OFFICER: Simon Fox (01935) 462509 APPL.NO: … · encloses a narrow courtyard additionally bounded...

19
OFFICER: Simon Fox (01935) 462509 APPL.NO: 07/04329/FUL APPLICATION TYPE: Full Application PARISH: Castle Cary WARD: CARY DESCRIPTION: The erection of 4 no dwellings together with car parking, associated works and new access road. (GR 363770/132317) LOCATION: Millbrook House Station Road Castle Cary Somerset BA7 7BX APPLICANT: Corscombe Limited AGENT: Mr Oliver Keates WBS Planning 5 Kingswood Court Business Park Long Meadow South Brent Devon TQ10 9YS DATE ACCEPTED: 11 September 2007 REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE This report has been brought back for consideration by Members following a resolution at last months Area East Committee to defer the application to allow a site visit on 23rd May 2008. The report has been updated in the representations section where indicated and the conditions/informatives section. Site Description and Proposal Millbrook House is a circa early-mid C19 house, built of coursed Cary stone rubble with brick and Doulting stone dressings and a combination of pantile and plain tiles for the roof in a valley form; a lean-to sunroom is evident on the southern elevation. The east elevation is the principal façade and overlooks the principal garden; this elevation is visually split with water tabling with three bays rendered with bay windows and a two bay Cary stone part with less refinement. The Cary stone eastern elevation Meeting: AE2A 08:09 28 Date: 11.06.08

Transcript of OFFICER: Simon Fox (01935) 462509 APPL.NO: … · encloses a narrow courtyard additionally bounded...

OFFICER: Simon Fox (01935) 462509 APPL.NO: 07/04329/FUL APPLICATION TYPE: Full Application PARISH: Castle Cary WARD: CARY DESCRIPTION: The erection of 4 no dwellings together with car parking, associated works and new access road. (GR 363770/132317) LOCATION: Millbrook House Station Road Castle Cary Somerset BA7 7BX APPLICANT: Corscombe Limited AGENT: Mr Oliver Keates WBS Planning 5 Kingswood Court Business Park Long Meadow South Brent Devon TQ10 9YS DATE ACCEPTED: 11 September 2007 REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE This report has been brought back for consideration by Members following a resolution at last months Area East Committee to defer the application to allow a site visit on 23rd May 2008. The report has been updated in the representations section where indicated and the conditions/informatives section. Site Description and Proposal

Millbrook House is a circa early-mid C19 house, built of coursed Cary stone rubble with brick and Doulting stone dressings and a combination of pantile and plain tiles for the roof in a valley form; a lean-to sunroom is evident on the southern elevation. The east elevation is the principal façade and overlooks the principal garden; this elevation is visually split with water tabling with three bays rendered with bay windows and a two bay Cary stone part with less refinement. The Cary stone eastern elevation

Meeting: AE2A 08:09 28 Date: 11.06.08

encloses a narrow courtyard additionally bounded by a range of outbuildings. The outbuildings include ‘The Cottage’ which is fitted out to a habitable standard and it is suggested has been occupied as a separate dwelling, alongside are stables and garages. Both the dwelling and the outbuildings run on a north-south axis from the back of the carriage way edge at 90degrees to Station Road (B3152). Presently vehicular access is gained off Station Road via the courtyard. The principal garden area was possibly once laid out formally and slopes up to the east. The area containing the house and outbuildings plus the garden are bounded by the River Cary (no more than a stream) immediately to the south (hence the name Millbrook House, as it is likely a Mill was once evident on the site) and a Cary stone/close panel fence to the north adjacent to Station Road. To the southwest, beyond the stream, is a well-vegetated area that currently has a number of trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order; the stream turns to continue along the northwest boundary. The whole Millbrook House site has recently been included in the Higher Flax Mills Conservation Area as part of an extension to that designation in mid 2007. Millbrook House was also subject of a Building Preservation Notice which has since ceased following a decision by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (upon advice from English Heritage) not to add the building to the statutory list (make the building a listed building). The context of the site includes Millbrook Gardens to the south (a red-brick ex-local authority estate), Amidon to the east (a reconstructed stone bungalow), Fairview Terrace to the north (a Victorian red-brick terrace), and Bridgewater Buildings and Brookfield to the west (Cary Stone terrace and large Victorian dwelling). Adjacent to the vegetated area further to the southwest is the allocated housing site within the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted 2006) ref HA/CACA/2, currently subject of application 08/00189/OUT. The proposal seeks the installation of new estate road off Station Road to the east of Millbrook House, and the erection of four dwellings. The road would be parallel to Millbrook House and the dwellings would be also arranged parallel to Millbrook House with a terrace block of three units connected to a ‘detached’ house by way of a carport. The terrace of three units is proposed as brick with a pitched roof with gabled two-storey bay windows on the frontage. Cary stone is propose for the ‘detached’ dwelling, and this plot also includes a detached garage. The proposal also includes formalising the frontage of Millbrook House with walling and railings, the reintroduction of tall Cary stonewalls on Station Road and a turning head south of the stream over a new bridge. This proposal is one of 3 schemes at Millbrook House for consideration at this Committee and needs to be considered alongside those proposals. History 08/00189/OUT Formation of vehicular and pedestrian access off Brookfields and the development of land for residential purposes with the erection of 36 dwellings - Pending 07/05327/FUL The erection of 7 no. dwellings together with car parking and associated works Pending 07/04313/FUL Conversion of Millbrook House and outbuilding to form 3 self-contained dwellings and construction of a new access road Pending 801911 The renovation of The Cottage Conditionally Approved 02.10.1980 96826/A Change of use of Millbrook House to boarding school Withdrawn 1974 96826 Outline application for residential development 1973

