
DS1 – Settlement Gap H1 – General requirements for development H2 – Housing mix H5 – Housing for elderly and younger residents D1b – Design D3 – Provision of support for electric vehicles D4 – Provision of fibre to premises P1a – Design – parking layout P1b – Parking provision for new developments EE1a – Employment sites EE1c – Commercial sites LC2 – Landscape setting HE2a – Green environment – existing trees HE2b – Green Environment – new planting HE2c – Maintenance of planted areas including buffers and planting HE3a – Hedgerows and trees HE4a – Green and wildlife movement corridors HE4b – Protection of biodiversity during development HE4c – Provision of suitable habitats for indigenous wildlife CSH3 – Requirement for a CEMO CSH4 – Water hierarchy
Vale of White Horse Design Guide (March 2015)
National Planning Policy Framework, 2019
Planning Practice Guidance
Equality Act 2010 The application has been assessed against section 149 of the Equality Act. It is considered that no recognised group will suffer discrimination as a result of the proposal.
Human Rights Act, 1998 The application has been assessed against Articles 1 and 8. The impact on individuals has been balanced against the public interest and the officer recommendation is considered to be proportionate.
Case officer: Hannah Wiseman Email: hannah.wiseman@southandvale.gov.uk Tel: 01235 422600
|
|
|
|
|
|
|