DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 16 OCTOBER …applications.huntsdc.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s88612/1701518FU… · 1.4 The house would be of brick with a pitched tiled roof and

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 16 OCTOBER 2017 Case No: 17/01518/FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION) Proposal: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGES AND ERECTION

OF A DETACHED HOUSE WITH CAR PARKING Location: HARTFORD COURT 21 MAIN STREET HARTFORD

PE29 1YS Applicant: LUMINUS HOMES Grid Ref: 525443 272650 Date of Registration: 03.08.2017 Parish: HUNTINGDON

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE This application has been referred to Development Management Committee as Huntingdon Town Council’s recommendation to approve the application is contrary to the officer recommendation to refuse the application. 1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION 1.1 The site comprises: Hartford Court, a two-storey building which

provides four two-bed flats, a detached flat-roofed 4-garage block, adjoining tarmac vehicle manoeuvring space and a small area of adjoining grounds including a gravel seating and bin storage area. The site is in Hartford Conservation Area and adjacent to the King of the Belgians, a Grade II listed Public House (PH). The access is onto Main Street on a section of unclassified road. The site is an irregular shape and it fronts onto a high close-boarded fence and an approximately triangular gravel frontage PH car park.

1.2 The site backs onto Longstaff Way which connects Huntingdon ring

road to the A141. In the vicinity of the site are residential properties and the Village Hall.

1.3 The application seeks permission to demolish the garage block and

erect a part 1-storey, part 2-storey 2-bed affordable dwelling, to revise the car parking layout and provide a cycle parking store.

1.4 The house would be of brick with a pitched tiled roof and upvc

windows. The house entrance will face Main Street and back onto Longstaff Way, which forms part of the main road out of Huntingdon to the A141.

1.5 The application has been submitted as the applicant advises that an

approved scheme for a two-storey building providing 2x two-bed flats further back from Main Street (which was allowed at appeal in 2014 -1202038FUL) cannot be implemented due to the position of an adopted foul main sewer on the southern part of the site.

1.6 The application is accompanied by a heritage, design and access statement with a Transport statement and Shadow study and a unilateral undertaking to provide a set of wheeled bins.

1.7 The application proposes 4 on-site parking spaces: 2 to serve the

FOUR existing flats, 1 space for the new house and 1 unallocated space. A small garden is proposed to the rear, rear space for 3 x communal 1000litre Eurobins (instead of the current set of smaller household bins which are stored behind the front fence) and a cycle storage area between Hartford Court and the road to accommodate cycles from the existing flats and the proposed development.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE 2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) sets out the three

dimensions to sustainable development - an economic role, a social role and an environmental role - and outlines the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Under the heading of Delivering Sustainable Development, the Framework sets out the Government's planning policies for : building a strong, competitive economy; ensuring the vitality of town centres; supporting a prosperous rural economy; promoting sustainable transport; supporting high quality communications infrastructure; delivering a wide choice of high quality homes; requiring good design; promoting healthy communities; protecting Green Belt land; meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change; conserving and enhancing the natural environment; conserving and enhancing the historic environment; and facilitating the sustainable use of minerals.

2.2 Planning Practice Guidance 2.3 British Research Establishment (BRE) has produced good practice

guide on Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight For full details visit the government website https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government 3. PLANNING POLICIES 3.1 Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

• H31: Residential privacy and amenity standards • H37: Environmental Pollution • T18: Access requirements for new development • En2: Character and setting of Listed Buildings • En5: Conservation Area Character • En6: Design standards in Conservation Areas • En8: Demolition in Conservation Areas” • En9: Conservation Areas • En11: Archaeology • En12: Archaeological Implications • En13: Archaeological Implications • En20: Landscaping Scheme • En25: General Design Criteria

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government


3.2 Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

• HL5 – Quality and Density of Development 3.3 Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core

Strategy (2009) • CS1: Sustainable development in Huntingdonshire • CS3: The Settlement Hierarchy • CS10: Contributions.

3.4 Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013)

• LP 1 Strategy and principles for development • LP 2 Contributing to Infrastructure Delivery • LP 8 Development in the Spatial Planning Areas • LP 13 Quality of Design • LP 15 Ensuring a High Standard of Amenity • LP 17 Sustainable Travel • LP 18 Parking Provision • LP 24 Housing Mix • LP 25 Affordable Housing Provision • LP 31 Heritage Assets and their Settings

3.5 Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036: Consultation Draft 2017

• LP1: Strategy • LP5: Development in Spatial Planning Areas • LP10: Design Context • LP11: Design Implementation • LP13: Amenity • LP15: Sustainable Travel • LP16: Parking Provision • LP23: Affordable housing provision • LP34: Heritage Strategy • LP35: Heritage Assets and their Settings.

3.6 Together with the 2013 Stage 3 Consultation this document is now a

material consideration. This is because the 2017 Consultation Draft is the latest Council position, and subject to public consultation in July and August 2017. Whilst the 2013 Stage 3 Consultation is clearly older, it was subject to public consultation in 2013 and the LPA do know the number of unresolved objections to the policies in that Plan.

3.7 Supplementary Planning Documents:

• Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPD (2017): *Context and local distinctiveness – Part 2.7 Architectural character * Place Making Principles - Part 3.7 Building Form - Part 3.8 Building detailing - Part 3.5 Parking and Servicing - Part 3.7 Building form, including Privacy and Defensible space Developer Contributions SPD (2011)

Local policies are viewable at https://www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk

https://www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/

4. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 B16.71 Four existing flats at Hartford Court- approved. 4.2 1202038FUL for Erection of 2 flats and alterations of existing flats

following demolition of garages -refused in 2013 and appeal allowed in 5 June 2014 but permission expired 5 June 2017 (COPY OF REPORT AND APPEAL DECISION ATTACHED).

4.3 1202039CAC Demolition of garages approved 2 September 2013 and

consent expired 2 September 2016. 5. CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Huntingdon Town Council – recommends approve (copy attached). 5.2 Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeology –No objection

subject to a programme of archaeological investigation as site lies in an area of high archaeological potential.

5.3 HDC Transportation: No objection. 5.4 HDC Housing Policy: Support provision of affordable unit. 5.5 HDC Operations: No reply received. 6. REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 5 Othello Close-comments neither objecting to or supporting revised

application -note concerns raised about previous application for flats: -parking has been revised and the proposed provision will not exacerbate existing parking difficulties. However, two areas of concern: - will contractor undertaking demolition of the asbestos roofed garages be required to take precautions to ensure that the PH garden, which is used as an eating area, does not suffer asbestos contamination? - PH is a Grade II listed building and a survey/risk assessment should be commissioned into potential damage that could be caused by demolition and construction

6.2 Three objections: Owners of PH and 24-26 Main Street, 18 Main

Street, - front gravel area is the property of PH and is the pub car park. - removal of fence behind the carpark causes concern: fence reduces noise of public house (licensed to stay open until 1.00am at weekends, with exiting noise later) which would be close to the new property and annoying for occupiers -cars moving on car park, especially at night with head lights facing the proposed house- would harm amenity. -house too close to pub boundary and car park, - recommend the front fence should be retained - PH has two storeys with rooms in the roof. - improvement over previous development, but object to the size and location of the new building - the height of the house will block out winter sun in early morning.

-The shadow studies in the application are timed for mid-morning: an early morning winter study would show a different picture. -the front door is too close to the front boundary. -The owners of the pub will restore the 2m fence on the boundary, which will make the door almost inaccessible, and cut off the view from the front windows. - unfortunate modelling of the materials and style on the existing flats, unremarkable specimens of 1970’s architecture. -this is an opportunity to enhance this corner of Hartford to a higher standard by combining the present site with the flats, rather than get an undistinguished house onto too small a site.

6.3 Hartford Conservation Group comments:

-concern about front door opening onto casual parking area potential accident on busy pub car park with pedestrian/ car conflict -removal of front fence would result in car lights and noise affecting the house- suggest reinstate fence and move house back

6.4 Hartford Village Hall:

-concern about provision of parking for existing flats as this can impact on the limited road parking for the Hartford village hall -concern about new house being too close to pub front car park and suggest move back to align with pub garage.

7. ASSESSMENT 7.1 The report addresses the main, important and controversial issues,

which are in this case: the principle of development, the impacts upon the character and appearance of the conservation area, setting of the adjacent listed building, residential amenity, and parking/highway safety. The appeal decision is a material consideration and a comparison with the current proposal is required.

Principle of Development 7.2 The site is located within the built up area of Huntingdon where policy

supports residential development of all scales. Permission has been previously been granted and has only recently expired for two flats on the site.

7.3 The presumption in favour of sustainable development is outlined

within the NPPF, with the goal of creating positive improvements in the quality of the built environment, which includes widening the choice of high quality homes. There is policy support for the re-use of previously developed land and Huntingdon is a sustainable location where there are amenities and services.