Meeting: AE2A 08:09 29 Date: 11.06.08

Policy Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 repeats the duty imposed under S54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and requires that decision must be made in accordance with relevant Development Plan Documents unless material considerations indicate otherwise, Conservation Areas: Section 72 of the Listed Buildings Act requires that special attention shall be paid in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. This requirement extends to all powers under the Planning Acts, not only those that relate directly to historic buildings. The desirability of preserving or enhancing the area should also, in the Secretary of State's view, be a material consideration in the planning authority's handling of development proposals that are outside the conservation area but would affect its setting, or views into or out of the area. Relevant Development Plan Documents Regional Spatial Strategy: Vis1 Expressing the Vision Vis2 Principles for Future Development EN3 Historic Environment EN4 Built Environment Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan STR1 Sustainable Development STR3 Rural Centres and Villages STR5 Development in Rural Centres and Villages Policy 1 Nature Conservation Policy 9 The Built Historic Environment Policy 35 Affordable Housing Policy 37 Facilities for Sport and Recreation within Settlements Policy 11 Areas of High Archaeological Potential Policy 49 Transport Requirements of New Development South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006) ST1 Rural Centres ST5 General Principles of Development ST6 The Quality of Development ST8 Sustainable Construction ST10 Planning Obligations EC8 Protected Species EH1 Conservation Area EH12 Areas Of High Archaeological Potential And Other Areas Of Archaeological Interest TP7 Parking Provision in Residential Areas HG1 Provision for New Housing Development HG4 Housing Densities HG7 Site Targets and Thresholds (Affordable Housing) CR2 Provision of Outdoor Playing Space and Amenity Space in New Development CR3 Off-Site Provision (Outdoor Playing Space and Amenity Space) Advice and guidance within PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS3 Housing, PPG 15 Planning and the Historic Environment and PPS 25 Development and Flood Risk.

Meeting: AE2A 08:09 30 Date: 11.06.08

Consultations Town Council - Unanimously oppose this application for a number of reasons. As the comments are detailed and represent many of the views expressed by local residents it was seen as appropriate to attach a copy of the Town Council’s response in full as Appendix 1 to this report. Highways - "I was approached for a pre-application meeting on site with the applicants and their transport consultant; I had concerns at that time regarding traffic speeds and access into the site so much so that I requested they submit a traffic speed survey and I also negotiated the closing of the existing access into the site. The visibility splays are now derived from the speed survey and I am content with their reduced length from the normal standards as they are now based on observed speeds. Those who have made representations state that the survey was carried out at the wrong time, but I would contend that as there were fewer vehicles on the road at that time then traffic speeds usually tend to be higher. The layout is generally acceptable and can form the basis of a S38 submission so that the estate road is capable of being adopted as public highway. Dropped kerb crossing points will be required with tactile paving. The car parking allocation is also acceptable. The turning head for the proposed detached garage would benefit from being slightly extended to reduce the number of vehicle manoeuvres required to turn a vehicle, but this is a minor detail which can be given further consideration at the S38 stage. The bridge over the River Cary, within the site, will require technical approval and also need to be the subject of comment by the Environment Agency. I have received representations from local residents with valid views on this application and have carefully taken these into consideration in arriving at my recommendation. The existing residents will no doubt be disappointed with my recommendation, but I have had to take into consideration all aspects of the case and on balance arrived at a decision which will provide some added benefit in that the existing very poor access to Millbrook House will be stopped up. You will also be aware that there should be a presumption for development unless overriding reasons are forthcoming. In this instance, I am of the opinion that the proposal should be approved. You will be aware that my colleague, Ian Sorenson, is dealing with the Fox’s Run site, south of Bridgwater Buildings, where there is a desire to provide a footpath link to Station Road. It would be advantageous if the two applicants could agree a route so that the link could go through this new development. Indeed, you may feel that this application is premature and should be comprehensively dealt with as part of the Fox’s Run site. In any event, there would be benefit in providing a pedestrian link through this area so as to avoid the Bridgwater Buildings route". Conditions and informatives suggested in the event of permission being granted. Conservation Manager - "Development in the conservation area must preserve or enhance the character of the area. This must be taken in the additional context of a presumption that development is acceptable in principle because the site lies within the Castle Cary development limit. The character of the Millbrook site is that of a neglected garden open to Station Rd. The conservation area was designated after the bounding wall was removed therefore the character that existed before is irrelevant. The question is whether the proposal preserves or enhances the existing character. Historic maps show previous buildings of a linear form at right angles to the street existed probably just adjacent to this site where

