Enquiries to:
Nicola Ferguson
Direct Dial: 024 7637 6226
Direct Email: [email protected]
Date: 20th October, 2014 Our Ref: NJF
Dear Sir/Madam,
A meeting of the PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE will be held at the Civic Hall, Bedworth on Tuesday 28th October, 2014 at 5.00 p.m.
Public Consultation on planning applications will commence at 5.00 p.m. (see Agenda Item No. 5 for clarification).
Yours faithfully,
ALAN FRANKS
Managing Director
To: All Members of the Planning (Councillors W.J. Hancox (Chair), Applications Committee J.B. Beaumont, I.C. Bonner, R.G. Copland, J. Foster, D. Harvey, P.D. Hickling, B.J. Longden, A.A. Lloyd, D.C. Navarro, N.J.P. Phillips, G.D. Pomfrett and J. Sheppard)
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 1
AGENDA
PART I - PUBLIC BUSINESS
1. EVACUATION PROCEDURE
A fire drill is not expected during this meeting.
In the unlikely event that the Civic Hall needs to be evacuated, the Civic Hall management will take control of the situation and issue all necessary instructions.
If you need any assistance in evacuating the building, please make yourself known to a member of staff.
Please also make sure all your mobile phones are turned off or set to silent.
2. APOLOGIES - To receive apologies for absence from the meeting.
3. MINUTES - To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 7th October, 2014 (attached). (Page 4)
4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary and Other Interests, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.
Note: Following the adoption of the new Code of Conduct, Members are reminded that they should declare the existence and nature of their personal interests at the commencement of the relevant item (or as soon as the interest becomes apparent). If that interest is a Disclosable Pecuniary or a Deemed Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, the Member must withdraw from the room.
Where a Member has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest but has received a dispensation from Standards Committee, that Member may vote and/or speak on the matter (as the case may be) and must disclose the existence of the dispensation and any restrictions placed on it at the time the interest is declared.
Where a Member has a Deemed Disclosable Interest as defined in the Code of Conduct, the Member may address the meeting as a member of the public as set out in the Code.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 2
Note: Council Procedure Rules require Members with Disclosable Pecuniary Interests to withdraw from the meeting unless a dispensation allows them to remain to vote and/or speak on the business giving rise to the interest.
Where a Member has a Deemed Disclosable Interest, the Council’s Code of Conduct permits public speaking on the item, after which the Member is required by Council Procedure Rules to withdraw from the meeting.
5. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION ON WHICH THE PUBLIC HAVE INDICATED A DESIRE TO SPEAK. EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED 3 MINUTES ONLY TO MAKE THEIR POINTS – the report of the Head of Development Control attached. (Schedule Page No. 7)
6. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION ON WHICH NO MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC HAS INDICATED A DESIRE TO SPEAK – the report of the Head of Development Control attached. (Schedule Page No. 7)
7. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF PRACTICE FOR COUNCILLORS AND OFFICERS DEALING WITH PLANNING MATTERS – the report of the Director – Governance and Recreation attached. (Page No. 125)
8. ANY OTHER ITEMS which in the opinion of the Chair of the meeting should be considered as a matter of urgency because of special circumstances (which must be specified).
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 3 - 22 -
NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL
PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 7th October, 2014
A meeting of the Planning Applications Committee was held at the Town Hall, Nuneaton on Tuesday, 7th October, 2014.
Present
Councillor W.J. Hancox – Chair
Councillors J.B. Beaumont, I.C. Bonner, J. Foster, D. Harvey, P.D. Hickling, A.A. Lloyd, B.J. Longden, D.C. Navarro, N.J.P. Phillips, G.D. Pomfrett and J. Sheppard.
Apologies for absence from the meeting were received from Councillor R.G. Copland.
PLA24 Minutes
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 23rd September, 2014 be confirmed.
PLA25 Declarations of Interest
The following members declared interests in respect of the applications indicated (the reasons for the declaration of interests are recorded in the relevant minute or in the schedule).
Councillor J.B. Beaumont : in any relevant item by reason of him being a member of Warwickshire County Council
Councillor P.D. Hickling : 032824/GC
Councillor A.A. Lloyd : in any relevant item by reason of him being the Council’s representative on the Hospice Charity and also by reason of him being a Governor of George Eliot Hospital.
Councillor D.C. Navarro : in any relevant item by reason of his appointment as a Non-Executive Director of the George Eliot NHS Trust and 032824/GC
IN PUBLIC SESSION
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 4 - 23 -
PLA26 Chair’s Announcements
(a) The Chair informed members and the public that the meeting was to be filmed by Councillor K.A. Kondakor.
(b) The Chair reminded members that a Planning Seminar would take place on Thursday 9th October, 2014
PLA27 Planning Applications
(Note: Names of the members of the public who spoke are recorded in the Schedule.)
RESOLVED that decisions be made on applications for planning permission as shown in the attached schedule, for the reasons and with the conditions set out in the report and addendum unless stated otherwise.
______Chair
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 5 - 24 -
SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION AND RELATED MATTERS REFERRED TO IN MINUTE PLA27 OF THE PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE ON 7th OCTOBER, 2014
032886: 2 Short Street, Nuneaton – Erection of three storey building with sandwich bar (A1 use) to ground floor and offices (B1 use) to first and second floor (existing building to be demolished). Applicant: Sustainable Development Consultancy Limited
DECISION:
Approved. ______
032824: Land at Hill Farm, (Site 36C002) Plough Hill Road, Nuneaton Residential development of up to 262 dwellings and associated public open space and landscaping, up to 186 square metres of convenience retail floor space (A1 use) and school car park (all existing buildings to be demolished) (outline to include access with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved) Applicant: Gladman Developments Ltd.
DECISION:
Deferred at the request of the Applicant.
N.B. Councillor P.D. Hickling declared an Other Interest in this item as he is a Councillor for the area concerned, but he gave no indication of his voting intention.
Councillor D.C. Navarro declared an Other Interest in this item as he played golf at the Plough Hill Golf Course which was adjacent to the site.
032864: 86 Queens Road, Nuneaton Change of use from (D1) dentist surgery to 6 (C3) flats and associated works. Applicant: Mr Gurminder Sanghera
Speakers: Gurminder Sanghera
DECISION:
Refused
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 6 Planning Applications Committee 28th October 2013
Applications for Planning Permission etc. Agenda Item Index
Item Page No. No.
Previously Deferred Items
1. 032824/GC Land at Hill Farm, Plough Hill Road, Nuneaton 8
Planning Applications
2. 032668/PO Site 117C019 – Land rear of 83-119 Blackhorse Road and off 48 Stockley Road, Longford 3. 032665/WB: Site 62C004 – Land off Triton Road, Shepperton Business 76 Park, Triton Road, Nuneaton
Wards: AB Abbey AR Arbury AT Attleborough BA Barpool BE Bede BU Bulkington CH Camp Hill EX Exhall GC Galley Common HE Heath KI Kingswood PO Poplar SL Slough SN St Nicolas WB Wembrook WE Weddington WH Whitestone
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 7
DEFERRED ITEMS
Item No. 1
REFERENCE No. 032824
Site Address: Land at Hill Farm (Site 36C002), Plough Hill Road, Nuneaton
Description of Development: Residential development of up to 262 dwellings and associated public open space and landscaping, up to 186 square metres of convenience retail floor space (A1 use) and school car park (all existing buildings to be demolished) (outline to include access with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved)
Applicant: Gladman Developments Ltd
Ward: Galley Common
RECOMMENDATION: Planning Committee is recommended to refuse planning permission for the reasons as printed in terms of highways.
REASONS FOR DEFERRAL: Deferred for a site visit to allow time for the applicant to address the objections from WCC Highways.
INTRODUCTION: This is an outline application for residential development of up to 262 dwellings including public open space, landscaping, up to 186 square metres of convenience retail floor space (A1 use) and a school car park (all existing buildings to be demolished). The following matter is to be considered at this stage:
Access – accessibility to and within the site for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians in terms of the positioning and treatment of access and circulation routes and how these fit into the surrounding access network.
The following matters are reserved to be considered at a future stage and do not form part of the application:
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 8
Layout – the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces are provided within the development and their relationship to buildings and spaces outside the development. Scale – the height, width and length of each building proposed in relation to its surroundings. Appearance – The aspects of a building or place which determine the visual impression in makes, including the external built form of the development. Landscaping – Treatment of private and public space to enhance or protect the site’s amenity through hard and soft measures, for example, through planting of trees or hedges or screening by fences or walls.