7.4 The site is in a reasonably accessible location within the market town

and there is a need to provide more homes, especially affordable homes. Therefore the proposal is acceptable in principle in terms of settlement policy. The proposal is considered to satisfy the NPPF and policies CS1 and CS3 of the Core Strategy (2009) and LP1 LP8 and LP25 of the Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013) and LP1 LP5 and LP23 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036: Consultation Draft 2017. However, the proposal has to be acceptable in all other respects.

Setting of the Adjacent Listed Building 7.5 The Local Planning Authority is required to give special regard to the

desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

7.6 The setting of the listed PH has been severely reduced by the

introduction of the road at Longstaff Way and the setting is best appreciated from Main Street. The Inspector dealing with the appeal 1202038FUL opined that part of the significance of the adjacent Listed Building was “its prominent position on Main Street within the historic core of Hartford”. One of the points in favour of the appeal scheme was that it would be set well back from Main Street and neighbouring buildings, which would reduce the impact on the wider setting and prominence of the adjacent Listed Building on Main Street and it would reduce the impact on views of its “distinctive west facing gable end”. As the previous scheme was to be set back from the side and rear of the adjacent Listed Building, it would not have a dominating effect when viewed from Main Street.

7.7 The previous scheme was also considered favourably because it was

accompanied by an enhancement of the blank gable of the existing flats facing Longstaff Way with new windows and two new flats. In contrast, the current scheme is for a single house with no enhancement of Hartford Court. The lack of visual enhancement of the gables of the existing flats is not however considered to be a reasonable reason for refusal.

7.8 The present proposal locates the new building behind the line of the

front walls of the PH and existing block of flats but forward of the garage of the PH. The new building would be further into the foreground than the previous scheme, and closer to the Listed Building, thus increasing the impact on the setting of the adjacent Listed Building and Main Street.

7.9 The proposed dwelling would be smaller than the building allowed at

appeal, with a smaller footprint (of approximately 8.9m x 6m compared to the approved footprint of approximately 9.9 x 6.5m), a much smaller first floor of approximately 6m x 6m, a slightly higher eaves (5m compared to 4.9m) and a lower ridge (7.2 compared to 7.6m).

7.10 The new building now includes a lower, single-story part next to the

boundary with the PH and with a half-hipped roof to reflect the half-hip on the gable end of the pub. However, the listed building has a low eaves line and ridge (approximately 2.6m and 5.5m respectively) but the new building would be higher than the listed building with a first floor eaves and ridge height of approximately 5m and 7.2m respectively.

7.11 The building would, due to its forward position, be more prominent in

Main Street than the previous scheme but the building takes some of its design cues from the existing modern block of flats rather than the more traditional character of Main Street and therefore the proposal does not preserve the setting of the Listed Building.

Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area 7.12 There is no objection to the demolition of the existing garages and

consent for their demolition has been given previously, but has now expired.

7.13 Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas)

Act requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. The historic character of the western end of Main Street is considered to have been diluted by modern development such as Hartford Court which is of incongruous scale, design and materials. However, the historic character is retained with the PH and, to the east of the PH, numerous Georgian and Victorian buildings.

7.14 The proposal represents an opportunity to enhance the site but the

new building has been designed to reflect the style and materials of the existing incongruous flats at Hartford Court. The applicant has agreed to revise the materials e.g. to a buff brick and decorative brick details that would be more in keeping with the more traditional buildings in the area (and could be secured by condition). The applicant would consider setting the new building further back slightly to reduce its prominence but has declined to revise the height of the building.

7.15 The applicant proposes to remove the high front close boarded fence,

which separates the proposed dwelling from the PH car park in Main Street, and replace it with a timber knee rail to soften this area. The removal of the high fence would be welcomed but, it is not certain that the fence belongs to the applicant or the PH. If the fence is not removed, the new dwelling will appear cramped against the fence, which would detract from the appearance of the Conservation Area.

7.16 The provision of a bin store is welcomed as currently the lack of an

enclosed compound means that the numerous existing bins detract from the appearance of the site and conservation area. However, it is considered that, overall, the scheme detracts from the conservation area and should be refused. Officers have discussed amendments to the scheme with the applicant but it has not been possible to agree a revised scheme to overcome the concerns.

7.17 The proposal will cause less than substantial harm to the designated

heritage assets (setting of the listed building and character and appearance of the conservation area). The Local Planning Authority are therefore required to consider the public benefits of the proposal (by paragraph 134 of the NPPF) but the significant benefit of an additional affordable dwelling and the associated economic/ employment benefits with construction are not considered to outweigh the concerns about the impact on the designated heritage assets.

7.18 It is concluded that the proposed dwelling would, due to its undue

height and prominence, scale, massing and design relative to the adjoining listed building, (King of the Belgians public house), which is of modest height, detract from the setting of the listed building. The undue height and prominence of the dwelling (combined with the cramped position of the proposed dwelling behind the existing high front fence, the removal of which may be outside the applicant’s

control) would detract from the appearance of the conservation area in views from and along Main Street. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy En2, En5, En6 and En9 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, CS1 of the Core Strategy, LP31 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013) and LP35 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036: Consultation Draft 2017 and the NPPF.

Residential Amenity i)Occupiers of Hartford Court: 7.19 Hartford Court is split into four flats; it is understood that the existing

windows on the rear of the building facing the proposed dwelling serve 4 bedrooms and 4 kitchens.

7.20 The side of the new building will be to the back of Hartford Court and

very close (6.795m away). It will therefore cause some harm to the outlook of the bedroom and kitchen windows, with some shading and overbearing effects. However, as the building is to only be approximately 6m long, it is considered that the harm is not so substantial as to merit the refusal of the application or pursue the previous proposal to secure secondary windows.

7.21 The new side secondary lounge and bedroom windows can be

obscure glazed to prevent loss of privacy to the occupiers of Hartford Court.

ii)Occupiers of other properties: 7.22 The location of the new building further north-west and closer to Main

Street than the previous scheme, will entail some loss of light to properties on the opposite side of the road but it is considered that any harm from shading would not be so substantial as to merit the refusal of the application. No significant loss of privacy or undue harm to outlook would result.

7.23 The proposal is considered to be satisfactorily designed and located

near the PH garage to avoid undue loss of light to the PH and its beer garden of the adjacent PH.

iii)Occupiers of the proposed dwelling: 7.24 The proposed side secondary lounge and bedroom windows can be

obscure glazed to prevent loss of privacy to the future occupiers from overlooking from the occupiers of the existing flats at Hartford Court.

7.25 There is no separation between the back of the house (which

includes a ground floor lounge window) and the proposed parking area. However, if the proposed car space were allocated to the occupiers of the dwelling, which could be secured by condition, no undue harm to amenity e.g. privacy/ disturbance of the occupiers should ensue.

7.26 The occupiers of the new dwelling will be affected by some noise and

disturbance from the adjacent PH, but the house has been designed

to minimize the impact of disturbance from the north-east side with no pub-side facing openings.

7.27 However, the proposed removal of the high front close boarded

fence, which separates the proposed dwelling from the PH car park, and replacement with a timber knee rail, whilst welcome for visual reasons, would expose the occupiers of the new dwelling (which has windows for 3 out of 4 habitable rooms facing the car park: bedroom 2, a lounge and kitchen/ diner) to noise and disturbance from the use of the PH car park immediately in front of the house, at anti-social times e.g. in late evening and early morning. This is considered to result in poor amenities for the future occupiers of the dwelling and to be unacceptable. If the front fence were to be retained, the new house would be so close to the fence that it would have a poor outlook from its ground floor front windows.

7.28 The proposal is therefore contrary to policy H31 of the

Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, LP15 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013) and LP13 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036: Consultation Draft 2017 and the NPPF which seeks a good standard of amenity for future occupants (paragraph 17 bullet point 4).

Parking/Highway Safety 7.29 There are currently 4 garages plus scope for additional on-site

parking on the extensive hardstanding on the site. 7.30 The proposal reduces the number of on-site car spaces to four,

despite the proposed increase in number of households to 5 on the site. However, the previous allowed appeal only included 4 car spaces and a cycle store for the total of 6 x 2-bed units – this is a material planning consideration.

7.31 The site is located conveniently for a network of cycle ways, footways

and bus services that operate throughout the area offer direct access to the major employment areas by non-car modes. It is therefore considered that it would be unreasonable to reject the current proposal for a total of 4 car spaces for a total of 5 x 2-bed units and a cycle store on parking/ highway safety grounds.

7.32 The proposal appears to be acceptable in terms of on parking/

highway safety. Other matters 7.33 Third party comments not addressed above

- removal of asbestos is addressed by environmental health legislation - there is no substantive evidence to suggest the proposal would be likely to cause damage to the PH. -If the front fence were removed but the PH owners proposed to replace it, any enclosure in the grounds of the listed building would require planning permission, - a knee rail is proposed to separate the front door from the front parking area.