Meeting: AE2A 08:09 31 Date: 11.06.08

the neighbouring bungalow is situated. The fact that the land had been developed previously, is technically brownfield, is within the development limit and, since Millbrook’s listing was not confirmed, would indicate a potential for redevelopment subject to character being appropriate. Thus I consider the site offers a) potential for development of some of the land providing the character of Millbrook

can be preserved with an appropriate setting. b) potential with some precedent for a terraced form (a reference can be made to

the form of Bridgwater Buildings) c) potential for some enhancement in respect of the frontage to Station Rd,

boundary walling etc The proposals would seem to meet these requirements in terms of form (terrace at right angles to the street), preserving an appropriate setting for Millbrook (that is not the original setting but an appropriate one because its setting at the point of Conservation Area designation was compromised by the missing wall and neglected state of the land) by way of walls and railings addressing a new street in the traditional way and repair of the Station Rd frontage. The proposal allows for a reasonable private garden area to secure a setting for Millbrook House and relegates the vehicle access appropriately to the rear of the building". Landscape Architect - The comments of the Landscape Architect hinged on the matter of the listing of Millbrook House. If the house was not to be listed and accepting that the site is located within the development area then the principle of development may be acceptable. Comments revolved around the need to attain a detailed tree plan. Tree Officer - After serving a provisional Tree Preservation Order that initial holding protection has been replaced by the designation of the site within the extended Conservation Area which means any work to trees require consent from the LPA. The tree officer has some issues with tree categorisation within the tree report but highlights the importance of the streamside planting to the rear of Bridgewater Buildings. Emphasis is being placed on tree planting in the scheme. There is the need for a tree protection plan up front or to be conditioned. Ecologist - "I’ve now seen and checked the submitted great crested newt and phase 1 ecological surveys. I’m satisfied with the level of survey that has been undertaken, and advise that there are no ecological constraints in respect of this development". Environment Agency - No objection subject to the suggested conditions and informatives being included within any decision to approve. County Archaeology - "This proposal has the potential to impact on remains relating to an early mill which the HER indicates is likely to be located on this site. I have discussed this with the applicant and agreed that a watching brief should take place during development. For this reason I recommend that the applicant be required to provide archaeological monitoring of the development and a report on any discoveries made. This should be secured by the use of model condition 55 attached to any permission granted" Environmental Protection Unit - No observations. Wessex Water - A foul sewer crosses the site (south of the stream) and points of connection should be agreed at the detailed design stage Technical Engineer - Surface water disposal via soakaways.

Meeting: AE2A 08:09 32 Date: 11.06.08

Representations The application was advertised by way of a site notice and local press advert. In addition adjoining neighbours were notified in writing. A number of representations (20+) have been received as a consequence of this application together with the proposals for the conversion of the listed building ( 07/04313/FUL) and a summary of those comments are listed below: *Significant distain over the demolition of the boundary wall with Station Road on two counts; firstly the fact it was demolished as it was a feature in the street and historically significant and secondly the apparent manner in which it was demolished (on Good Friday with no consultation). *Contrary to Conservation Area policy EH1. The development would not preserve or enhance the area but cause harm to the character, setting and appearance of the newly designated Conservation Area. *Destroying the town’s heritage by removing the open ground and sense of space around the house would permanently damage the street scene of Station Road therefore failing the test of making ‘a positive contribution to the character, setting and appearance of the area’. *The proposed conversion of Millbrook House would destroy its character. *The property has a historical significance being the home of the Donne Family, a well-know local family and employer with strong links to the Flax Mills nearby. *Contravenes policies EH3 and EH5, alterations to a Listed Building and setting of a Listed Building. A noble building will be reduced to semi-detached houses with no gardens. *The estate road would require the felling of prominent trees subject to TPO’s, adding to the fact the development would not make a positive contribution to the area. It seems strange to protect trees and then allow them to be felled. *Concern over the potential future development of the vegetated area to the south of the stream. Plans should be made public now and a comprehensive development considered. *The proposal would damage wildlife. The local nature reserve should be extended to include the vegetated area. *The presence of important archaeology on the site (a former mill) would be destroyed by this development, contrary to policy EH12. *The access point would be dangerous and add to an existing busy and congested area with the presence of on-street parking. Vehicle speeds on Station Road are also high and visibility would be low. Children, toddlers and mothers with pushchairs use this route and would be at risk with a new access. The development would deprive residents of Station Road of their on-road parking. The traffic survey submitted is not representative of the true situation. *If this application is considered on its own merits the existing entrance to Millbrook House is perfectly adequate, especially if the existing gates were moved back to allow

Meeting: AE2A 08:09 33 Date: 11.06.08

cars to drive directly off Station Road. This has been the main vehicular/pedestrian access since Millbrook was built and I do not believe there has been any problem. UPDATE A letter has been received from a local representative of RoadPeace, a charity supporting road crash victims. The letter raises concern over the number of additional vehicles that would use Station Road should this application be approved and the increased possibility of crashes on Station Road. A lower speed limit on Station Road and/or protection for users of Station Road is suggested. Considerations The application raises a number of issues which will be discussed in turn. The Boundary Wall The starting point in considering this application is demolition of the 150-year old Cary Stone boundary wall on Station Road. The representations summarised in this report highlight this as the basis for a number of objections. It is factually the case that neither planning permission nor Conservation Area Consent was required for the works as the Conservation Area status was not present at that time. Even having said that the subsequent designation of the site within an extended Conservation Area may not have been able to preserve the wall in its complete state. Since a landmark High Court ruling in 1997 (Shimizu (UK) Limited v Westminster City Council [1997] 1 All E.R.481) the issue of demolition and partial demolition in Conservation Areas has been weighted against the preservation of those features which actually gives the area its special architecture character. This ruling became known as the Shimizu judgement. It is regrettable that the wall has been lost but as planning legislation gives householders a multitude of different rights that when exercised may affect the appearance of an individual property or affect the character and appearance of an area. These rights can be exercised without consultation with or influence from the Local Planning Authority. This can include the partial or substantial demolition of walls, and outbuildings, the erection of extensions and the replacement of windows. Following reports of the demolition, a view was taken that planning permission was not required and thus the works fell outside any control. A Building Preservation Notice was served immediately to halt the potential for further works. This had the effect of temporarily preserving the building whilst the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (upon advice from English Heritage) decided whether to add the building to the statutory list (designate it a listed building) and for the LPA to communicate with the landowner to understand the future intentions. A Building Preservation notice expires after 6 months or upon the decision to list or not list the building. The Listing Decision Following the Building Preservation Notice a case was put to English Heritage outlining why there was a case to list the building. Some months later the decision was issued stating that the building would not be listed. The report states that when judged as a mid-C19 house, Millbrook House is by no means exceptional and is fairly typical of a middle-class house of this date. Internally, it was concluded, there are no features of special interest and again what remains is fairly standard and characteristic of the period. In terms of historic significance it was judged that association with the Donne family is of