The following supporting documents have been submitted with the application: Air Quality Screening Report; Arboricultural Assessment; Archaeological Desk Based Assessment; Design and Access Statement; Development Framework Plan; Ecological Appraisal; Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Drainage Strategy; Foul Drainage Strategy; Framework Travel Plan; Ground Conditions Desk Study; Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; Noise Screening Report; Objectively Assessed Housing Need Report; Planning Statement; Protected Habitat Report; Socio-Economic Impact of New Housing Development Report; Soil Resources and Agricultural Use and Quality Report; Statement of Community Involvement; and Transport Assessment.
Members are advised that whilst the current recommendation is one of refusal, the applicant is preparing additional information to address the recommended highways reason for refusal. WCC Highways will review this information which may result in them removing some or all of their reasons for objecting to the proposed development before Planning Applications Committee on the 28th October 2014. In the event that some or all objections are removed, or if Officers consider that the objections cannot be further substantiated as reasons for refusal, an addendum item will be prepared outlining changes to the relevant section(s) of the report and any changes to the current recommendation.
The application site comprises of 14.2 hectares of land located on sloping pasture to the immediate north of residential development off Chesterton Drive, Marlowe Close, Blake Close, Browning Close, Ruskin Close and Chaucer Drive. It is situated to the east of Plough Hill Road and consists of a series of semi-improved grassland fields enclosed by hedgerows and scattered hedgerow trees. The site has been in use for pastoral grazing in recent times, although the easternmost land parcel has been left to naturalise and contains rough grassland interspersed with self-seeded oaks and emergent scrub.
The site contains remnants of former agricultural development associated with the adjoining locally listed Hill Farm building towards the southern site boundary, including a modern Dutch barn and a small disused brick rural outbuilding, which has fallen into a state of disrepair.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 9
Plough Hill Road marks the western boundary of the site, the length of which is defined by a mature hedgerow with intermittent mature trees. Across Plough Hill Road to the southwest lies Galley Common Infant School. The eastern site boundary is aligned by the former Stockingford Branch rail line (known as The Shuntings) which is now designated as a permissive footpath and traffic free cycle route. The route is densely wooded, providing a vegetated context and visual screen to adjacent lower lying dwellings. Immediately beyond the former railway line and to the northeast of the site lies a cemetery and area of unmanaged of woodland.
Topographically, the site slopes steeply from the south to the north (approximately 137m AOD to 112m AOD), with a prominent ridgeline formed across the 130m contour line between the middle and southern sections of the site.
The on-site topographical arrangement affords wide ranging panoramic views across the rolling arable farmland landscape to the north-west and across the wider surrounding townscape of rising development and terraced residential suburbs where the skyline is punctuated by ridgeline development and woodland, notably the steep wooded ridges of former colliery works (including the disused Hartshill Quarries) and dense tree cover towards Harthill Hayes Country Park.
The immediate surrounding site context is dominated by the residential estates of Galley Common to the immediate south, Plough Hill Road (and associated ribbon development) to the west. The Plough Hill Golf and Conference Centre and the adjoining nursery, paddocks and residential curtilage to the north of the site provides a fragmented urban fringe setting adjoining the northern edge of the site.
The wider context is predominately composed of large rolling arable fields, woodland blocks and scattered agricultural development to the west, and more expansive urban expansion to the east at the outskirts of Nuneaton.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: 032716: Erection of stable block with associated hardstanding and fencing, creation of new vehicular access off Plough Hill Road and creation of new vehicular access track. Approved 13/08/2014.
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES: H3 - Affordable Housing H5 - Housing Capable of Adaption H6 - Planning Obligations ENV2 - Area of Restraint ENV3 - Rural and Urban Countryside ENV14 - Supplementary Planning Guidance / Supplementary Planning Documents. Policy ENV14 allows for consideration of the Affordable Housing SPD 2007, Residential Design Guide 2004, Transport and Roads
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 10
for Developments: The Warwickshire Guide 2001, and Warwickshire County Council’s Local Transport Plan 2011-2026 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) Appendix A of Circular 11/1995: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (as amended)
CONSULTATION NOTIFIED: Campaign to Protect Rural England, Environment Agency, National Grid, Natural England, NBBC Drainage Engineer, NBBC Environmental Health, NBBC Housing, NBBC Parks and Countryside, NBBC Planning Policy, NBBC Recreation, NBBC Refuse and Cleansing, NHS Property Services, North Warwickshire Borough Council, Nuneaton Society, Ramblers Association, Severn Trent Water, The Open Space Society, Warwickshire Fire and Rescue, Warwickshire Police, Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, WCC Archaeology, WCC Flood Risk, WCC Highways, WCC Infrastructure, WCC Planning, WCC Rights of Way, Western Power Distribution.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES: No objection subject to conditions from: Environment Agency, Natural England, NBBC Drainage Engineer, NBBC Environmental Health, NBBC Parks and Countryside, Severn Trent Water, Warwickshire Fire and Rescue, Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, WCC Flood Risk, WCC Rights of Way, WCC Archaeology.
No objection subject to planning obligations from: NBBC Housing, NBBC Parks and Countryside, WCC Infrastructure, WCC Rights of Way.
Comments from: National Grid, NBBC Planning Policy, NHS Property Services, North Warwickshire Borough Council, Ramblers Association, Warwickshire Police.
Objections from: Campaign to Protect Rural England and The Open Space Society object to the principle of the development.
WCC Highways objects that it has not been demonstrated that it would not have a significant and detrimental impact on the highway network. It has not been demonstrated: The proposed access points would provide acceptable visibility splays for actual vehicle speeds along Plough Hill Road. No additional traffic calming measures within the locality would be required. Increased queuing at the junction of Plough Hill Road/Coleshill Road would not result in an increase in drivers taking risks when exiting the junction. No additional measures to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the Plough Hill Road/Coleshill Road junction are required.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 11
Queuing at the School Hill/Coleshill Road East/ Coleshill Road West & Victoria Road/Camp Hill Road/Bucks Hill Road/ Coles Hill Road junctions.
No response from: NBBC Refuse and Cleansing, Nuneaton Society, WCC Planning, Western Power Distribution.
NEIGHBOURS NOTIFIED: 18-26 (even), 69-83 (odd), 91-99 (odd) Bettina Close. 1-17 (inc) Browning Close. 1-17 (inc) Blake Close. 1-9 (odd) Chaucer Drive. 10-66 (even), 15, 17 Chesterton Drive. St Peter’s Church, 81, 174, 176 Hickman Road. 39-57 (odd) Freesland Rise. 104-126 (even) Frensham Drive. 1-6 (inc) Kipling Close. 1-20 (inc) Marlowe Close. 43-81 (odd), 90, 92 Merlin Avenue. 203, 205, 245- 251 (odd), The Shires (247a), 271-287 (odd), 301, Galley Common Infant School, Galley Common Nursery, Hill Farm, Plough Hill Farm Cottage, Plough Hill Golf Centre, Cheeky Monkeys Day Nursery (Plough Hill Golf Centre), Sunkissed Body Boutique (Plough Hill Golf Centre), Garry Dolman Hairdressing (Plough Hill Golf Centre), Plough Hill Road. 1-15 (inc) Ruskin Close. The Elms, School Lane. 6, 14, 16, 15-19-25 (odd) Selby Way. 1-16 (inc) Swinburne Close.
Neighbouring properties were sent letters notifying them of the proposed development on the 14th July 2014. Site notices were erected on street furniture on the 14th July 2014 and the application was advertised in the Nuneaton News on the 12th July 2014.