Archaeology 7.34 If the application had been approved, a condition could have secured

the archaeological study required by the County Council Archaeology Officer and the previous appeal decision and paragraph 128 of The National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

Wheeled bins 7.35 Operations have yet to advise if the proposed bin compound is in an

acceptable location and if a unilateral undertaking to provide a single set of household wheeled bins is appropriate or not whilst a compound for new larger bins for 5 households is proposed. Any response will be reported to Committee.

Conclusion 7.36 For the reasons set out above, the proposed development is

considered to fail to comply with the relevant national and local policy as it: * would harm the designated heritage assets of the setting of the listed building and conservation area and * would offer poor amenities for the future occupiers of the dwelling.

7.37 The harm caused is considered to outweigh the advantages of the

scheme. 7.38 Taking national and local planning policies into account, and having

regard for all relevant material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be refused.

8. RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE for the following reasons:

1.The proposed dwelling would, due to its undue height and prominence, scale, massing and design relative to the adjoining listed building, (King of the Belgians public house), which is of modest height, detract from the setting of the listed building. The undue height and prominence of the dwelling (combined with the cramped position of the proposed dwelling behind the existing high front fence, the removal of which may be outside the applicant’s control) would detract from the appearance of the conservation area in views from and along Main Street. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy En2, En5, En6 and En9 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, CS1 of the Core Strategy, LP31 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013) and LP35 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036: Consultation Draft 2017 and the NPPF.

2. The proposed removal of the high front close boarded fence, which separates the proposed dwelling from the PH car park in Main Street, and replacement with a timber knee rail, whilst welcome for visual reasons, would expose the occupiers of the new dwelling (which has windows for 3 out of 4 habitable rooms facing the car park: bedroom 2, a lounge and a kitchen/ diner) to undue noise and disturbance from the use of the PH car park immediately in front of the house. This would result in poor amenities for the future occupiers of the dwelling. The proposal

is therefore contrary to policy H31 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995, LP15 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013) and LP13 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036: Consultation Draft 2017 and the NPPF which seeks a good standard of amenity for future occupants (paragraph 17 bullet point 4).

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs. CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Sheila Lindsay Senior Development Management Officer 01480 388247

PAP/M4HUNTINGDON TOWN COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMENTS : 17th August 2017

17/01518/FULMr Keith Miller, Luminus Homes, Brook House, Ouse Walk, Huntingdon, PE29 3QW

Demolition of existing garages and erection of a detached house with car parking. Hartford Court, 21 Main Street, Hartford, PE29 1YS

Recommend APPROVE. Members had no objections.

17/01586/HHFULMr and Mrs Lusha c/o agent. Mr C Campbell, Nutwood Ventures Ltd, PO BOX 580 Huntingdon, PE29 9EB

Proposed alterations to include single storey and two storey rear extension. 14 Tennis Court Avenue, Huntingdon, PE29 1WW

Recommend APPROVE. Members felt the alterations improved the appearance of the property and was in keeping with neighbouring properties.

17/01475/LBCRBS Natwest, 92 High Street, Huntingdon, PE29 3DT

RBS are proposing to install New Cisco Wireless Access Points within the branch as part of this delivery; these devices provide access to wireless internet access within the site. 92 High Street, Huntingdon, PE29 3DT

Recommend APPROVE. Members noted that as the work was internal, it would have no impact on surrounding properties.

17/01467/FULNutwood Ventures c/o Mr David Mead, Partners in Planning and Architecture, Suite 2 Clare Hall, St Ives Business Park, Parsons Green, St Ives, PE27 4WY

Erection of 4 x 1 bedroom flats. Land South West of Electricity Substation 2, Lawrence Court, Princes street, Huntingdon.

Recommend APPROVE. Members felt this was a good use of the area, and noted that it met a need for more one bedroom flats in the area.

LARK

WAY

HALL CLOSETHE SPINNEY

WHITNEY CLOSE

MAIN STREET

SAPLEY ROAD

LONGSTAFF WAY

SCHOOL LANE

CHURCH LANE

MAIN STREET

Application Ref: 17/01518/FULo © Crown copyright and database rights 2017 Ordnance Survey HDC 100022322

1:1,545Scale = Date Created: 29/09/2017

Development Management Committee

Location: Huntingdon

KeyThe SiteListed BuildingConservation Area2017 SFRA Flood_Zone_3b2017 SFRA Flood_Zone_3a2017 SFRA Flood_Zone_2

GREEN PAPERS FOLLOW

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PANEL 19 AUGUST 2013 Case No: 1202038FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION) Case No: 1202039CAC (CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT) Proposal: ERECTION OF 2 FLATS AND ALTERATIONS OF EXISTING

FLATS FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF GARAGES Location: HARTFORD COURT 21 MAIN STREET HARTFORD PE29

1YS Applicant: HARTFORD COURT Grid Ref: 525443 272650 Date of Registration: 21.12.2012 Parish: HUNTINGDON

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL 1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION 1.1 The site relates to the garage and parking area for Hartford Court, a

two storey building which provides four two-bed flats. The site is within the Hartford Conservation Area and adjacent the King of the Belgians which is a Grade II listed Public House (PH). In the vicinity of the site are residential properties, businesses and the Village Hall.

1.2 There are two applications at the site. The planning application seeks

approval for the demolition of the garages and the erection of a two storey building which would provide two two-bed flats. The application also details provision of four on-site parking spaces which are understood to serve the existing flats and a bin and cycle storage area which accommodates bins and cycles from both the existing flats and the proposed development. Owing to the proposed works within the site, additional windows are to be inserted on the gable elevation of the existing Hartford Court flats to compensate for the loss of light to existing windows. The application for Conservation Area Consent seeks approval for the demolition of the garages only.

1.3 The application has been amended to alter the access width, amend

the detailing of the gable elevations and change the cycle and bin storage arrangements. At Officer request the applicant has also undertaken an overshadowing report to assess the impacts of the proposed building on the adjacent Beer Garden; initially this assessed the impacts at 13.00 hours on 21st March. A revised report showing the impacts for the 21st of each month of April to September, for the time periods 13.00, 16.00 and 19.00 (18.00 for the 21st September as the computer software determines sunlight hours end before 19.00) has also been submitted and a period of reconsultation has been undertaken following receipt of these additional/amended details.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE 2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) sets out the three

dimensions to sustainable development - an economic role, a social

role and an environmental role - and outlines the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Under the heading of Delivering Sustainable Development, the Framework sets out the Government's planning policies for : building a strong, competitive economy; ensuring the vitality of town centres; supporting a prosperous rural economy; promoting sustainable transport; supporting high quality communications infrastructure; delivering a wide choice of high quality homes; requiring good design; promoting healthy communities; protecting Green Belt land; meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change; conserving and enhancing the natural environment; conserving and enhancing the historic environment; and facilitating the sustainable use of minerals.

For full details visit the government website https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government 3. PLANNING POLICIES 3.1 Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995):

H31: “Residential privacy and amenity standards” – Indicates that new dwellings will only be permitted where appropriate standards of privacy can be maintained and adequate parking provided.

H37: “Environmental Pollution” – housing development will not be

permitted in locations where there is a hazardous installation posing a substantial risk to the public.

T18: “Access requirements for new development” states

development should be accessed by a highway of acceptable design and appropriate construction.

En2:“Character and setting of Listed Buildings” - indicates that

any development involving or affecting a building of architectural or historic merit will need to have proper regard to the scale, form, design and setting of that building

En5: “Conservation Area Character” - development within or

directly affecting conservation areas will be required to preserve or enhance their character and appearance.

En6: “Design standards in Conservation Areas” – in conservation

areas, the District Council will require high standards of design with careful consideration being given to the scale and form of development in the area and to the use of sympathetic materials of appropriate colour and texture.

En8:”Demolition in Conservation Areas” – consent may be

withheld until acceptable plans for the new development have been approved, if approved the timing of demolition will be strictly controlled.

En9:“Conservation Areas” - development should not impair open

spaces, trees, street scenes and views into and out of Conservation Areas.



En11: “Archaeology” – Permission will normally be refused for development that would have an adverse impact on a scheduled ancient monument or an archaeological site of acknowledged importance.

En12: “Archaeological Implications” – permission on sites of

archaeological interest may be conditional on the implementation of a scheme of archaeological recording prior to development commencing.

En13: “Archaeological Implications” – in areas of archaeological

potential, planning applications may be required to be accompanied by the results of an archaeological field evaluation or desk-based assessment.

En20: Landscaping Scheme. - Wherever appropriate a

development will be subject to the conditions requiring the execution of a landscaping scheme.

En25: "General Design Criteria" - indicates that the District

Council will expect new development to respect the scale, form, materials and design of established buildings in the locality and make adequate provision for landscaping and amenity areas.

3.2 Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations

(2002)

HL5 – Quality and Density of Development - sets out the criteria to take into account in assessing whether a proposal represents a good design and layout.