Meeting: AE2A 08:09 34 Date: 11.06.08

some interest particularly when considered in light of the spatial relationship with Higher Flax Mills, however the association is not enough to raise the overall significance of Millbrook House to a level of national importance. The Building Preservation Notice has since ceased and therefore the property is currently a non-listed building in a Conservation Area and therefore the consideration of this application does not have regard to national or local policies concerning the setting of listed buildings. The Principle of Development The site is located within the defined development limits of Castle Cary where the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted 2006) states that development is acceptable in principle and builds on advice from Government. Government guidance in the guise of Planning Policy Statements 1 and 3 promote sites like this for development due to their close relationship to the town centre. PPS1 sets out the strategic role of planning in delivering sustainable development. In support of its objective of creating mixed and sustainable communities, the Government’s policy is to ensure that housing is developed in suitable locations which offer a range of community facilities and with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. A key objective is that Local Planning Authorities should continue to make effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed. Although it may be argued that the garden of Millbrook House has no buildings on it, the Government’s definition states, ‘Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.’ The national annual target is that at least 60 per cent of new housing should be provided on previously developed land. As the principle of development is acceptable the determination should revolve around the material considerations. Given this policy stance the principle of development in this location is accepted. Highways The impact of the development on the highway network is a key issue for local people. The key reasons for objecting and expressing concern include the potential lack of visibility by way of parked cars on the road, the loss of on-street parking for local people and increased activity coupled with existing high speeds along a relatively straight piece of road which ends with a sharp bend. There were also criticisms that the Speed Survey undertaken in support of the application was carried out at a time to influence the results favorably. The County Highway’s officer has considered this view in arriving at a recommendation of no objections. Given that the highway authority are not objecting to the proposal it would be unreasonable to base a reason for refusal on this issue. Design and Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area Given the decision not to list the building all reference to Listed building policy has been excluded despite the comments on this aspect made by local residents. However the issues of design, layout and the resultant impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area are still relevant. To achieve the objectives of utilising available land more efficiently minimum density requirements are imposed. An assessment has been made with regard to the sites setting and context and as such the development of the site with four houses would constitute a development at an appropriate density. Good design is fundamental to using land efficiently. Local Planning Authorities are required to facilitate good design by identifying the distinctive features that define the

Meeting: AE2A 08:09 35 Date: 11.06.08

character of a particular local area. The views of the Conservation Manager are noted and the key points to take from these comments is the need to assess the proposal against the sites current character and the fact the site is within development limits where there is a presumption in favour of development. In detail, the layout and form of the development takes its cue from the existing built form replicating the features of Millbrook House rather than its nearest neighbour Amidon. Located at 90 degrees to the road akin to Millbrook House the entrance will be framed with new high walling and creating a new formal streetscene entering the site whilst reinforcing historic character. The issue of harm by way of overshadowing and overlooking revolves around the relationship of the proposed dwellings with the neighbouring property Amidon. Amidon sits virtually on a north-south axis with principle windows facing north and south. There are no significant openings on the west elevation facing the application site. In terms of overshadowing the proposal is not imposing as Amidon is set higher than the application site and some excavation will take place to lower the properties further (1.9m). Coupled with this is a proposed 2m high fence and the total screening effect is therefore approx 4m. The eaves level is set at 4.4m and the ridge of the northernmost unit is shown on the cross section drawings as only 600-700mm higher than the bungalow ridge. The other two terraced units are set at a lower height. The terrace is approx 7m from the flank end of the bungalow and given the juxtaposition in terms of height and the general form of properties in the area it is considered overshadowing is not an issue. In terms of overlooking the rear elevation of the terrace block contains five first floor windows. Three of these are bathroom windows and will therefore be obscured and the two remaining windows serve bedrooms. Given the vertical location of the windows, the fact a 2m boundary fence could be erected 1m from the gable end of the bungalow and the front of the property is within the public domain being visible from the public highway it is not considered that harm would be caused by way of overlooking. This view is similar when considering the ‘detached’ house in that it is distant from the bungalow so as not to overshadow and only has one first floor window, which faces the bungalow, and this is a secondary bedroom window. Trees and Wildlife Surveys have been conducted regarding the potential impact on trees and wildlife. The area to the south of the River Cary is well vegetated and as such the construction of the turning head and parking area will require the felling of several trees. Some of these trees are locally prominent but being located within the middle of the site they do not have wider significant landscape impact in themselves other than within the wider group on the site. The submitted landscaping plan also proposes new tree planting as mitigation. It is not felt that the proposal to fell several of the trees located in the dense area of planting to the south of the stream will impact significantly on the visual amenity of the area nor would demonstrably harm the setting of the Conservation Area. Many of the lesser trees could be removed under the ‘Notification of Intent to Carry Out Works to Trees in a Conservation Area’ procedure, as they are not suitable for individual protection. The protection of the whole group is more likely to be successful as a collective impact which the removal of the trees proposed will not detrimentally affect. The wildlife survey concentrated on Great Crested Newts which were suspected as inhabiting two small ponds on site which would be removed to allow for the road. The application site may also be a forging area for the badger sett to the far south of the Millbrook House site. However, no Great Crested Newts were found. The Council’s Ecologist has no issues with the ecological information submitted and stated there are no ecological constraints to developing the site.