There have now been 219 letters of objection from 177 addresses and 13 anonymous letters as well as letters from Marcus Jones MP and Councillor Kondakor. The comments are summarised below. Increase in traffic. Highway safety issues around proposed accesses and school. Traffic speeds along Plough Hill Road already high. Would add to existing congestion in and around village. Queuing at Plough Hill Road and Chapel End junction. Would need traffic lights at Plough Hill Road and Chapel End junction. Should build a roundabout on Plough Hill Road. Road widening required. Should be no parking along Plough Hill Road and Coleshill Road. Parking and traffic issues on road by Galley Common Infant School and along Plough Hill Road and Tunnel Road. Proposed school parking area inadequate, would not help and would be dangerous due to proximity to crossing. Query whether the proposed school car park would ever be built and who would manage it. Proposed convenience store would increase traffic and parking demand near school. Proposed parking provision for proposed convenience store unclear. Existing access track on site.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 12
Suggested parking restrictions on Plough Hill Road will not solve issues. Issues with transport statement. Lack of integration with surrounding area. Roads unsafe and unsuitable for walking and cycling. Bus service route and times very poor, not regular enough, pricey and at capacity. Lack of employment opportunities within area forcing people to use car due to poor public transport. Proposed bus shelters could restrict visibility. Relief road required. Snow and ice in winter and flooded roads cause access issues around village. Cumulative impact of traffic from developments in area. Not enough capacity at GP surgeries. Not enough capacity at dentists. Not enough capacity at Galley Common Infant School. Galley Common Infant School does not have space to expand. Should provide a new school. Not enough capacity at Galley Common Nursery. Not enough capacity at schools in area. Infrastructure of village could not cope. No provision for further cemetery spaces. Adverse effect on sewage/water. Increased burden on George Eliot Hospital, ambulance, fire and police services. Shops in Galley Common not sufficient to support proposed development. Amenity, park and play areas need improving. Railway station required. No play field for children proposed. No area for youth club/area for the community in the village. Condition superfast broadband should be put in place at developers expense prior to occupation/sale of dwellings on site. Loss of views. High landscape value of land. Development would be prominent in landscape. Land not included in Local Plan for development. Loss of greenfield site and countryside. Land classified as Area of Restraint and should therefore not be built on. Does not comply with policy ENV2 or ENV3 of the Local Plan. Diminishes gap between Galley Common and Chapel End/Hartshill. Not in accordance with recommendations of Nuneaton and Bedworth Land Use Designations Studies. Part of Galley Common Hills and Valleys landscape character area. Fails to conserve rural character and would increase prominence of built form in landscape.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 13
Properties would result in continuous lines of development rather than appearing as loose clusters or single farmhouses. Would not conserve rapid transition from urban to rural landscape. Fails to retain farmland on either side of Plough Hill Road to retain separation between Galley Common and Plough Hill. Development would be prominent in landscape and wouldn’t appear as individual properties or small, loose clusters. Fails to conserve and enhance woodland on high ground and wooded horizons within built form. No development proposed on site in emerging Borough Plan. Decision should be delayed until Borough Plan adopted. Lack of Borough Plan causing uncertainty and questions whether piecemeal development can deliver necessary infrastructure. Site would have been excluded from development and retained its green field status if Borough Plan was in place. Galley Common Hills and Valleys land and failed to meet criteria for strategic housing development sites in NBBC Background Paper – Assessing Options for Strategic Housing Sites. Site does not meet requirements of strategic housing sites. Loss of grazing land. Significant heritage value of land. Documentary and Manorial evidence indicates good potential to yield archaeological finds on site. History of site such that this is a non-designated heritage asset. Site either ancient defensive position or site of Anglo-Saxon hall/dwelling. Site was part of a Manor. Fields, trees and hedgerows compliment character of hills and valleys. Hill Farm is heritage asset and provides focal point in historic landscape. Plough Hill Farm Cottage is locally listed brick built barn. Rural public footpaths would be urbanised preventing interaction with non-designated heritage asset. Negative impact on character of historic landscape and former Manorial common. Lack of 5 year land supply not sufficient justification for developing historic fields. Detrimental to heritage and culture of village. Character, status and history as semi-rural village would be lost. Poor drainage on land often causing water logging/flooding. Would contribute to existing flooding problems in surrounding area. High recreation and leisure value of land (particularly for walking and horse riding). Loss of open space. Potential loss of grass public footpaths. Footpath to east site now classed as public right of way. Removal of existing footpaths and redirection nowhere near.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 14
Re-alignment of footpath would increase vehicular and pedestrian traffic in Selby Way. Negative impact on wildlife value (including bats, birds, mammals, amphibians and crayfish). Protected bat roosts on site (in barn). Neighbours area of conservation (Ensor’s Pool) and site of scientific interest (Illing’s Trenches). Loss of wildlife habitat, flora and fauna on site. Loss of established hedgerows and trees on site. Issues with footpath and hedgerow maintenance. Hedgerows are protected, species rich and important to wildlife. Hedgerows would have divided historic landscape of considerable age (potentially medieval). The Black Track is unsuitable for cycling as not maintained and muddy. Disproportionate increase in size of village by a third. Overdevelopment. High density of proposed housing. House demand already met in Galley Common through other permissions. Other permissions for housing in village have been refused. Further applications to North Warwickshire Borough Council for land off Fletchers Drift Road and Daw Mill Colliery leading to cumulative impact. Better alternative areas for housing development in Borough (e.g. brownfield land). Should secure provision of bungalows on site by condition. Should lower number of houses proposed. Noise and air pollution during construction (particularly harmful to school learning). Issues and disruption from construction vehicles and road closures during construction. New homes too small and ruin locality. Unhealthy products for sale in convenience store by school not good for health. Negative impact on health. Convenience store would have negative impact on existing shops. School is listed building. Approving application would result in further development pressure in area. Link between this application and separate application for stables on the land. Financial benefit to Council (e.g. additional taxes) may affect decision making. Errors in reports and application form. Should reduce number of houses proposed. Many houses for sale in Camp Hill. No need for new housing in this area.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 15
Predicted increase in jobs over next 18 years scaled back from 12,000 to 6,300 thereby significantly reducing further demand for new homes. Many affordable houses for sale in local area. Prolonged disruption during estimated 6-7 year construction. Contravention of human rights act. Noise, dust, air and light pollution. Reduction in air quality. Loss of security and increase in crime and anti-social behaviour. Anti-social behaviour in proposed school car park. Fly tipping. Loss of privacy, overlooking and overshadowing of homes. Visual impact of proposed development. Development would be overbearing, out of scale and out of character. Details including height and build types not known. Loss of property value. Agents/developers only interested in profit. Request site visit (particularly at school times). Not sustainable development. Part of medieval Stockingford. Site on former lands of Nuneaton Priory at dissolution by Henry VIII. Site on former historic common upon which tenants would graze animals. Stockingford member of Eaton and involved in Conqueror Survey. Area was called the Galley Gap alias the Wood Gap. Appraisal based on housing supply at April 2013 and outdated housing requirements. Permission granted for around 1,300 dwellings since April 2013. Issues with calculation of housing land supply figures. Commercial viability that will limit housing building over next 5 years. Employment and population growth not following forecasts. Coventry City Council expect internal housing demand in borough to be revised downwards. Outward migration from Borough. Beneath ground water checks carried out in September after hot summer do not reflect situation after winter and wet seasons. 130 metre contour line is most obvious stretch of green space maintaining hidden and isolated nature of village. Ridge line development is not a conspicuous feature of village. 2-2.5 storey housing on ridge would be highly intrusive. Ridge development should be left as public open space and houses should be located further down slope.
APPRAISAL: The key issues to assess in the determination of this application are:
1. Sustainable Development 2. Housing Need and Housing Land Supply 3. Land Designation and Use
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 16
4. Landscape Character and Appearance 5. Trees and Hedgerows 6. Heritage and Archaeology 7. Highway Safety, Traffic Flows and Accessibility 8. Public Rights of Way 9. Ecology 10. Flood Risk and Drainage 11. Air Quality 12. Noise 13. Contamination 14. Convenience Store Impact 15. Economic Growth 16. Planning Obligations 17. Conclusions: Sustainable Development
1. Sustainable Development The NPPF establishes the need for the planning system to achieve sustainable development which is composed of mutually dependent economic, social and environmental dimensions (paragraphs 6 and 7). There is consequently a presumption in favour of applications for sustainable development (paragraphs 49 and 197). In broad terms, this means that the application should be approved providing that it is in accordance with the development plan and other policies within the NPPF, unless material considerations or adverse impacts indicate otherwise (paragraphs 14 and 187). An assessment of this application is therefore outlined below.
2. Housing Need and Housing Land Supply
In relation to housing need and land supply, national planning policy sets out a requirement for the Council to identify a deliverable five year supply of housing land to meet the identified housing need within the Borough. It is within this context that Members will be aware that the Council has set an interim target of providing 7,900 new homes between 2010 and 2028. The number of new homes that are completed each year is subsequently monitored to establish whether the Council is on track to meet this target. The Council also looks at the number of houses with planning permission and accepted sites identified within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment to establish the housing land supply within the Borough. The results of this are then outlined within a five year land supply statement and in November 2013 this statement identified that the Borough only has a 2.7 year supply of deliverable housing land to meet the identified housing need. Appeal decisions across the country have made it clear that in such circumstances this is a matter which weighs significantly in favour of the application. Indeed, it is considered that this is a deliverable site and that it would therefore make a significant and positive contribution towards meeting the identified housing need.