HL6 – Housing Density - indicates that housing development shall

be at a density of 30-50 dwellings per hectare

HL10 – Housing Provision – in the district should reflect the full range of the local community’s needs by ensuring a choice in new housing.

3.3 Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core

Strategy (2009)

CS1: “Sustainable development in Huntingdonshire” – all developments will contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development, having regard to social, environmental and economic issues. All aspects will be considered including design, implementation and function of development. Including reducing water consumption and wastage, minimising impact on water resources and water quality and managing flood risk.

CS3: “The Settlement Hierarchy” – Identifies Huntingdon, St

Neots, St Ives and Ramsey and Bury as Market Towns in which development schemes of all scales may be appropriate in built up areas.

3.4 Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 (2013)

Policy LP 1 ‘Strategy and principles for development’ - The Council will support proposals which contribute to the delivery of new housing, economic growth and diversification and infrastructure provision.

Policy LP 2 ‘Contributing to Infrastructure Delivery’ - A proposal

will be supported where it makes appropriate contributions towards the provision of infrastructure, and of meeting economic, social and environmental requirements.

Policy LP 8 ‘Development in the Spatial Planning Areas’ - Four

Spatial Planning Areas (SPAs) have been defined in Huntingdonshire. Huntingdon Spatial Planning Area is comprised of Huntingdon, Brampton and Godmanchester as well as the Strategic Expansion Location of Alconbury Weald. Huntingdon is the primary settlement within this SPA. A series of sites are allocated for development in this plan in order to achieve the spatial strategy. In addition to these other proposals will be supported where they are in accordance with policies of this plan and set criterion, including: Residential Development - A proposal which includes housing, including residential institution uses or supported housing, will be supported where it is appropriately located within the built-up area of an identified SPA settlement.

Policy LP 13 ‘Quality of Design’ - A proposal will need to be

designed to a high standard based on a thorough understanding of the site and its context.

Policy LP 15 ‘Ensuring a High Standard of Amenity’ - A proposal

will be supported where a high standard of amenity is provided for existing and future users and residents of both the surroundings and the proposed development.

Policy LP 17 ‘Sustainable Travel’ - A proposal will be supported

where it is demonstrated that: a. opportunities are maximised for the use of sustainable travel modes; b. traffic volumes can be accommodated and will not cause significant harm to the character of the surrounding area; c. any adverse effects of traffic movement to, from and within the site including the effect of car parking is minimised; d. a clear network of routes is provided that provides connectivity and enables ease of access, to, around and within the proposal and with the wider settlement for all potential users, including those with impaired mobility; and e. safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle routes, including links to new and existing services, facilities, footpaths, bridleways and the countryside are provided where appropriate and if possible formalised as rights-of-way.

Policy LP 18 ‘Parking Provision’ - A proposal will be supported

where it incorporates appropriately designed vehicle and cycle parking with a clear justification for the level of provision proposed, having regard to: a. the potential to increase the use of alternative transport modes including public transport, walking and cycling;

b. highway safety; c. servicing requirements; d. the needs of potential users; and e. the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties. Parking provision should be considered as an integral part of the design process and its impact on the surrounding townscape and landscape minimised.

Policy LP 24 ‘Housing Mix’ - A proposal that includes housing

development will be supported where the sizes, types and tenures of housing responds to the advice and guidance provided by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Strategic Housing Market Assessments (as applicable), local assessments of housing need and demand or other relevant housing and demographic studies and the Council's Housing Strategy and Tenancy Strategy.

Policy LP 31 ‘Heritage Assets and their Settings’ - Great weight is

given to the conservation of any heritage asset; more weight is accorded to assets of greater significance. A proposal which affects the special interest or significance of any heritage asset or its setting must demonstrate how it will conserve, and where appropriate enhance, the asset. Any harm must be fully justified and this harm will be weighed against the public benefit of the proposal. Substantial harm or loss will require exceptional justification. Harm to assets of the highest significance will require wholly exceptional justification.

Local policies are viewable at https://www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk 3.5 Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance: 3.6 Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPD (2007) – Sections 2 and 4 3.7 Huntingdon Conservation Area Character Statement (2007) 3.8 Developer Contributions SPD (2011) 4. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 No relevant history to the proposed development; the existing four

flats were approved under application B16.71. 5. CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Huntingdon Town Council – recommends REFUSAL of the

planning application and APPROVAL of the conservation area consent application (copies attached)

5.2 Cambridgeshire County Council Highways – Following receipt of

amended plans – “the access has been increased to 4.5m and the parking is now obvious. The parking and turning however looks to be very tight therefore tracking should be provided to show how the turning area will work. Is the amount of parking provision in line with your policies?”

5.3 Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeology – “Our records indicate

that the site lies in an area of high archaeological potential. It is

https://www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/

considered likely that important archaeological remains survive on the site and that these would be severely damaged or destroyed by the proposed development. The site rests on the edge of the Medieval village core and close to All Saints Church, which reputedly dates from the 12th century (Historic Environment Record Number 14719). A number of important finds have been made in the immediate vicinity of the development plot, including Roman coins and a millstone to the south of the plot (HER 02700) and a medieval coin hoard to the north west (HER 02682). A number of prehistoric flint tools have also been found in the locality, along the north bank of the River Ouse (HER 01946, 01844, 00268a, 05559). We therefore consider that the site should be subject to a programme of archaeological investigation.”

6. REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 ELEVEN letters of OBJECTION received from two addresses in

Longstaff Way, seven addresses in Main Street, one from School Lane, and one from Othello Close. These raise concerns which are summarised as:-

Parking: - There is no parking provision for the new flats; if the proposed planning application goes ahead there are potentially eight or even more vehicles that will need on-street parking (four from the existing flats that will lose their garage space and four more from the new build). This will exacerbate an already difficult but not insurmountable problem to a point where it becomes impossible. - Main Street already has parking problems and the proposed mobile building in Trinity School car park will mean the loss of resident’s informal parking agreements there with additional vehicles parking on Main Street. - The proposal displaces vehicles that use the off-street facilities at Hartford Court and lead to further pressures for on-street parking for residents, three businesses and Hartford Village Hall which is used during the day and evenings. - The King of the Belgians has recently been awarded the “Community Pub of the Year” by CAMRA which is an accolade for both it and the community it serves. Parking at the pub consists of three spaces beside the pub and then on-street parking wherever patrons can find it. - Fortunately the majority of the residential properties on Main Street have off-street parking but the remainder have to find parking on Main Street itself. When the village hall is in use for large gatherings (e.g. Tuesdays and Thursdays for the Bridge Club) it is difficult to find a space anywhere along Main Street and this has an adverse impact on the three businesses on the street whom are heavily reliant on passing motor borne trade: The King of the Belgians, Hartford Stores and Isis Hair Salon. The potential result would be a loss of patronage by the three businesses in Main Street to the point where they become no longer viable with consequent loss to the community of three valuable assets. - There are already difficulties everyday with delivery vehicles to the PH and lack of parking has caused patrons to trade elsewhere in the past - The ratio of dwellings to parking (six sharing four spaces) will add to the existing parking problem.

- Residents and visitors to Hall Close have been inconvenienced in the past by the overflow parking from Main Street - School buses (and collecting parents), deliveries and inappropriately parked cars have caused the road to be blocked on occasion. - Some residents do not have off-street parking and no means of providing any. - Main Street has overspill parking from Hall Close as the double yellow lines restrict visitor parking; it is also used for overspill parking from patrons of The Barley Mow. - There will not be four sensible parking spaces left on site - Six flats, each with two bedrooms surely cannot be assumed to have car ownership well below the national average, nor that all residents will use public transport, bikes or walk, however good the local facilities and ideal it would be.

Visual impacts:

- The proposed new building is out of character with the existing surrounding buildings and will also detract from the King of the Belgians which is Listed Grade II. - An attractive feature of this area is the single storey nature of a lot of buildings, an additional two storey development will certainly spoil the look and feel of this area; a better plan would be to replace Hartford Court with single storey dwellings. - Main Street is a Conservation Area and the existing flats are completely out of character with the surrounding area, to allow a further block to be built would compound the error. - The site is within a Conservation Area and everyone should be working together to preserve the overall nature and beauty of the street. - The existing building is now a fait accompli, to add another similar building next to a listed building, opposite period cottages, and within a Conservation Area cannot be in the best interest of local development.

Overlooking, overshadowing, loss of light and loss of view:

- The two 1st floor living room windows and one of the 1st floor bedroom windows will look directly into the bedrooms and kitchen which are to the front of No. 5 Longstaff Way. In addition, the changes to the 1st floor of the existing building will also have a living room and a bedroom window which will look directly into these rooms. Currently there are no windows in the existing flats at Hartford Court to overlook properties on Longstaff Way, which makes the living accommodation very private and the location enjoyable. A possible solution to the existing building could be to retain the layout of it and not create new windows looking out onto Longstaff Way, and a solution to the new build such could be to adjust the layout such that the windows do not look out onto Longstaff Way - Proposed height and proximity of the proposal to the boundary of the PH will steal sunlight from the popular beer garden and leave tables in the shade. - The two storey scale will mean that during winter months the sunlight to No. 18 Main Street will be totally blocked by this development. - Line of sight from No. 18 Main Street to Hartford Church will be obstructed.