Meeting: AE2A 08:09 36 Date: 11.06.08

Archaeology Many residents have raised the issue of archaeology. Following the initial response from the County Council’s Archaeologist the comments of local people were referred back for further comments and justification; the response is detailed here: "In this case the site is within an Area of High Archaeological Potential (as defined by the Local Plan) so this office was consulted in order to assess any archaeological issues with a development proposal. Local Plan Policy EH12 states: "Planning permission will not be granted for development which would damage or destroy areas of high archaeological potential, or sites where there is good reason to believe there may be remains of archaeological importance, unless the importance of the development outweighs the local significance of the remains. Where planning permission is granted, a programme for recording the finds or a mitigation strategy should be agreed with the council if necessary. In this case the site is recorded on the Somerset County Council Historic Environment Record (HER). The record states: Millbrook House" printed on OSAD 6" map. C19 mill, possibly on the site of a medieval mill. There is a millstream on the site which terminates at on the area where the OS map notes the mill. So at present there is evidence of a 19th century (i.e. Victorian) mill (most likely a horsehair mill as described by Aston and Leech in their book Historic Towns in Somerset). Within Aston & Leech it also suggests that this may be on the site of an earlier medieval mill. There is no evidence, either documentary or physical of an earlier structure. There have been two recent archaeological evaluation excavations in this area (one in 2000 and another in 2005). The first took place in Millbrook gardens and the more recent investigation was in the adjacent plot (to the east of Amidon and west of the Surgery. Both the evaluations have similar results shown that substantial landscaping of this area has taken place in the last two hundred years (quite likely as part of the building work associated with the Victorian Mill). No evidence of any earlier activity has been recovered from this area and the two excavations revealed only Victorian or later artefacts. Therefore, my assessment of the proposal site is that there is no evidence of any activity earlier than the 19th century in the surrounding area despite having two archaeological investigations. All the evidence from the two excavations show the area was most likely developed in the Victorian period. Therefore, in terms of significant archaeological remains the site has a low potential as the demolished remains of a Victorian Mill are considered to be of low archaeological importance but to have local interest. Therefore, sufficient information concerning the archaeological potential exists without the requirement for further archaeological pre-determination evaluation (because of the evaluation on the adjacent site and the uniformity of evidence from this area). Based on this assessment it is my recommendation that the development does have the potential to reveal structural remains associated with the Victorian Mill. Therefore, a condition should be placed on permission requiring the applicant to carry out an agreed programme of archaeological work. In this case that programme should involve archaeological monitoring of all groundwork's and where remains are encountered they should be recorded before and impact from the development process. This accords with Policy EH12 as a mitigation strategy will be agreed which records the remains which are considered of low archaeological significant (but of local interest). In other words the significance of the archaeological remains is not of sufficient value to warrant refusal or require preservation in-situ of the remains. If structural remains relating to the Victorian Mill are encountered during development these will be fully recorded by the contracting archaeologist to

Meeting: AE2A 08:09 37 Date: 11.06.08

professional nationally agreed standards. I will be responsible for monitoring the archaeological work to ensure all work is carried out to these standards. Following this recording development work could continue". Recreational Infrastructure The proposal contains no provision for on-site play space and given the number of units created does not trigger a direct requirement for such, but when coupled with other proposals there would be the need for a recreational infrastructure contribution for off-site development. Such a provision will be secured by condition requiring a legal agreement; of which the applicant has submitted a draft. Conclusion This application raises many topics of debate which have been individually considered. On balance of all the relevant issues on this site it is concluded that the proposal would represent an appropriate form of development within the Conservation area and thus is acceptable subject to conditions. Section 106 Planning Obligation A legal agreement will be required to secure the off-site play which is covered by condition. RECOMMENDATION Permission be Granted subject to the conditions and notes listed below: JUSTIFICATION Notwithstanding the comments made by local residents and the Town Council concerning the potential impact to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the impact on the safety of Station Road and piecemeal development of the site, the proposal is of a scale, nature and design which replicates the historic form of the locality, creates a new public frontage to Millbrook House and makes the most efficient use of land with the development area in a manner that preserves the existing character and appearance of the Conservation Area and develops the site in a way that the residential amenity of existing and future occupiers is safeguarded. The proposal is therefore is accordance with the advice and guidance contained within Planning Policy Statements 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development, 3 – Housing, Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 – Planning and the Historic Environment and Planning Policy Statement 25 – Development and Flood Risk; policies Vis1, Vis2, EN3 and EN4 of the Regional Spatial Strategy; policies STR1, STR3, STR5, 1, 9, 11 and 49 of the Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan (Adopted 2000) and policies ST1, ST5, ST6, EC8, EH1, EH12, CR2 and CR3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006). Conditions: 01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission. Reason: To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country

Planning Act 1990.