Aside from general housing need, it is also recognised that the Council’s Housing Strategy Department has indicated that there is a significant need for new affordable homes across the Borough. This proposed development would
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 17
therefore help to meet that need as 25% of the new homes, i.e. up to 66 dwellings, would all be affordable. At the request of Housing, these affordable dwellings would comprise of a mix of 75% affordable rented housing and 25% shared ownership housing. This is therefore a matter which again weighs significantly in favour of the application.
3. Land Designation The application site is currently designated as an Area of Restraint (AoR) and Rural Countryside under policies ENV2 and ENV3 of the Local Plan. Policy ENV2 sets out that development will only be permitted in Areas of Restraint where the development would not adversely affect the open character or appearance of the area, taking into account possible cumulative effects. Policy ENV3 further sets out that planning permission will only be granted for development in the countryside when it qualifies with one of a series of criteria and would then not harm the overall character and quality of the countryside, amongst other things. In setting limits on areas where housing can come forward it is considered that policies ENV2 and ENV3 are therefore clearly relevant for the supply of housing.
In relation to Areas of Restraint, the explanatory text of the Local Plan makes it clear that the designation seeks to protect their inherently open character because of the valuable contribution they make to the character and structure of the towns which warrants their long-term protection. In this case, the application site falls within the West Nuneaton (Galley Common) AoR as identified in the ‘Assessment of Areas of Restraint/Policy Review’ ENTEC report (2004) which was prepared to inform this policy. This report indicates that this site should form part of the AoR because in association with adjacent sites, ‘the AoR provide an important role in helping maintain a physical separation between Chapel End and Galley Common. In providing this role, the AoR clearly has a positive contribution to the structure and character of this part of Nuneaton and thus can clearly be seen to meet the Policy’s primary purpose’. This designation is consequently fundamentally different to that which is only designated as ENV3 Rural Countryside. Indeed, the explanatory text of the Local Plan and the Inspector who conducted the inquiry into the Local Plan Modifications (2005) makes it clear that areas only covered by policy ENV3 provide the necessary flexibility to allow for medium and longer term development needs such that they would be open to review beyond the Local Plan period to 2011, particularly where needs could not be met by sites higher in the sequential list.
Notwithstanding the above, paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that policies of this sort should not be considered up-to-date if the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF is therefore relevant and sets out that where the development plan is absent, silent, or as is the case here, out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF, taken as a whole. There is consequently no requirement for the applicant to demonstrate that there are no sequentially preferable sites in the urban area to this application site. Nonetheless, the capacity within the urban
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 18
area to accommodate housing can be assessed by reference to the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2013. This has identified a potential capacity for 962 dwellings across 39 sites. This urban supply would therefore only suffice to meet housing needs over 2 years. Even this urban supply would consequently not be sufficient to meet all of the identified need. It is therefore considered that there is a clear and demonstrable need for housing within the Borough that cannot be met within the urban area. This is consequently a matter which weighs significantly in favour of the application.
In relation to the existing use of the land for agricultural purposes, national planning policy indicates that poorer quality agricultural land should be used in preference to that which is of a higher quality. In this respect only 33% of the land is classified as being part of the best and most versatile agricultural land. A report submitted with the application indicates that this is fairly typical of agricultural land around the Borough. There is consequently not sufficient evidence to argue that the economic and other benefits of protecting the higher quality agricultural land on this site would warrant the preclusion of development from it.
4. Landscape Character and Appearance
In relation to landscape character and appearance, it is necessary to have regard to the Council’s TEP Land Use Designations Studies. These studies are collectively being used to inform the emerging Borough Plan and assess existing landscape character and the capacity of this landscape to accommodate change. To this effect, the land outside the urban area has been broken down into a number of parcels for the purpose of further analysis. The conclusions of these studies are consequently material considerations to take into account in the determination of this application.
In this case, the application site falls within the Galley Common Hills and Valleys Landscape Character Area. This area is identified as having a strong strength of landscape character with features that are relatively consistent across the landscape. The landscape condition is deemed to be moderate with features that are generally intact, although around some arable fields, hedgerows are becoming fragmented and in places are absent. The study therefore recommends that this landscape area is conserved and enhanced. Furthermore, in relation to the capacity to accommodate change, it sets out a range of key features for retention and enhancement whilst indicating limits for how built development should appear.
Notwithstanding the above, it is recognised that this assessment relates to a very large and broad area of land. It is within this context that the applicant has submitted a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA, 2014) relating specifically to this application site. This LVIA concludes that the proposed development would result in a medium magnitude of change which would have a moderate adverse effect upon the Galley Common Hills and Valleys Landscape Character Area and settlement fringe character. Ultimately, the LVIA concludes that the character of the site would undoubtedly be changed significantly by the implementation of the proposed
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 19
development. However, it is not considered that the inherent character of the wider landscape or the character of west Nuneaton itself would be subject to any significant adverse landscape effects. Furthermore, it indicates that the majority of the relevant landscape policy objectives and recommendations from the Council’s Land Use Designation Studies could be met through an appropriate design response that relates to the site specific circumstances.
Despite the conclusions of the LVIA, Officers had considerable concerns that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the Galley Common Hills and Valleys Landscape Character Area. Indeed, the proposed development seemed to fail to meet a number of the landscape guidelines for this area as outlined within the Council’s Land Use Designation Studies. Nonetheless, it was recognised that the professional and specialist nature of LVIAs is such that a full and independent review would need to be carried out by a Chartered Landscape Architect. This was required to establish whether Officer’s concerns were justified and defensible in the event of a refusal on these grounds. The Council therefore asked consultants TEP (who have carried out the Council’s Land Use Designation Studies) to undertake a review of the applicant’s LVIA. They were also asked to complete an individual site assessment of the application site as has been carried out for other sites in the Borough that were carried forward as a potential development areas by the Council.
The TEP individual site assessment of the application site consequently concludes that the landscape capacity of this site is moderate with the scope for mitigation being high. Indeed, it reasons that ‘the landscape between Plough Hill and Galley Common is already influenced by proximity to development, particularly the ridgeline development at the southern edge of the site. The resulting landscape and visual qualities mean that the site has some capacity for residential development and there is scope to improve the appearance of the existing urban edge at the southern boundary of the site. Mitigation in the form of the retention of some areas of open managed grassland and the retention and strengthening of hedgerows, hedgerow trees and woodland clumps would be appropriate and would assist in minimising adverse effects on landscape character and views’. It therefore recommends that the site can be taken forwards for development in landscape terms but makes a number of recommendations which it would need to conform to.
Following this individual site assessment, TEP undertook a review of the applicant’s LVIA. This review noted some irregularities to the assessment, however, it was considered that overall, the applicant’s LVIA provides sufficient information to determine the planning application. Critically, they agree with the conclusions of the LVIA which indicate that the proposed development would have a moderate adverse significance of effect on the Galley Common Hills and Valleys Landscape Character Area and character of the settlement fringe. They also agree that the visual effects for footpath users and adjoining residential properties would be of temporary high adverse significance during construction and then of high to moderate adverse significance after 15 years establishment of mitigation planting. Finally, they
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 20
agree that the visual effects for other receptors would be of largely neutral or minor adverse significance.
In conclusion, TEP consider that ‘Although parts of the site on higher ground are prominent, the combination of mature hedgerows, hedgerow trees and linear woodland on site and in the wider area and the views of the existing urban edge on high ground to the site’s southern boundary mean that the site is considered to have some capacity for residential development, including a local convenience store and additional school car park. New residential development on higher ground to the southwest and more prominent part of the site should not extend north across prominent north facing slopes and should be designed to improve the appearance of the urban edge at Galley Common. The three storey Georgian farmhouse at Hill Farm on high ground adjacent to the southern boundary forms a prominent landmark and attractive feature in the local area (this is also stated in the applicant’s LVIA). In planning residential development on the site, particular care will need to be given to ensuring that open views of the farmhouse are retained from the north and northwest. The height of new residential development will also need to ensure that the prominence of the farmhouse is maintained. The development of the site should maintain separation between Plough Hill and Galley Common through the retention of a proportion of managed grassland on site’.
In view of the above, Officers consider that despite initial concerns that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the Galley Common Hills and Valleys Landscape Character Area, there would not be sufficient justification or evidence to warrant refusing the proposal on these grounds. However, the application would only be acceptable if the recommendations within the applicant’s LVIA and TEP individual site assessment are carried forwards into the detailed design of the reserved matters application. A condition would therefore be required to ensure conformity to this.