Notification:

- Village Hall was not notified and as one of the nearest neighbours would expect to have been.

6.2 Following reconsultation, a further SIX letters were received from five

individuals who previously commented; these raise the following: * I am broadly in agreement with the findings of the report as to the direction of the shadows cast by the proposed new building. However, I am not content with the shadow prediction for the King of the Belgians (KoB) outbuildings... My own calculations predict the shadow from the outbuilding as being somewhat smaller than those shown by TC Consulting and Contracting. Notwithstanding the differences, the KoB’s beer garden will be subject to extra overshadowing between 1400 to 1600 hours between July and September to the extent that one or two tables will be in shadow during this period. This overshadowing could possibly impact on the business. * Photographs (submitted) show occupancy of the Hartford Court parking area by three and four vehicles. There is also the van owned by Window geeks that regularly parks on Main Street. This van is used by one of the existing tenants of Hartford Court. * The amendments shown in no way address the increasing problems of local parking. The statement made by the applicant that residents have only ever had two vehicles in total is not borne out by the true position. One resident has both a private car and a works van. * The proposed style of building is out of character of the Main Street Conservation area. It would also overdevelop an already compact area. * The requirement for the access path to be 4.5 metres wide is unlikely to be met because of the encroachment on the boundaries of the King of the Belgians. * The extra on-street parking required by vehicles from the proposed flats would exacerbate an already difficult parking situation with a potential adverse impact on the residents, the three village SMEs and the Village Hall. * The proposed flats are close to and overlook the King of the Belgians beer garden. There is a possibility that sometime in the future an individual noise complaint could be made that leads to the demise of this well used community pub. * On balance I believe that this application brings little or no benefit to Main Street Hartford. * Proposal could generate the need for an additional six and twelve on-street parking places * Parking problems in Main Street are particularly bad at the western end of Main Street which leads to potential customers of the PH turning away * The new build will overshadow the Beer Garden and lead to the loss of trade during summer months when this facility is well used; the impacts of which has not been adequately assessed as the report is limited to one time on one day of the year when shadows are at their shortest. * The Beer Garden generates noise (from conversations and sometimes events which feature music), the proposed flats will be in close proximity to the garden area and therefore new residents could complain about noise from the PH.

* Overshadowing report disappointingly does not cover early morning winter periods and concern remains that the new flats will block the rising sun

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES 7.1 The main issues to consider in the determination of these applications

are considered to be the principle of development and the impacts upon the character and appearance of the conservation area, setting of the adjacent listed building, on residential amenity, and on highway safety.

Principle of Development 7.2 The site is located within the built up area of Huntingdon where policy

supports residential development of all scales. 7.3 The principle of development is therefore considered acceptable in

this instance. Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area and Setting of the Adjacent Listed Building Demolition of the Existing Garages 7.4 The existing garages are not considered to be particularly noticeable

within the streetscene. Given their scale and simple design it is not felt that they negatively impact upon the locality or setting of the adjacent listed building, but similarly they are not considered to positively contribute to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The demolition of the garages is therefore not considered to be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and there is Officer and Town Council support for the Conservation Area Consent application should the scheme for replacement development be considered acceptable.

Impact upon Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area 7.5 Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas)

Act 1992 requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.

7.6 This part of the Conservation Area is dominated by Hartford Court,

the modern Parish Hall, and the open spaces along each side of the relatively modern Longstaff Way which has divided the historic core of Hartford. The historic character of the western end of Main Street is considered to have been diluted by modern development, although this is re-established to the east of the King of The Belgians by numerous Georgian and Victorian period buildings.

7.7 The immediate vicinity of the garages is not considered to be an

overly attractive area and enhancement here is welcomed. The large blank gable wall of the existing flats is also felt to be a poor visual addition to the Conservation Area and the proposed addition of windows should help give the building some visual interest and relieve the impact of the solid slab of masonry.

7.8 The proposed flats would have a neutral impact upon the character

and appearance of the Conservation Area due to the fact that their main visual impact will be from Longstaff Way which has a more limited relationship to the historic layout of Hartford and given the existing character of the area. There will be some loss of permeability through the site (due to the proposed building) but this similarly would not be unacceptable. It is not felt that the development site offers any particular value as ‘green space’ and in fact it has poor hard landscaping.

7.9 The amended scheme includes ‘blind’ windows within the gable

elevations of the new build; this is considered to give visual interest to the side elevations and aids in breaking up the massing of the brickwork. The bin storage area is now large enough to accommodate the refuse bins for both development and will ensure that these are not stored in a prominent location; this is considered to be an enhancement on the existing arrangements as the bins are currently stored close to the access point and are highly visible within the streetscene from Main Street.

7.10 It is therefore considered that, given that the significance of the

Conservation Area around Hartford Court has been eroded (including by the existing flats) and that the majority of buildings are modern or have been heavily modified; the proposed scheme would have a neutral impact upon the character and appearance of the area. Therefore in accordance with NPPF paragraphs131 and 134, the proposed scheme would sustain the significance of the heritage assets while delivering the wider public benefits of additional residential accommodation and making the best use of previously developed land.

7.11 Conditions are necessary to ensure appropriate materials and hard

and soft landscaping. Impact upon the Setting of the Listed Pub 7.12 Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas)

Act 1992 (as amended) requires that special regard is given to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

7.13 The setting of the listed pub has been severely reduced by Longstaff

Way and is best appreciated from Main Street; from this angle the visual impact of the proposed flats will be limited due to the siting further back in the site (from Main Street) than the listed building which sites at the back edge of the pavement. The proposed flats will, as the current flats do, form a backdrop to the listed pub. Whilst the flats would be closer to the pub than the existing Hartford Court building, the separation distance (approximately 0.9m from the pub boundary) is greater than exists for the current garages which are alongside the boundary. The pub also includes outbuildings which further enforce the separation of the listed building from the proposed building.

7.14 It is therefore accepted that the proposal will have some impact upon

the setting of the listed building; however, in accordance with the

NPPF this is considered to be less than substantial harm which, when having regard to the development which exists in the vicinity and the wider public benefits of additional residential accommodation and making the best use of previously developed land, is not considered to be unacceptable.

Residential Amenity 7.15 Occupants of Hartford Court and Proposed Flats:

Hartford Court is split into four flats; the original permission for the building shows the floor plans to have the units handed with bedroom and living room windows to the front and kitchen and bathroom windows to the rear of the building, with the garages behind. The submitted floor plan of the existing flats indicates the units are still handed versions of one another, although the flats have been altered internally to provide a second bedroom with the (original) windows on the rear of the building now serving bedroom 2 and the kitchen.

7.16 The proposed scheme results in the new building approximately 6.2m

from the rear elevation of the building with two parking spaces between the buildings. The gable width of the new building aligns to the mid point of the kitchen windows of the ground and first floor flats closest to Longstaff Way.

7.17 The impacts arising from loss of light and outlook to the windows

serving bedroom two of these flats has been mitigated by the insertion of windows in the south east gable elevation. Given this relationship, it is not considered that the residential amenities of occupants in the flats will be significantly harmed. The insertion of these windows should be secured by condition and provided prior to the commencement of development of the new building.

7.18 The parking spaces will also be closer to the rear of the building than

they are currently; it is understood that the intension is to allocate the four spaces onsite to the current flats to compensate for the loss of the garages. Whilst the proposed parking arrangements will lead to increased disturbance closer to the building, it is not considered that this relationship is significantly harmful in terms of disturbance and loss of privacy. However a condition can require the submission of a parking scheme to ensure the parking space annotated on the site plan as No. 1 is allocated to the residents of the ground floor flat closest to it to reduce the impacts upon amenity and give the occupants adequate protection in this regard.

Neighbouring Residential Properties: 7.19 Concern has been raised about loss of light owing to the two storey

scale of the building. It is accepted that in winter months when the sun is lowest, there will be some impact upon properties in Main Street to the north of the site, however the separation distance between the buildings at approximately 21m is considered acceptable and it is noted that the current arrangement results in the current flats being much closer to No’s 14 and 16 than the proposed building is to be; furthermore, there is a gap of approx. 6.2m between the buildings where sunlight will not be blocked.

7.20 Concern has been raised about overlooking from the windows on the rear of the proposed flats and those inserted into the south-east gable of the existing. The separation distance between the application site and the property opposite on Longstaff Way is around 35m and whilst accepting the application site is higher than Longstaff Way, it is not considered that planning permission could be refused in this instance due to overlooking.