Meeting: AE2A 08:09 38 Date: 11.06.08

02. The development shall not begin until details of a scheme for the provision of recreational infrastructure to meet the needs of the development in accordance with development plan policies has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include a timetable for the provision to be made and shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order the site provides recreational infrastructure to ensure

compliance with policies CR2 and CR3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006).

03. No works shall be carried out unless particulars of following materials (including

the provision of samples) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to be used for:

- external walls, roofs, chimneys, water tabling and rainwater goods; - details (materials, finish, recess and design) of all new windows and doors; - details (materials, finish and design) of all verge, eaves/fascia board detailing; - details of all internal and external boundary treatments (heights and copings);

and - surface treatments for all access drives, parking and turning areas and access

paths/new areas of hardstanding. Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the area to accord with

policies ST6 and EH1 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006). 04. No works shall be carried out unless sample panels of stonework and brickwork

have been provided on site for inspection and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the development shall be carried out in accordance with the panel.

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the area to accord with

policies ST6 and EH1 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006). 05. No works shall be carried out unless details of the internal ground floor levels of

the buildings to be erected on the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the area and the

safeguard residential amenity to accord with policies ST6 and EH1 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006).

06. No works shall be carried out unless full details of the bridge crossing has been

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the area to accord with

policies ST6 and EH1 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006). 07. No works shall be carried out unless there has been submitted to and approved

in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of the development, as well as details of any changes proposed in existing ground levels; all planting, seeding, turfing or earth moulding comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the building or the completion of the development,

Meeting: AE2A 08:09 39 Date: 11.06.08

whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the area to accord with

policies ST6 and EH1 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006). 08. In accordance with Condition 07 'retained tree' means an existing tree which is to

be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs a) and b) below shall have effect until the expiration of five years from the date of first occupation of the any of the dwellings hereby permitted.

a) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work).

b) If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. c) The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree shall be undertaken in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the area to accord with policies ST6 and EH1 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006).

09. Prior to the development hereby approved being first brought into use all windows

shown serving bathrooms in the rear (east) elevation of Units 1-3 shall be fitted with obscure glass and shall be permanently retained and maintained in this fashion thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity to accord with policy ST6 of the

South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006). 10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed in any of the units or outbuildings, and no fences, gates or walls shall be erected within the curtilage of any dwellinghouse hereby permitted other than those expressly authorised by this permission, without the prior express grant of planning permission.

Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the building and in the interests of

residential amenity to accord with policies ST6 and EH1 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006).

Meeting: AE2A 08:09 40 Date: 11.06.08

11. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no outbuildings shall be erected within the curtilage of any dwelling hereby permitted and there shall be no extensions to any building without the prior express grant of planning permission.

Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the building to accord with policies ST6

and EH1 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006). 12. If the development, including any demolition, hereby permitted does not

commence within the period of 1 year from the date of the most recent wildlife surveys, then a further survey shall be commissioned to ascertain any changes in protected species presence or activity before work commences. Such surveys shall be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing before work commences along with any further mitigation proposals that may be necessary as a result of any significant changes in species activity.

Reason: To ensure the conservation of protected species in accordance with

Policy EC8 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006). 13. No development hereby approved shall take place until the applicant, or their

agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme or archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard the opportunity to record archaeological remains to accord

with Policy EH12 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006). 14. No new buildings, structures (including gates, walls and fences) or raised ground

levels shall be within 10 metres of the top of any bank of watercourses, inside or along the boundary of the site, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To maintain access to the watercourse for maintenance or

improvements and provide for overland flood flows to accord with PPS25. 15. No works shall commence until a plan has been agreed with the LPA for the

conservation and protection of the River Cary and its riparian vegetation during construction and thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that recommendations within the ecological survey are

followed and to protect the integrity of the River Cary as a wildlife corridor in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 9.

16. No work shall commence on the development site until the existing access to

Millbrook House has been stopped up and carried out in accordance with a design and specification to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and to be fully implemented in accordance with those details that have been approved.

Reason: In the interests of Highway Safety to accord with Policy 49 of the

Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan (Adopted 2000).

Meeting: AE2A 08:09 41 Date: 11.06.08

17. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use a properly consolidated and surfaced access shall be constructed (not loose stone or gravel) details of which shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Within those details provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water so as to prevent its discharge onto the highway, details of which shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the development hereby permitted first being brought into use.

Reason: In the interests of Highway Safety to accord with Policy 49 of the

Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan (Adopted 2000). 18. The proposed estate roads, footways, footpaths, tactile paving, cycleways,

verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses, carriageway gradients, drive gradients, car parking and street furniture shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before their construction begins. For this purpose, plans and sections, indicating as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the roads are laid out and constructed in a satisfactory

manner to accord with Policy 49 of the Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan (Adopted 2000).

19. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following:

• The access hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until drop kerbs have been installed at the carriageway edge and a vehicle cross-over constructed across the footway fronting the site for the width of the access.

• The gradients of the proposed drives to the dwellings and the access road thereto hereby permitted shall not be steeper than 1 in 10.

• The dwellings hereby approved shall not be occupied until the turning space shown on the submitted plan, drawing no: 07/011/07, has been properly consolidated and surfaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Such turning space shall be kept clear of obstruction at all times.