It is within the context of the above that the applicant has sought to demonstrate that the proposed development could be designed and accommodated on the site in accordance with the LVIA recommendations. This has principally been shown in the applicant’s Design and Access Statement (D&A) which has informed the production of a Development Framework Plan and Illustrative Layout Plan. Importantly, this identifies that the 130 metre contour ridge line running across the site is of critical importance to landscape considerations given the sensitivity of the slopes below this. The D&A and plans indicate that no development would be located below this contour line whilst only lower density development would be located above this. However, it equally recognises that the eastern part of the site has capacity to accommodate higher density development owing to further topographical considerations and this is reflected in the plans. An additional point of note is that the plans allow for a landscaped area to the north of Hill Farm House to retain views of this in the wider landscape. It also indicates that existing trees and hedgerows can be retained and enhanced through incorporation into the new development.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 21
Officers have sought advice from a landscape consultant who have reviewed the illustrative layout plan and confirmed that this would broadly accord with the recommendations of the LVIA. However, they have suggested that the landscaped area to the north of Hill Farm House is enlarged to maintain views of the farm from the west. They also indicate that there should be no trees planted in front of Hill Farm House. However, a balanced view must be taken and it is considered that insisting on an enlarged landscaped area in this location would have significant implications on the layout of the proposed development to the detriment of the scheme. Indeed, such an insistence would result in a fragmented scheme. The proposal does provide for a landscaped area in this location and this is consequently considered to be acceptable on balance.
A further point of clarification has been sought from our landscape consultant in respect of their recommendation to ‘Utilise new woodland and tree planting to create a wooded horizon interspersed with built form so that properties appear as loose clusters or single farm houses, rather than continuous lines of development’. They have subsequently confirmed that this refers to the need to ensure lower density housing above the 130 metre contour line which would ensure that sufficient space is allowed for tree planting within the development. Such tree planting would help to break up the urban development and create the impression of looser clusters of development rather than continuous blocks of development which would otherwise harm the landscape.
Finally, a query was raised with the applicant in relation to the proposed indication on the Development Framework Plan of a small area of high and moderate density development housing blocks south of the 130 metre contour line. In this respect, it was outlined that this was indicated in line with the conclusions of the LVIA which indicates that ‘The proposed development parameters have been designed to dovetail with the existing topographical arrangement with the density of on-site development parcels arranged to reference the settlement edge location and visual context’. Essentially, these small areas are the parcels of land which back onto existing residential properties. Given the existing presence of development in this location, it was considered that the density of this could be mirrored on the application site. In reality, this would consequently comprise of one row of houses at an indicated higher and moderate density in the indicated locations. This would then give way to low density housing on the land to the immediate north. It is therefore considered that this would conform to the recommendations of the LVIA. Furthermore, full consideration of the layout and density of housing in this location could be considered as part of a detailed reserved matter application at a later date.
Taking into account all of the relevant considerations above, it is clear that the proposed development would change the character and appearance of this locality. Indeed, it would result in the loss of open agricultural fields and the permanent replacement of this with urban development in the form of housing, school car park and convenience store, albeit with provisions for green
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 22
infrastructure. Within a wider context this site falls within the Galley Common Hills and Valleys Landscape Character Area which is deemed to be of strong strength and therefore in need of conservation and enhancement. However, the evidence indicates that this specific site is of a lower value and sensitivity than the wider character area and therefore has the capacity to accommodate residential development without causing substantial harm to the wider character area. Nonetheless, this would only be achieved if a full landscape strategy utilising Green Infrastructure is prepared and then implemented on site. Care would also be required to ensure that built development is located away from the more sensitive areas. In this respect it is noted that this is an outline application and that matters relating to layout, scale and landscaping would all be considered at a later date. Despite this, the applicant has prepared a design and access statement, development framework plan and illustrative layout plan, to demonstrate that the proposed development could be designed and accommodated on the site in accordance with the LVIA recommendations. On balance, it is therefore considered that the landscape and visual impact of the proposed development in this location would not be sufficiently detrimental to weigh significantly against the application subject to suitable mitigation.
5. Trees and Hedgerows The applicant has submitted an Arboricultural Assessment (2014) with the application. This assessment is based on a survey of all existing trees, tree groups, hedgerows and woodlands, on and adjacent to the site, for their arboricultural quality and benefits within the context of the proposed development. Further to this, the applicant has submitted an Ecological Appraisal (2014) which includes a Hedgerow Assessment based on a survey of all existing hedgerows on the site and their conservation and ecological value.
The Council’s Tree Officer has considered the plans and welcomed the proposed retention of the majority of the trees that would remain on the site in this layout. He has also not objected to the loss of the trees indicated on the tree retention plan. However, Parks and Countryside has raised concerns about the potential number of breaks that would occur within the hedgerows, the future management of the hedgerows, the potential proximity of development to some hedgerows and the potential loss of one hedgerow. In this respect, it is noted that the vast majority of trees and hedgerows across the site could be retained if permission is granted. A full assessment of the impact on trees and hedgerows would need to be made when detailed reserved matter applications are considered. However, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed development could be accommodated on the site without resulting in the loss of any hedgerows classified as being important under the Hedgerow Regulations. Nonetheless, access requirements necessitate that there would be some gaps/breaks created in the hedgerows. It is also possible that one or more hedgerows could be removed owing to design, layout and future maintenance considerations. However, such breaks and loss could be mitigated against through the reinstatement and enhancement of other hedgerows on the site. This would
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 23
therefore help to ensure that the overall value of hedgerows and trees on the site is retained and enhanced.
Access is a matter being considered at this stage and it is consequently necessary to consider the impact of the two proposed site accesses onto Plough Hill Road on trees and hedgerows. Upon advice from the Council’s Tree Officer, the main site access would be positioned in a location where it would result in the loss of a diseased Ash tree of moderate quality but would therefore ensure that a high quality Oak tree within the hedgerows is protected and retained. Access requirements necessitate that there would be two gaps created in the hedgerows and this impact would therefore have to be accepted.
Finally, it is noted that there are two trees covered by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) on land bordering the application site. The first tree is an Ash tree known as tree T1 of TPO 3/01 on land adjacent to 10 Chesterton Drive, Galley Common, Nuneaton. The second tree is an Oak tree known as tree T1 of TPO 8/98 at 8 Browning Close, Galley Common, Nuneaton. The proposed development would not necessitate the removal of these trees and any works to them would require the prior consent of the Council. It is therefore considered that the development would be acceptable in relation to these two protected trees.
6. Heritage and Archaeology The applicant has submitted an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (2014). This assessment draws together available archaeological, historic, topographic and land use information, including the findings of a walkover survey, to establish the heritage significance and archaeological potential of the site.
In the first instance, the assessment identifies that there are no designated heritage assets located on the application site. However, it notes that the grade II listed buildings of St Peter’s Church and Chapel End Congregational Church are designated heritage assets which are located within a 1km radius of the site. Nonetheless, the intervening landscape and distance between these assets and the site is such that there would be no direct impact from the proposed development. It is consequently considered that significant harm would not occur.
There are two non-designated heritage assets recorded on the site in the Warwickshire Historic Environment Record. These are identified as being Ridge and Furrow and a small part of the settlement of Stockingford. However, the assessment indicates that a walkover survey of the site revealed that the Ridge and Furrow has been ploughed out and no earthwork remains survive on the site. Aside from this, the records indicate that the historic settlement of Stockingford extends into the site. The assessment details that this recorded entry represents small isolated farmsteads and enclosed fields rather than areas of built Medieval settlement. In this respect, the assessment contends that no farmsteads are recorded in this part of the site and instead reasons that the site was probably part of the enclosed field
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 24
system associated with Stockingford and Nuneaton. It consequently concludes that since much of the early field system on the site has been altered and/or ploughed out, the record is of little relevance to an assessment of the site’s archaeological potential.
Just outside of the application site to the south is Hill Farm House which is designated as a locally listed building within the Local Plan. The assessment identifies that this building is considered to be of sufficient significance to warrant being seen as a non-designated heritage asset. In particular, it notes that the building dates to the mid to late 19th Century with its significance being derived from its historic and architectural interest. A positive contribution to its significance is also made by the plot boundary which would not be directly impacted by the proposed development. The wider landscape setting of the building, including the application site, is considered to have a neutral effect on its significance. The proposed development would consequently not cause detrimental harm to this non-designated heritage asset. Furthermore, the design and access statement, development framework plan and illustrative layout plan indicates that the development could be accommodated on the site whilst allowing for no development on land to the immediate south of the building. This would further ensure that this non-designated heritage asset would not be harmed.