King of the Belgians: 7.21 It is appreciated that the enclosed area to the rear of the King of the

Belgians provides a Beer Garden. Alongside the boundary with the application site is an outbuilding with pitched roof and smoking area in the south west corner which constitutes a timber structure with a Perspex flat roof. The rear of the PH has a flat roof extension.

7.22 Concern was raised with the applicant due to the possible

overshadowing impacts upon the Public House and its Beer Garden which are to the north-east and east of the proposed building. To the rear of the pub building are toilets and therefore the loss of lights to these windows is not considered harmful.

7.23 The British Research Establishment (BRE) has produced good

practice guide on Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight, this considers assessment of gardens and open spaces and states that the equinox (21st March) is a good date for assessment and advises that no more than two fifths of amenity area should be prevented from receiving any sunlight at all on the 21st March. The applicants employed a consultant to assess the overshadowing to the Beer Garden and the report (copy attached) concluded that there will be “a very low impact on the light receivable by its neighbouring properties’ gardens” and therefore “that the development design satisfies the requirements set out in BRE guide”. This initial study assesses the shadow cast at 13.00 hours on 21st March. Whilst accepting that the pub garden will receive more than two hours direct sunshine on the 21st March (in accordance with the BRE Guidance) due to the shadowing at 1pm, it was expected that the report would show the extent of overshadowing throughout the day as given the orientation, shadowing for the afternoon and evening hours was considered most important in order to assess how the amenity value of the beer garden would be affected by the proposal as later in the day is when the garden is most likely to be used by patrons. A request for a more in-depth report was therefore requested which included an assessment of the months April to September at 13.00, 16.00 and 19.00 hours. This report was submitted and a further period of consultation undertaken.

7.24 The report shows that the garden area will be affected by

overshadowing at times, however the outbuilding within the Beer Garden is noted to already overshadow a large amount of the rear amenity area. The height and orientation of the proposed building means that at around 16.00 the shadow from the proposed flats will extend beyond the shadow caused by the pubs own outbuilding; this however does not completely overshadow the amenity area and tables could still be placed to receive direct sun. The computer model used to create the assessment determines that on the 21st September sunlight hours end before 19.00 and therefore an

assessment has been made at 18.00; it is between 16.00 and 18.00 in September (when the shadows are at their longest) that the Beer Garden becomes entirely overshadowed, although the proposed building is only responsible for half of the site being in shade. At this time of year, depending upon weather conditions, the Beer Garden may be used less frequently than earlier in the year.

7.25 The comments made through representations on the amended report

consider the impacts of the outbuilding to have been wrongly shown and potentially based on inaccurate dimensions. The applicants were asked to comment on this point and the following reply was received: “…the dimensions quoted ... relate to a building with a bonnet roof with a high pitch whereas the outbuildings actually have gabled ends with a low pitch roof. If we used (the objector’s) dimensions the shadow cast would be greater than that shown and therefore inaccurately reduce the impact of the proposed development.”

7.26 The objector was asked to consider this point further but no additional

comments were received. It is Officer opinion that the outbuildings have been plotted on the submitted plans and accurately show a height around 3.2m rather than the 5.1m suggested by the objector. As such, it is felt that the report can be considered reliable.

7.27 It is therefore considered that whilst there will be some impacts upon

the amount of direct sunshine to the Beer Garden, there will still be large amounts of the (albeit relatively small garden area) which are not in shade. As such it is Officer opinion that a recommendation of refusal amounting to the impacts upon the Beer Garden and potential threat to the Public House could not be substantiated.

Highway Safety Access: 7.28 The amended plans show the increase in access width requested by

the Cambridgeshire County Council Highways Officer which will aid manoeuvrability into and out of the site.

Parking Provision: 7.29 Draft Local Plan policy LP18 and the NPPF do not set specific

parking standards with the approach taken to consider each site on individual merits. The NPPF (2012) advises that if setting local parking standards, LPAs should take into account the accessibility of the development; the type, mix and use of development; the availability of and opportunities for public transport; local car ownership levels; and an overall need to reduce the use of high-emission vehicles. Emerging Local Plan policy LP18 provides support for schemes where it incorporates appropriately designed vehicle and cycle parking and has regard to factors including i) the potential to increase the use of alternative transport modes including public transport, walking and cycling; ii) impacts on highway safety; and iii) minimises the impact on the surrounding townscape and landscape. The impacts upon the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties is also detailed as a consideration in LP18.

7.30 Appendix 2 of the Design, Access and Heritage Statement is a

Transport Statement which advises:

- There are at least three bus stops within 300m of the application site, with links to adjoining villages and Guided Bus route; - The Hartford Court Management have advised in the last eleven years that a maximum of two occupants of the existing flats have owned a car and used the parking spaces available; - The site is close to a number of employment areas and connected by a network of cycleways, footways and bus services with a high degree of permeability for cyclists and pedestrians; - Each unit will be provided with an individual secure cycle parking store which can accommodate two cycles each. This considers that the site is a sustainable site and that parking provision is not a necessity.

7.31 Representations received dispute that there are only two residents

with vehicles and photographs have been submitted showing three vehicles parked on site. In response the applicant has stated: “we have been unable to ascertain the ownership of all of the vehicles shown. We have experienced unauthorised parking on the site in the past by, we assume, people visiting surrounding buildings. We hope that this would not happen if permission for the new development is approved, with appropriate signage erected. While we cannot accurately predict car ownership, the new units planned are of a similar standard to the existing units and it is therefore reasonable to assume similar requirements in the future. I have visited the site myself on a number of occasions each week, at differing times of the day, and have always found ample space to park.”

7.32 A number of site visits have been undertaken by Officers and at times

more than two vehicles have been parked on site. 7.33 The comments received regarding the difficulties of on-street parking,

knock on impacts upon local businesses and poorly parked vehicles are acknowledged. The application site is considered to be in a sustainable location with access to alternative transport modes (rather than occupants being reliant upon private cars) and some local services. It is accepted that the Local Planning Authority has no control over whether residents of the new flats ultimately own vehicles and therefore will also park on the highway, however in light of the policy drive towards provision of new homes and in the absence of parking standards requiring off-street parking provision, it is not considered that a recommendation of refusal owing to lack of parking provision and wider impacts upon parking availability in the locality could be upheld.

7.34 The original scheme showed cycle storage provision for the new units

(two spaces each); whilst this was welcomed, the storage was considered to have been poorly orientated and did not provide for natural surveillance. In addition, there was no provision for the existing flats; whilst accepting there is currently no cycle parking facilities, the garages do offer space for secure storage. The amended scheme therefore shows a cycle store which can accommodate 8 cycles (one for each unit across the site); this is detailed as being a timber open-fronted structure. This is considered adequate provision and a condition can secure installation prior to occupation of the new flats.

Turning Area:

7.35 The comments of the Highways Officer are noted in relation to the

turning area, however it is considered that there is sufficient room for vehicles to turn and therefore enable entry and exit from the site in forward gear. As such, additional plans with tracking have not been requested from the applicant.

Other Matters Alternative proposals: 7.36 Whilst alternative options for redevelopment of this site have been

suggested by objectors as being more suitable, the role of the Local Planning Authority is to determine the application submitted on its own merits.

Archaeology: 7.37 The comments of the County Council Archaeology Officer in terms of

the site’s potential archaeological interest is noted; the Agent has questioned this point and feels that whilst the application site may be in a location where mapping suggests that there is potential for remains, as the site was developed in the late sixties early seventies it is suggested that the archaeological potential would have been destroyed at that time therefore it would be unreasonable and an unnecessary cost to apply a condition for an archaeological investigation on this site.

7.38 In response, the County Archaeologist appreciates that the site may

be truncated in the 60s and 70s but advises that we do not know this for a fact until the site is evaluated prior to development, and if the site is truncated as to what level of truncation. In addition he advises that many archaeologically rich sites encountered in the centre of settlements (and rural areas) have archaeological deposits at varying depths and degrees of truncation - in many cases untouched by post-medieval development. It is therefore County Officer opinion that in the case of this site an archaeological condition should be placed on any permission granted in order to ascertain archaeological presence/deposit model.

7.39 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) considers

archaeology within para. 128 and states: “Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, Local Planning Authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.”

7.40 In accordance with this guidance, it is considered that the applicants

should undertake an evaluation of the sites archaeological potential and this can be secured by condition.

Neighbour notification:

7.41 It is unfortunate that the Village Hall was not directly notified of the proposal however a site notice was posted in the area and the committee were clearly made aware of the application.

Conclusion 7.42 The proposal is situated within a location where new residential

development should be supported subject to the detailed considerations being satisfied. Whilst the proposal would not enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, a neutral (or preserving) impact is required under policy and the relevant legislation. In this regard, having regard to the existing built form, including the flats opposite, it is considered that the proposal would have a neutral impact upon the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the setting of the listed pub which is outweighed by the community benefits of providing additional residential accommodation.