• The proposed roads, including footpaths and turning spaces where applicable, shall be constructed in such a manner as to ensure that each dwelling before it is occupied shall be served by a properly consolidated and surfaced footpath and carriageway to at least base course level between the dwelling and existing highway.

• The carport shall remain an open structure available for the parking of vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted and shall not be fitted with doors or gates of any description.

Reason: To ensure that the development is served by an adequate means of

access and in the interests of highway safety to accord with Policy 49 of the Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan (Adopted 2000).

NOTES (if any) 01. The applicant is reminded of the following highway authority informatives:

Meeting: AE2A 08:09 42 Date: 11.06.08

- The alteration of the access will involve construction works within and or abutting the existing highway limits. These works must be agreed in advance with the Highway Services Manager at Somerset Highways, Mead Avenue, Houndstone Business Park, Yeovil Tel. No. 01935 84500. - The applicant is advised that the Highway Service Manager, at Somerset Highways, Mead Avenue, Houndstone Business Park, Yeovil Tel. No. 01935 84500, must be consulted with regard to the required reinstatement of the verge/footway crossing at the access which is to be closed. - Where works are to be undertaken on or adjoining the publicly maintainable highway a licence under Section 171 of the Highways Act 1980 must be obtained in writing from the Highway Authority. Application forms can be obtained by writing to Roger Tyson of the Transport Development Group, Environment Department, County Hall, Taunton, TA1 4DY or by telephoning him on 01823 356011. Applications should be submitted at least four weeks before works are proposed to commence in order for statutory undertakers to be consulted concerning their services. The fee for a section 171 Licence is £100. This will entitle the developer to have his plans checked and specifications supplied. The works will also be inspected by the Superintendence team and will be signed off upon satisfactory completion.

02. The applicant is reminded of the following Environment Agency informatives:

- The proposal includes a new watercourse crossing, details of which may require the prior formal consent of the Environment Agency under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991. The applicant should note the installation of a clear span bridge without any in-channel works (including temporary works) is recommended and is unlikely to require the Environment Agency's consent under the legislation. However details of the crossing should be submitted to the Environment Agency so confirmation as to whether consent is required can be made. - The development should include water efficient appliances, fittings and systems in order to contribute to reduced water demand in the area. These should include, as a minimum, dual-flush toilets, water butts, spray taps, low flow showers (no power showers) and white goods (where installed) with the maximum water efficiency rating. Greywater recycling and rainwater harvesting should be considered. - Safeguards should be implemented during the construction phase to minimise the risks of pollution and detrimental effects to the water interests in and around the site. Such safeguards should cover the use of plant and machinery, oils/chemicals and materials; the use and routing of heavy plant and vehicles; the location and form of work and storage areas and compounds and the control and removal of spoil and wastes.

03. The developer is advised to contact Wessex Water at an early stage of detailed

design to agree points of connection and the agree a scheme for the protection of Wessex Water infrastructure crossing the site.

Meeting: AE2A 08:09 43 Date: 11.06.08

APPENDIX 1 - Town Council response. CASTLE CARY TOWN COUNCIL The Market House, Market Place, Castle Cary BA7 7AH Tel: 01963 359631 Email: [email protected] www.castlecary.org.uk PLANNING OBSERVATION FORM 07/04313/FUL & 07/04329/FUL 1st -Conversion of Millbrook House and outbuilding to form 3 no. self-contained

dwellings and construction of a new access road 2nd - The erection of 4 no. dwellings together with car parking, associated works and

new access road Observations Messrs E. Cohen, R. Holden, K. Stevens, J. Call, and Mmes S. Nash, J. Stevens and A. Jayne; (apologies if any name-spelling errors) spoke in opposition to the application, citing the following principal issues: 1. The legal "vandalism" in the destruction of the ancient wall adjoining Station Road

had caused widespread anger in the community, there being no consultation. It happened, without notice, on Good Friday 2007, when SSDC personnel were on holiday.

2. The plans represent the thin edge of a wedge, whereby development might continue back into the wooded area beyond the development application.

3. Full site plans and intentions are necessary - not just those relating to the current application.

4. The construction of the new dwellings would present an invasion of privacy to neighbours, through overlooking. Also, there is the potential for noise and light pollution.

5. The development would contravene SSDC Planning Policy sections EH1, EH3 and EH5, through detrimental effects to the character of Millbrook House and its gardens, old Station Road houses (different alignment), and the general environs.

6. Traffic volumes and speeds, detailed in the applicant's consultant's report, are unrepresentative. Another access/egress point onto station road would present dangers during construction works and after, to drivers and pedestrians, most especially children walking to school. Also, much sought-after parking for other local residents would be curtailed. Furthermore, the Crown Petfoods factory will generate still more vehicular traffic in Station Road than detailed in the traffic consultant's report.

7. The newly-defined Conservation Area around Millbrook House and Bridgwater Buildings should enable preservation of the gardens and wildlife at Millbrook House. The new development would create a precedent for the destruction of the remainder of the wooded area adjoining the development site. The County Council has announced an initiative to preserve wildlife, with which this development is incompatible.

8. The creation of a more built-up area, and tarmac road, would cause more water run-off towards Bridgwater Buildings and Brookfields, which are already at risk from flooding.