WCC Archaeology have assessed the application and commented as follows:
“Whilst few pre-medieval remains have been recorded from the vicinity of this site, the wider area has not been subject to any systematic archaeological investigations which are likely to identify such sites. Previous fieldwork across this county and the wider region has demonstrated that a lack of known sites from an area may be due to a lack of previous archaeological investigations across an area, rather than an absence of activity during the pre- medieval periods.
There is therefore a potential for as yet unidentified features pre- dating the medieval and later agricultural use of this area to survive across this site; any such features are likely to be disturbed by the proposed development.”
It is within the context of the above that a geophysical survey of the application site was subsequently carried out. This survey was ultimately used to create a map of potential subsurface archaeological features that help to further establish the potential presence of archaeological assets and heritage assets on this site. The results of this survey have subsequently been assessed by WCC Archaeology who have now raised no objection to the application. This was based on the important consideration that the proposed development is flexible in that this is an outline application with the detailed layout reserved for consideration at a later stage. It is further important to note that the proposed development is for up to 262 dwellings and that a lower number of dwellings could therefore be constructed if archaeological evaluative work revealed heritage assets in need of retention on the site. The
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 25
applicant has agreed that there is an inherent flexibility in the outline application to address anything that may be found during trial pitting and that this can be covered by a condition suggested by WCC Archaeology.
7. Highway Safety, Traffic Flows and Accessibility Access This is an outline application to include access with all other matters reserved. In this respect it is proposed that the site would be accessed off Plough Hill Road in two places. The first access point would take the form of a simple T- junction which would act as the main vehicular access to the proposed development. The second access point would also take the form of a simple T-junction and would be located further south of this first main access point. It is intended that this would provide access to a new 24 space parking facility for Galley Common Infant School whilst also providing an emergency access point for the proposed residential development.
The Transport Assessment (2014) submitted with the application indicates that both accesses would be constructed to adoptable standards to include footways which would link into the existing pedestrian infrastructure along Plough Hill Road. They would consist of 5.50 metre carriageways with 2 metre footways on either side. Minimum visibility splays of 2.40 metes x 70 metres and junction radii of 8 metres would be provided. Further to this, the applicant has submitted a Highways Technical Note (ref: C13742) which includes the results of a speed survey that indicates speeds of 41.7mph and 41.9mph with 85%ile speeds throughout the day consistently at or exceeding 40mph. WCC Highways have assessed this and are satisfied that the access points were able to achieve the required 40mph visibility splays of 2.4m x 120m.
The Assessment acknowledges the current incidences of regular parking along Plough Hill Road by parents dropping off and picking up their children at Galley Common Infant School. The proposed 24 space parking facility is therefore proposed to reduce this by providing safe and convenient off-street parking. It is considered that this would lessen the likelihood of ‘shuttle running’ on Plough Hill Road, thus improving traffic flows, whilst also making it safer for parents/children crossing the road to the school. In this respect, it is also noted that the applicant is proposing to provide a crossing point across Plough Hill Road to aid crossing and ensure the link between the car park and school is appropriate. This would be secured through inclusion within a S106 Agreement. It is also proposed that appropriate Traffic Regulation Orders to restrict car parking could be implemented along the stretch of Plough Hill Road adjacent to the school and proposed car park access.
Traffic Flows In addition to the impact of the proposed access on the immediate area, it is recognised that the traffic flows from the proposed development would have an impact on a much wider area. It is within this context that the applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment (TA) and Framework Travel Plan (TP) in order to assess the effect of traffic flows likely to be generated.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 26
WCC Highways has subsequently assessed this and objected on a number of grounds. The applicant therefore engaged in significant correspondence with WCC Highways and the Council to try and address the grounds of objection. This ultimately culminated in the production of a letter (ref: C13742.006) which contained additional information. However, WCC Highways again assessed this and considered that there were still a number of errors with the modelling and Transport Assessment. WCC Highways therefore indicated that the letter and additional information did not overcome their grounds of objection. The applicant then submitted a further letter (ref: C13742.007) which contained additional information, a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (ref: 1.2) of the proposed Plough Hill Road crossing, and a third-party review of the applicant’s work and WCC Highways objections. It is within this context that WCC Highways have made their final assessment of the proposed development and have raised significant objections to the modelling, data and assessments submitted within the Transport Assessment and additional information. The effect of this is such that it is not possible to ascertain what impact the proposed development would have on the surrounding highway network. Indeed, there are justified concerns that the development could have significant and detrimental impacts upon a number of junctions within the area in terms of highway safety and traffic flows. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to a number of policies within Warwickshire County Council’s Local Transport Plan 2011-2026. It has also not adequately been demonstrated that the residual cumulative impacts of the proposed development would not be severe. There is consequently conflict with paragraph 32 of the NPPF such that it is recommended that the application should be refused on these grounds. The applicant is therefore undertaking further modelling work and the outcome of this will be reported to Committee on the 28th October 2014 and assessed as part of the addendum.
Accessibility of Facilities and Services The closest food retail shop and local centre (at the corner of Valley Road and Hickman Road) would be approximately 480m away whereas the furthest potential dwelling is approximately 1,450m away. Some of the dwellings on the site would therefore be beyond the preferred maximum walking distances of 1.2 km to the closest shops. The topography of the area is also such that residents would have to walk uphill/downhill to access these shops which would decrease the perceived attractiveness of walking. However, it is equally recognised that the proposed development includes provisions for a small convenience store on the application site. In the event that this is constructed, all dwellings on the site would be within the preferred maximum walking distances. However, the construction of this store cannot be guaranteed. In the event that this is not constructed, it would have to be accepted that people could be more inclined to drive to the nearest shop and local centre rather than walk or cycle.
Aside from the above, it is apparent that some of the dwellings on the site would be beyond the preferred maximum IHT preferred walking distances to the closest secondary school, college, GP surgery, dentist, supermarket, library, public house and leisure centre. These are all local services and facilities that would be needed by future occupiers and it would therefore have
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 27
to be accepted that these future residents would be more likely to rely on the use of private vehicles to access them.
Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that potential improvements to bus service provision, the provision of two bus shelters by the site and ‘Welcome Packs’ would help accessibility. Moreover, the Travel Plan submitted with the application includes many provisions which would help to encourage a reduced reliance on private vehicles and the potential improvements to existing footpath and cycle networks adjacent to the site would increase accessibility to local services.
Outstanding Highway Issues
It is accepted that WCC Highways may have responded to the highway issues and removed their objections by the time the application is considered by Committee on the 28th October 2014. In this event, Officers will have to submit an addendum report for consideration by the Committee which could potentially also result in the recommendation being changed.
8. Public Rights of Way There are currently four public rights of way which cross the application, namely public footpaths N17, N18, N50 and N6. As this is an outline application, matters relating to layout, scale and landscaping would all be considered at a later date when a reserved matters application is submitted. Officers would only then be able to examine the full impact of the proposed development on these public rights of way. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that the applicant has prepared a design and access statement, development framework plan and illustrative layout plan, to demonstrate that the proposed development could be designed and accommodated on the site whilst not having a detrimental impact upon these public rights of way. However, the plans show that public footpaths N17 and N18 would need to be diverted to accommodate the indicated layout.
WCC’s Rights of Way Team has considered the proposal and has no objection in principle regarding the application for outline consent but recommend that consideration is given to the amenity of public rights of way at the detailed planning stage, should consent be granted. They stated that they would wish consideration to be given to whether public rights of way can be accommodated or diverted through greener, more pleasant, open or landscaped environments within the site. They also stated:
‘As the applicant has identified, there are a number of public rights of way crossing the application site. These are recorded as public footpaths N17, N18, N50 and N6 on the Definitive Map
The current Development Framework plan (revision 011) shows that some of the public footpaths crossing the site (N17 and N18) would need to be diverted to enable the proposed development. The proposed diversion routes have also been shown on the plan, running mainly alongside the proposed access roads. Diverting
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 28
public rights of way along access roads is generally considered undesirable in terms of amenity and it is preferable for public rights of way to be accommodated within landscaped areas or green corridors wherever possible. Public footpath N50 (proposed to be retained along its current alignment) will also run alongside access roads but would at least benefit from some landscaping along its western edge.’