7.43 With regard to amenity impacts it is acknowledged that, at certain

times of the year, some overshadowing into the Beer Garden would occur. However given the evidence that has been provided by the applicant this impact is not considered to be unacceptable. The proposal would also not have an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenity of the occupiers of any adjoining premises.

7.44 With regard to car parking the application site is considered to be

within a sustainable location where access to public transport and, albeit limited, services is available on foot. Cycle provision is also provided for future residents of these two bed flats. Officers therefore consider that, despite local concerns regarding parking provision on the highway, a refusal could not be sustained on these grounds.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs. 8. RECOMMENDATION- APPROVE 1202038FUL subject to conditions

to include the following: Time limit

Material samples Manufacturer details of windows and doors Hard and soft landscape Additional windows to Hartford Court to be provided prior to commencement of new build. Parking and turning area provided prior to occupation Cycle storage provided prior to occupation Archaeological investigation

RECOMMENDATION - GRANT CONSENT 1202039CAC

subject to conditions to include the following:

Time limit Contract for new building

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Ms Charlotte Fox Assistant Development Management Officer 01480 388457

PAP/M1HUNTINGDON TOWN COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMENTS:

23rd MAY 2013

1202038FUL EASTMr D Ward, Hartford Court, Management Ltd.

Erection of 2 flats and alterations of existing flats following demolition of garages - Hartford Court, 21 Main Street, Hartford PE29 1YSRecommend REFUSAL. The Panel considered this to be an overdevelopment of the site and out of keeping within the Conservation area. There is insufficient parking and a loss of light to neighbouring properties. Amendment 23/05/2013: 1. Amended design to gable elevations; 2. Amended site layout - access width, cycle and refuse storage; 3. Additional overshadowing Study (dated 8th April and addendum dated 6th May)Amendment 23/05/2013 - Recommend REFUSAL since concerns previously have not been addressed by the proposed amendments.

1202039CAC EASTMr D Ward, Hartford Court, Management Ltd

Demolition of garages - Hartford Court, 21 Main Street, Hartford PE29 1YS

Recommend APPROVAL. The demolition of these garages would improve the area.

Amendment 23/05/2013: 1. Amended design to gable elevations; 2. Amended site layout - access width, cycle and refuse storage; 3. Additional overshadowing study (dated 8th April and addendum dated 6th May)

Amendment 23/5/2013 - The Panel noted the amendment1300306LBC WESTMr P Incledon-Webber, Ferrar House, 70A High Street, Huntingdon PE29 3DJ

Re-roof property using existing Pegtiles, reclaimed Pegtiles, ridge and verge tiles to match. Install dormer and internal staircase to loft. Replace existing fibreglass insulation with sheep wool - 70A High Street, Huntingdon PE29 3DJ

Recommend APPROVAL.1300413FUL EASTMr John Cooper, 80 Park Avenue Papworth Everard Cambridge

Erection of a dwelling and associated parking and new parking for 5 Wood Street and the erection of enclosures between the proposed dwelling and 5 Wood Street or similar Land at 5 Wood Street, Huntingdon

Recommend REFUSAL as the proposals will overdevelop the site. The Panel further considered that access for construction was inadequate and that the development would lead to increased risk to the safely of local residents who were members of the disabled living community.

Development Management Panel

o © Crown copyright and database rights 2013 Ordnance Survey HDC 100022322

1:2,500Scale = Date Created: 24/07/2013

!

LegendThe SiteConservation Area

Application ref: 1202038FULLocation: Huntingdon

55 Denbeigh Drive

Tonbridge Kent

TN10 3PP

OVERSHADOWING TO GARDENS AND OPEN SPACES STUDY

HARTFORD COURT, MAIN STREET, HARTFORD, HUNTINGDON PE29 1YS

ADDENDUM TO REPORT DATED 28TH MARCH 2013

3rd May 2013

Overshadowing to Gardens and Open Spaces Study Hartford Court, Main Street, Hartford, Huntingdon PE29 1YS Page 2

CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Overview 3

APPENDIX 2 SHADOW CAST BY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 13:00 ON 21

ST APRIL 4

APPENDIX 3 SHADOW CAST BY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 16:00 ON 21ST

APRIL 5


APRIL 6


MAY 7


MAY 8


MAY 9


JUNE 10


JUNE 11


JUNE 12


JULY 13


JULY 14


JULY 15


AUGUST 16


AUGUST 17


AUGUST 18


SEPTEMBER 19


SEPTEMBER 20


SEPTEMBER 21


1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Overview

1.1.1 TC Consulting & Contracting Ltd has been commissioned to undertake a daylight

and sunlight study of the proposed development at Hartford Court, Main Street,

Hartford, Huntingdon PE29 1YS.

1.1.2 The aim of the study is to assess the impact of the development on the light

receivable by the rear gardens at the neighbouring properties along Main Street.

1.1.3 The original study, based on the various numerical tests laid down in the Building

Research Establishment (BRE) guide ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and

Sunlight: a guide to good practice’ by P J Littlefair 2011, was completed on 28th

March 2013.

1.1.4 In response to a request by Huntingdonshire District Council, TC Consulting &

Contracting Ltd has been instructed to provide additional diagrams to show the

result of the overshadowing to the neighbouring gardens between April and

September.

1.1.5 Appendices 2 to 19 give the contour diagrams for each time period, specified as

13:00, 16:00 and 19:00 at monthly intervals from April to September. Each diagram

indicates the shadow cast by the existing outbuildings and the additional shadow

cast by the proposed development .

1.1.6 The software used to develop the diagrams determines that sunlight hours end

before 19:00 on 21st September, therefore the final diagram has been developed for

18:00 and not 19:00 as specified.


APPENDIX 2

SHADOW CAST BY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 13:00 ON 21ST APRIL

BEER GARDEN


APPENDIX 3


BEER GARDEN


APPENDIX 4


BEER GARDEN


APPENDIX 5

SHADOW CAST BY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 13:00 ON 21ST MAY

BEER GARDEN


APPENDIX 6


BEER GARDEN


APPENDIX 7


BEER GARDEN


APPENDIX 8

SHADOW CAST BY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 13:00 ON 21ST JUNE

BEER GARDEN


APPENDIX 9


BEER GARDEN


APPENDIX 10


BEER GARDEN


APPENDIX 11

SHADOW CAST BY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 13:00 ON 21ST JULY

BEER GARDEN


APPENDIX 12


BEER GARDEN


APPENDIX 13


BEER GARDEN


APPENDIX 14

SHADOW CAST BY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 13:00 ON 21ST AUGUST

BEER GARDEN


APPENDIX 15


BEER GARDEN


APPENDIX 16


BEER GARDEN


APPENDIX 17

SHADOW CAST BY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 13:00 ON 21ST SEPTEMBER

BEER GARDEN


APPENDIX 18


BEER GARDEN


APPENDIX 19


BEER GARDEN

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 April 2014

by Nick Moys BA (Hons) MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 5 June 2014

Appeal Ref: APP/H0520/A/13/2209503

Hartford Court, Main Street, Hartford, Huntingdon PE29 1YS

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.

• The appeal is made by Mr David Ward against the decision of Huntingdonshire District Council.

• The application Ref 1202038FUL, dated 19 December 2012, was refused by notice dated

2 September 2013. • The development proposed is the demolition of existing garages, erection of 2 No flats

and alteration of existing flats.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of

existing garages, erection of 2 flats and alteration of existing flats at Hartford

Court, Main Street, Hartford, Huntingdon PE29 1YS in accordance with the

terms of the application, Ref 1202038FUL, dated 19 December 2012, subject to

the conditions listed in the schedule attached to this decision.

Application for costs

2. An application for costs was made by Mr David Ward against Huntingdonshire

District Council. This application will be the subject of a separate Decision.

Preliminary Matters

3. The Council has referred to a number of policies in its Draft Huntingdonshire

Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3. However, this document is at a relatively early

stage in its progress towards adoption. Accordingly, I have attached limited

weight to these emerging policies.

Main Issues

4. The main issues in this case concern the effects of the proposal on the setting

of the adjacent listed building, and on the character and appearance of the

Hartford Conservation Area.

Reasons

5. The appeal site comprises a block of four flats, built in the 1970s, together with

an adjacent garage block and parking area. The garage block would be

demolished to make way for the proposal. The site is sandwiched between two

roads: Main Street to the north and Longstaff Way to the south. The site falls

with the Hartford Conservation Area, and is adjoined immediately to the east

Appeal Decision APP/H0520/A/13/2209503

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2

by the King of the Belgians Public House (PH), which is a Grade II listed

building. Development in the vicinity of the site includes a mixture of

residential properties, commercial uses and community facilities.