Meeting: AE2A 08:09 44 Date: 11.06.08

The Committee deliberated and considered that: 1. The applicants state that they have treated Millbrook House as if a Listed

Building, in advance of a determination by English Heritage. In principle, this places Millbrook House within the ambit of paragraph 4.3(1) of the South Somerset Local Plan, for the "preservation and enhancement of the character and appearance of the built environment". Also, new developments should "preserve and preferably enhance the historic environment" ; (paragraph 4.3(4)). The destruction of the Cary-stone wall abutting Station Road on Good Friday 2007 goes against this ethos, and demonstrates a cavalier attitude on the part of the developers toward Castle Cary, its residents and heritage. SSDC should take measures to prevent further destruction of the local heritage and town character.

2. English Heritage should be pressed for a decision concerning the status of Millbrook House. CCTC considers that it should become a Listed Building formally, given its importance to the history of Castle Cary.

3. An holistic view of the entire Millbrook House/Bridgwater Buildings/Flax Mills complex should be taken, in this application and any potential developments. CCTC therefore considers that the developers should declare their hand over plans for the entirety of the site purchased. Policy EH1 supports this stance, as does paragraph 4.4 of the Conservation Area policy. The destruction of Millbrook House's garden and ponds (for road construction), and the potential for destruction of the wooded area to the south of the present development site, are contradictory to the duty of SSDC to designate Conservation Areas "the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance", and "to ensure that there is no harm to the character and appearance of the area".

4. The 4 new dwellings are out of line with the historic development line of Station Road, being opposite Millbrook House and at 90 degrees to the cottages in Station Road. This would contravene Policy EH1 paragraph 1, requiring a development to "conform with the historical pattern of development and development boundaries."

5. Millbrook House should remain as a single dwelling, as it was the home of the Donne family (Flax Mills owners) and is a key feature of the history and character of Castle Cary. It should not be converted into 2 dwellings with 2 front doors, fencing and a road in front. This stance is supported by paragraph 4.14 of the Local Plan, which states that "alterations to a listed building, even of a minor nature, can destroy the architectural integrity of an historic building and its setting." NB : the proposals themselves state they treat Millbrook House as if a Listed Building.

6. The gardens and ponds associated with the house should not be destroyed for road construction and new development. Even though great crested newts and bats are not in evidence, there is other wildlife in abundance, and the house with gardens form an integral, historic unit. To allow the development would contravene Policy EH3, which states that "planning permission will only be granted for development, …., that does not adversely affect the character of a listed building, its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses..

7. Overall, the proposals contained in the two applications would destroy the integrity of the entire Millbrook House, gardens, Bridgwater Buildings, Flax Mills and Station Road complex. Millbrook House and the gardens around it are very unusual for a market town centre, and represent an important part of Castle Cary's history. Any development, such as proposed, would contravene Policy EH5, which states that "planning permission will not be permitted for development that would have an adverse effect of the setting of a listed building or its contribution to the local scene." Furthermore, paragraph 4.27 in the "Historic Parks and Gardens" section of the Local Plan states that "the informal parklands and gardens created around large country houses in the 18th and 19th centuries

Meeting: AE2A 08:09 45 Date: 11.06.08

are historic landscapes in their own right, particularly as an element in the development of the historic rural landscape… Therefore the District Council will seek to safeguard …a number of additional parks and gardens deemed worthy of protection, from unsuitable development." This is further supported by paragraph 4.31, which states "open areas of land within villages and towns are often an important part of the street scene or character of the settlement … Consequently, the loss of any of these important areas of open space would damage the character of settlements and development will generally be resisted…"

8. The new access road would create additional hazards for drivers and pedestrian users of Station Road. The applicant's traffic survey took place between 10:00 and 12:00 on Tuesday 21 August 2007, under good weather conditions. The report states that no pedestrians, cyclists or traffic queues were noted. The data are unrepresentative of the typical daily situation. Station Road is very busy with traffic and pedestrians, especially during commuting periods, morning and evening, plus school drop-off and collection times. Many children and parents with prams use the paths. Traffic queues do form, either when parked vehicles allow for single vehicle passing only, or when congestion in the town centre causes an overspill of traffic back into Station Road. Heavy vehicles also use Station Road - being buses, delivery vehicles heading to and from the town centre, or access/egressing the industrial estate in Torbay Road. This will be exacerbated when the Crown Petfoods factory begins operations in November 2007. Finally, residents' vehicles, parked of necessity in Station Road, would obscure the vision of drivers leaving the intended access road at the site.

9. If the development were to proceed, the walls either side of the access road, on Station Road, should be faced in Cary-stone, to blend with other old stone walls adjacent.

10. If the development were to proceed, tree plantings should be of semi-mature trees, not saplings, to accelerate the landscaping process.

11. The site boundary is marked incorrectly at the Station Road side, and includes the public highway.

12. Plans for the entire site, including the wooded area beyond, should be furnished by the applicant. Apart from the issues surrounding preservation of that area, given that it contains some important trees and woodland groups, the nature of intended housing should be made known. This should include details of "affordable housing" which should form part of any new development, so as to meet local needs; say, at 35% of the total dwellings for the present applications' site, plus the remainder of the area owned by the applicant.

13. Some residents adjoining the site (eg Millbrook Gardens) have not received notice of these planning applications, and should have the opportunity to comment individually. This point of procedure should be corrected before any decision is made by SSDC.

Decision: OPPOSED unanimously.

Meeting: AE2A 08:09 46 Date: 11.06.08