As indicated above, this is an outline application and any proposal to divert the public footpaths would ultimately be considered within the assessment of a detailed reserved matters application. However, the points regarding the amenity of the public footpaths are noted and further discussions regarding a suitable alignment would therefore be necessary. Indeed, there is the potential for longer and less direct footpath diversions which could run through or adjacent to the proposed areas of public space on the site if preferred. A condition could therefore be imposed requiring details of public footpaths running across the site to be submitted for consideration.
Aside from the consideration of public rights of way on the site, it is further recognised that the future occupants of the proposed development would use other public rights of way within the surrounding area. In this respect, WCC’s Rights of Way Team has requested a financial contribution of £12,990 towards improvements to public rights of way N2, N5, N6 N16, N17, N18 and N19 which are located within the immediate vicinity of the application site. They indicate that these improvements would include path surface improvements, stiles to gates and bridge improvements. This financial contribution could therefore be secured within a S106 Agreement.
9. Air Quality The applicant has submitted an Air Quality Screening Report 2014 with the application. This identifies that the site is not located in an existing Air Quality Management Area or known area of concern with regards to poor air quality. Background pollutant concentrations for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Particulates (PM10) were respectively indicated to be 63.8% and 60.4% below annual mean air quality objectives. As agreed with the Council’s Environmental Health Department, the report reviews the predicted increase in traffic on roads resulting from the proposed development. In this respect, the highest impact would be on Plough Hill Road with around a 10% rise in traffic. The report concludes that ‘Although it is recognised that there are residential properties located along Plough Hill Road that may be affected by development-generated traffic, the local pollutant levels are observed to be well below the annual mean objectives for both NO2 and PM10’.
Environmental Health has subsequently raised no objection to this report and it is consequently considered that the proposed development would not result in unacceptable levels of air quality to the detriment of new or existing development in the area.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 29
10. Flood Risk and Drainage The Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment indicates that the application site is located within flood zone 1 (low probability of the flooding). However, the SFRA does identify that there is a watercourse which runs along part of the northern boundary of the site. Further, it is noted that no incidences of flooding have been recorded on the site.
It is within the context of the above that the applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) 2014 which is based on a topographical survey, desktop studies, drainage survey, hydrological calculations and walk over inspection of the site. In the first instance it confirms that the application site falls within the flood zone 1 (low risk) classification. In terms of fluvial flood risk, it identifies a watercourse in the form of a brook which runs along the northern boundary of the site. The water flow within this moves east and eventually merges with the River Anker. The FRA considers that the bed level of the watercourse is lower than the development site and as such has limited potential to pose any flood risk to the site. In terms of surface water risk, it identifies that there is a general fall across the site from south to northeast. The housing estate to the south of the site is noted as being higher but includes a full drainage network flowing down in a southerly direction away from the site thereby preventing water entering this. The railway line to the east is flat and low lying whilst Plough Hill Road to the west runs downhill away from the development and also contains highway drainage. The risk to the site from overland flooding is therefore considered to be low whilst measures could further be incorporated within the development to ensure rainfall runs away from new buildings. In terms of the risk from sewers and drains flooding, the FRA identifies that all of the sewers and drains within the area are located outside of the application site. It therefore indicates that there would be a low risk of flooding from exceedance failure or blockage. Providing new on site drains are maintained, it also considers the risk to new development is low. Finally, it considers that there is a low risk from groundwater and artificial sources.
Having established the probability of the site flooding from different sources, the FRA outlines a Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) strategy which seeks to firstly prevent runoff and then control runoff at source by installing water butts into new homes and potentially incorporating permeable paving (subject to positive infiltration testing owing to clay soils). Rainwater runoff from residential plots and the highway would then be directed via a gravity drainage network to an on site detention pond in the northeast corner. It notes that detention ponds are unlike balancing ponds in that they remain dry during periods of low rainfall. However, during periods of rainfall, water from the drainage network would be stored within the detention pond and then discharged into the adjacent watercourse at controlled flow rates.
As this is an outline application, the final layout and associated drainage strategy is not yet known. Nonetheless, the FRA does outline preliminary drainage proposals to demonstrate that the site can satisfactorily deal with worse case storm water volumes in the indicated manner. As the proposed development would be constructed on greenfield land, the FRA indicates that
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 30
surface water runoff from the proposed development into the adjacent watercourse should be no higher than the existing Greenfield surface water run off rates. This would be controlled via a vortex flow control device or reduced size orifice plate as appropriate. In terms of the capacity of the detention pond, the FRA has assessed what the appropriate attenuation volume would be for a 1 year storm event, 30 year storm event and 100 year storm event plus 30% climate change. This indicates that an attenuation volume of 2,375 cubic metres would be required for 50% of the residential development area. Further to this, the FRA notes that ground surface water design of the drainage systems may require that some areas of hardstanding may experience minor flooding in extreme conditions beyond the 30 year storm design criterion. This is classed as Secondary Storage which is indicated to be common for this type of development. However, it indicates that any such flood water would be directed away from residential units and discharge into the drainage infrastructure as water levels recede. Importantly, it also notes that all such flood water would be retained on site for up to the 100 year storm plus 30% climate change allowance event. Overall, the FRA confirms that the proposed development could be designed so as to ensure water runoff rates are no greater than what already occurs on this Greenfield site. This would therefore ensure that flood risk off the development site would not increase.
Notwithstanding the above, it is recognised that the long-term management of the SUDS would be essential for this to function over the lifetime of the proposed development. In this respect, it is anticipated that STW would adopt the gravity drainage network. The applicant has further indicated that the detention pond would be adopted by the final developer of the site via a private maintenance company if required. This could therefore be secured through a S106 Agreement requiring the appointment of a management company responsible for the long term maintenance of the pond.
The Environment Agency has subsequently assessed the proposed development and FRA and raised no objections. WCC’s Flood Risk Management Team has also assessed this and raised no objection subject to conditions requiring a detailed drainage design and maintenance plan to be submitted. Furthermore, Severn Trent Water has raised no objection to the proposal subject to a condition requiring the submission of plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage.
Taking into account the above, it is considered that the applicant has adequately demonstrated that the proposed development could be accommodated on the site without being at risk from flooding. It is also considered that the proposed development would not increase flood risk elsewhere.
11. Ecology The applicant has submitted an Ecological Appraisal 2014 which is based on an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and a Protected Species Report (2014) which includes the results of bat, great crested newt and reptile surveys.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 31
In relation to statutory designated sites, it was found that there are two biological statutory designated sites located in proximity to the site. These sites are Ensor’s Pool (3.1km away), which is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Local Nature Reserve (LNR), and Galley Common LNR (300m away). There is also a geological SSSI known as Illing’s Trenches nearby (1.7km away). However, it is considered that these statutory designations are not a constraint to the proposed development due to the distance and isolation of these sites from the application site. Potential increased visitor pressure on the Galley Common LNR is noted as a possibility but it is suggested this impact could be minimised through the provision of open space on the site.
In relation to non-statutory designated sites within 1km of the site, it was found that there are 10 Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) and LWS Ecosites, 9 potential Local Wildlife Sites (pLWS) and pLWS Ecosites, and 4 non-graded and Local Geological Sites (LGS). The appraisal contends that many of these non-statutory and locally designated sites either do not have public access, are of sufficient distance from the site or are comprised of sufficiently different habitat types to be unaffected by the development. However, it indicates the development could be impacted upon by two ecosites which border the application site. The first of these is The Shuntings LWS and Ansley Mineral Line Ecosite which is partially located within the site and runs along the eastern site boundary. The second of these is the Wooded Stream pLWS ecosite which is located immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the application site.
In relation to habitats and flora location on the application site, the extended phase 1 habitat survey identified grasslands and areas of tall ruderal vegetation within the site. These are generally considered to be species-poor, common and widespread habitats with only common floral species present and therefore of only limited ecological value. However, the survey also identified hedgerows, semi-natural broadleaved woodland, mature trees and a stream along the northern site boundary which are considered to be of local ecological value.