Effect on the setting of the adjacent listed building

6. The listed PH is a one-and-half storey building, with painted brick elevations

under a half-hipped tiled roof with dormers, and dates from the late

seventeenth or early eighteenth century. Its significance is derived principally

from its historic fabric, architectural features, and its prominent position on

Main Street within the historic core of Hartford.

7. The proposed development would be set well back from Main Street and

neighbouring buildings which sit close to the road. Consequently, the proposal

would have little impact on the wider setting and therefore the prominence of

the PH on Main Street or on views of the distinctive west facing gable end of

the PH.

8. The proposed flats would also be set back from the side and rear of the PH, and

further separated from it by an intervening outbuilding located close to the

boundary. Although larger than the garages to be replaced, the proposed

building would not be unduly bulky, and would be simple and unassuming in

form and design. The scheme would not therefore have a dominating effect on

the adjacent listed PH when viewed from Main Street; and indeed would secure

a visual improvement to its setting by the removal of the existing garages,

which are utilitarian in design and out of keeping with the typical form of

surrounding buildings.

9. The proposed building would be more prominent in views from Longstaff Way,

but this relatively modern road has little connection with the historic layout of

development in the locality and has truncated the setting of the listed PH. As I

was able to see during my site visit, only limited views of the rear of the PH are

available from Longstaff Way due to the screening effect of existing buildings,

fencing and vegetation. Whilst the proposal would give the site a more built up

appearance, it would present only a narrow gable end towards the rear garden

of the PH and would be separated from it by the adjacent outbuilding. The

proposal would not therefore impinge unacceptably on the setting of the listed

building when viewed from Longstaff Way

10. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would preserve the setting of

the King of the Belgians PH. Accordingly, there would be no conflict with

Policies En2 of the Huntingdon Local Plan (1995) (the Local Plan) which seeks

to ensure that development affecting a listed building has proper regard to its

features and setting.

Effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area

11. The Hartford Conservation Area covers a broad area, encompassing the historic

core of the village in and around Main Street, together with areas of more

spacious housing and green space to the south and east. Development along

Main Street is made up mainly of traditional houses and cottages, set close to

the road, but also includes modern development which is more varied in its

form and layout.

12. The proposal would be similar in form and design to the existing flats at

Hartford Court, and would be set back a comparable distance from Longstaff



Way. The scale of the proposed building would also be consistent with the

neighbouring flats and other development in the locality. The scheme would

give the site a more built up appearance, but would not appear out of place

when seen against the backdrop of the existing flats and other properties to

the east along Main Street, which are generally closely spaced, and a number

of which include outbuildings positioned close to Longstaff Way.

13. I acknowledge that the pattern of development on the southern side of

Longstaff Way is generally more spacious, with properties set back from the

road behind landscaped front gardens, although the house at No 7 marks a

notable departure from this pattern close to the appeal site. Nevertheless, the

proposal would be seen principally against the background of neighbouring

development on Main Street which has a more built up character. In this

context, the loss of openness caused by the proposal would not result in harm

to the character or appearance of the area.

14. As already noted, views across the site are limited by the existing buildings and

fencing, and are essentially confined to views of the roofscape of neighbouring

development. These views would be further limited by the proposal because of

its height, but the effects would be small and confined to the immediate locality

of the site, and given the built up nature of the area would not result in

material harm to the conservation area.

15. The scheme would also secure some enhancements to the appearance of the

Conservation Area through the demolition of the existing garages, as noted

above, and by the insertion of windows into the blank gable of the existing flats

at Hartford Court which would add visual interest to the street scene of

Longstaff Way.

16. Taking all of these matters into consideration, I conclude that the proposal

would preserve the character and appearance of the Hartford Conservation

Area. Consequently the proposal would not conflict with Policies En5, En6, En9

and En25 of the Local Plan, which seek to ensure that development preserves

or enhances the character and appearance of conservation areas, does not

impair important open spaces or views, and is of a high standard of design that

respects its context.

Other Matters

17. In addition to the matters considered above, objections have been raised

locally in respect of parking, privacy, overshadowing, loss of views, disturbance

from the adjacent PH and damage to the listed building.

18. No on-site parking is proposed to serve the proposed flats, although four

spaces would be retained for the use of the existing flats. However, the site

benefits from good walking and cycling links to Huntingdon town centre and is

well served by public transport. On-site cycle storage is also proposed. The

appellant also states that existing parking provision has been underused by

tenants in the past, although this is disputed by some local residents. Whilst I

appreciate that Main Street is at certain times subject to considerable pressure

for on-street parking, given the small scale nature of the proposal and its

accessible location, I do not consider that the scheme would be likely to

materially worsen this situation.



19. Good separation distances would be maintained between the proposed flats

and existing dwellings opposite on Main Street and Longstaff Way, such that no

significant loss of light, privacy or views would result. The proposal would

cause some loss of light to the beer garden of the adjacent PH, as detailed in

the appellant’s overshadowing study. However, the evidence provided

indicates that the beer garden is already overshadowed by the adjacent

outbuilding and that a significant proportion of the garden would remain free

from shading, particularly during the summer months when it would be likely

to be most used. On this basis, I see no reason to disagree with the Council’s

assessment that the proposal would not result in unacceptable overshadowing.

20. Given the internal layout of the proposed flats, the position of windows and the

screening provided by the adjacent outbuilding, I do not consider that noise

generated by the operation of the adjacent PH would be likely to cause

unacceptable disturbance to future residents of the proposed flats. Nor is there

any substantive evidence to suggest the proposal would be likely to cause

physical or structural damage to the listed PH.

Conditions

21. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council in the light of the

guidance set out in paragraph 206 of the Framework, and have amended them

where necessary.

22. In addition to the standard time limit, I consider that a condition identifying the

approved plans is necessary to define the permission. Conditions relating to

external materials, window details, details of the recessed brickwork to the

gables and hard and soft landscaping are also reasonable and necessary in

order to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development.

23. A condition requiring the insertion of additional windows into the existing flats

at Hartford Court is needed to secure the proposed improvements to the street

scene and adequate living conditions for the occupants of the flats. However, I

agree with the appellant that this condition should be re-worded to provide

greater flexibility on the phasing of such works in order minimise disruption to

occupants of the existing flats. Conditions requiring the provision of

parking/turning facilities and cycle storage are necessary respectively in the

interests of highway safety and to promote sustainable transport.

24. The appellant disputes the need for a condition requiring a scheme of

archaeological investigation given its historic use as pasture and garden land

and on the basis that the previous development of the site and the construction

of the Longstaff Way in the 1970s would have disturbed any buried

archaeology. However, whilst these factors may have reduced the likelihood of

archaeological finds, in the absence of any substantive evidence, I cannot be

certain that the site contains nothing of interest. In the light of the evidence

provided by Cambridgeshire County Council that the appeal site lies within an

area of high archaeological potential, I consider that a condition requiring an

archaeological investigation is reasonable and necessary in order to ensure that

any buried archaeology is properly recorded and evaluated.

Conclusion

25. I have found that the proposal would preserve the setting of the adjacent listed

building and the character and appearance of the surrounding Conservation



Area. Even though the Council can demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply,

the scheme would provide additional housing in a location with good access to

local services and facilities, as encouraged by the policies set out in the

National Planning Policy Framework. This matter weighs in favour of the

proposal.

26. The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance was published on 6 March 2014.

I have considered the content of this guidance, but in the light of the facts of

this case, the document does not alter my conclusions.

27. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all matters raised, I

conclude that the appeal should succeed.

Nick Moys

INSPECTOR



Schedule of conditions

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years

from the date of this decision.

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance

with the following approved plans: Location Plan at a scale of 1:1250,

Drawing Nos WD/2458/10.A and WD/2458/11.A.

3) No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used

in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby

permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local

planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with

the approved details.

4) No development shall take place until precise details of the proposed

windows and doors have been submitted to and approved in writing by

the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in

accordance with the approved details.

5) No development shall take place until cross-section details of the

proposed brick recesses in the gables have been submitted to and

approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall

be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

6) No development shall take place until full details of hard and soft

landscaping works and a programme of implementation have been

submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and

these works shall be carried out as approved. Hard landscape works

shall include details of all boundary treatments and hard paved surfaces.

Soft landscape works shall include planting plans; written specifications

(including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and

grass establishment); and schedules of plants, noting plant species,

sizes, numbers and densities.

7) The parking and turning facilities shown on drawing no WD/2458/10.A

shall be provided in full prior to the first occupation of the development

hereby permitted.

8) The cycle storage facilities shown on drawing no WD/2458/10.A shall be

provided in full prior to the first occupation of the development hereby

permitted.

9) Within 3 months of the first occupation of the flats hereby permitted, the

alterations to the south eastern elevation of Hartford Court shall be

completed in accordance with the details shown on Drawing

No WD/2458/11.A and thereafter retained as such.

10) No development shall take place until the implementation of a

programme of archaeological work has been secured in accordance with a

written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and

approved in writing by the local planning authority.