In relation to protected species and priority species (species of conservation merit), it is important to note that the principal pieces of legislation protecting wild species are set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The impact of this legislation on the planning system is outlined in government guidance which indicates that the presence of protected species on a site is a material consideration in any planning decision. It further notes that it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent to which they are affected by proposals is established prior to planning permission being granted. Moreover, where protected species are present and proposals may result in harm to the species or its habitat, steps should be taken to ensure the long-term protection of the species, such as through attaching appropriate planning conditions.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 32
In the case of bats, the applicant has submitted an assessment of trees for bat roost potential as part of the ecological appraisal. This indicated that four trees within and two trees outside the application site (but on adjacent land) were assessed as providing some suitable habitat for roosting bats. Three of these trees had moderate to high potential whilst the other three had low potential to support roosting bats. All other trees had no or only negligible potential to support roosting bats. Further to this, a Protected Species Report has been submitted which includes the results of a bat activity survey. This indicates that the site is utilised by unexceptional numbers of common bat species for commuting and foraging. As a result of this, the reports recommend mitigation measures including the retention of hedgerows and hedgerow trees, checks/precautionary approach for arboricultural works to roosting potential trees, infrastructure to encourage foraging habitat and the control of light spill from the development. However, in relation to hedgerow retention, it notes that the proposed removal of one hedgerow, as indicated as a possibility on the development framework plan, would be unlikely to have a negative impact on bat populations. This is because the activity survey revealed no-very low movements along this hedgerow corridor and rather uses a different hedgerow for movements to the west.
In the case of birds, the appraisal notes that the semi-natural broadleaved woodland, trees, hedgerows and dense and scattered scrub habitats provide suitable habitat for breeding birds. It therefore indicates that any works to these habitats should be undertaken outside the bird nesting season or under the watching-brief of a suitably qualified ecologist. This is covered by the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981).
In the case of reptiles, the Protected Species Report indicates that a presence/absence survey was carried out at an appropriate time of year and under suitable weather conditions and did not identify the presence of reptiles within the site. The report consequently concludes that this species group is considered likely absent from the site and does not pose a constraint to the proposed development and no specific mitigation measures are required.
In the case of great crested newts, the Protected Species Report indicates that no great crested newts were recorded in the ponds surveyed. The report consequently concludes that no statutory constraints to the proposed development of the site are anticipated from great crested newts.
In the case of amphibians, the appraisal notes that common toads have been recorded 600 metres to the east of the site. Retention and buffering of hedgerows and good connections to on site open space would therefore help to maintain provision of terrestrial habitat for common toads.
In the case of badgers, the appraisal notes that no signs of badger presence were found during the phase 1 habitat survey. This makes it unlikely that the site is used for foraging habitat or that there are any setts within this.
In the case of white clawed crayfish, the Protected Species Report indicates that a presence/absence survey for this species was carried out under the
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 33
appropriate guidelines. This did not identify the presence of white-clawed crayfish within the site stream. Although the stream is suitable to support white-clawed crayfish, the nearest population of this species is located over 3km away in a water body isolated with no linking waterways. For these reasons it is deemed that white-clawed crayfish do not pose any statutory constraints to the proposed development at this site.
In the case of hedgehogs, the appraisal notes that the site is suitable to support these species. Retention of hedgerows and green link creation would maintain connectively whilst the development would not result in loss of habitat for this species.
In the case of invertebrates, the appraisal notes that there are records of six butterfly and moth priority species recorded in the search area. Retention of hedgerows and woodlands and grassland open space would provide continued resources for invertebrates within the wider area.
In the case of the Environment Agency, the response indicates that the proposed surface water balancing pond should be designed to provide maximum benefits for local wildlife. It also adds that the whole site should be designed to provide a net gain for biodiversity.
Further to the above comments, Warwickshire Wildlife Trust has considered the appraisal. Whilst supporting the intended link of the proposed public open space with The Shuntings LWS and Wooded Stream pLWS, they do raise concerns with regards to the impact on these areas. In this respect, they indicate that a 15 metre buffer between new housing and the Wooded Stream pLWS, with managed public access pathway, would be required. They also indicate the proposed attenuation pond should incorporate a reed bed system to filter surface water run off thereby avoiding pollution of the stream. Aside from this, they indicate that a 15 metre tree-planted, non-developed area of land, should be located adjacent to The Shuntings LWS to protect the semi- natural broad-leaved woodland from damage. Regarding hedgerows, they indicate support for their retention with 5 metre buffer. However, where removal is necessary, they request mitigation with gapping up elsewhere and planting of new hedgerows. Finally, they indicate support for the retention of trees with bat roosting potential, as well as hedgerows that support bat foraging and commuting routes, subject to lighting schemes being designed to minimise impacts.
Aside from these responses, the Council’s Parks and Countryside Department has considered the appraisal and Development Framework Plan and raised no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions. However, they have particularly stressed the need for a 15 metre buffer zone to be provided between The Shuntings LWS and Wooded Stream pLWS. In the case of the Wooded Stream pLWS, they have indicated the need for properties to front onto this 15 metre buffer rather than back onto this with their rear gardens. They contend that the 15 metre buffer is required because residential properties closer than this would have a negative impact on these areas in terms of light pollution, cats/dogs, rubbish and tipping, invasive non
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 34
native species, increased use, change of management pressures, changes in the soil condition and water retention, and disturbances during construction. They also claim that this would reduce the potential nuisance to new properties from the trees contained in this LWS (e.g. shading, leaves, root damage, risk of limb drop). Finally, they highlight that complaints and compensation/insurance claims against the Council are regularly received from residents living in existing properties directly backing onto the LWS without any buffering. It is contended that this leads to significant costs and additional maintenance which harms the value of the LWS. It is within this context that the agent has agreed to provide a 15 metre buffer zone along the edge of the LWS and pLWS which would be secured by way of condition.
In relation to the impact on Protected and Priority Species, Parks and Countryside initially raised a number of concerns with the appraisal and protected species report. The ecological consultants who prepared these documents subsequently provided further information, evidence and justification in support of this. Parks and Countryside are therefore now satisfied that the impact on Protected and Priority Species has been sufficiently assessed. However, they have indicated the need for an Ecological Construction Management Plan to be submitted which should detail appropriate methods for clearing the site. This is a matter which could therefore be conditioned.
In relation to biodiversity, Parks and Countryside has raised concerns that the proposed development has not, at this stage, adequately demonstrated that it has minimised its impacts on biodiversity, provided net gains in biodiversity or established coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures as required by the NPPF (paragraph 109). Nonetheless, they have noted that this is an outline application and that such matters can consequently be assessed in full at the detailed reserved matters application stage. A number of conditions could also be imposed to ensure that the proposed development would not cause significant and detrimental harm to biodiversity.
Overall, it is considered that the recommendations and mitigation strategies set out in the ecological appraisal and protected species report would help to ensure that the proposed development would not have such a significant and detrimental impact on ecological matters so as to warrant refusal. Indeed, suitable conditions could be imposed on the outline permission to ensure that biodiversity across the site, including habitats and protected/priority species, are protected. Furthermore, matters relating to layout and landscaping would ultimately be considered at the detailed reserved matters application stage. The Council would therefore be able to request any justified changes to the scheme at this point to ensure biodiversity requirements are met.
12. Noise The applicant has submitted a Noise Screening Report 2014. In relation to existing noise sources affecting the development site, the report considers that the dominant existing source of noise affecting the development site would be road traffic on the local road network, in particular Plough Hill Road.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 35
In relation to potential noise sources affecting the proposed development, the report indicates that due to the site’s semi-rural location on the edge of Nuneaton, the potential impact from existing road traffic is unlikely to be significant. They therefore contend that the required external and internal noise limits, applicable to road noise, should be achieved across the development without the need for mitigation. However, they note that this would be confirmed at the detailed design stage. Aside from this, they consider that the net increase in local road traffic due to the proposed development may result in a small increase in noise at existing residential properties. However, this is considered likely to be a non-significant change in noise level and should therefore not be a determining factor.
The Council’s Environmental Health Department has assessed the report and do not object to the proposed development. However, to ensure that the development would achieve the required external and internal noise limits, they have requested that a condition is imposed on the outline application requiring the submission of a noise attenuation scheme.
Aside from the above, it is important to recognise that the proposed convenience store (A1 use) on the site would have the potential to give rise to noise from the operations of the proposed use, deliveries to the site and the comings and goings of customers. There is consequently the potential for this noise to cause disturbance to existing properties which border the application site and the proposed properties that would be constructed if permission is approved. The exact siting of the proposed convenience store would be considered as part of the detailed reserved matters application. However, the current outline application indicates that this would be located to the southeastern corner of the application site and would border the rear gardens of existing properties in Chesterton Drive and Marlowe Close and also be located in close proximity to the proposed residential dwellings. It is within this context that Environmental Health has raised some concerns with this proposed convenience store being located in close proximity to residential properties. Indeed, it is highly likely that noise mitigation measures would be required. Environmental Health has consequently requested that a condition be imposed requiring details of all external plant, extraction equipment, associated noise mitigation and boundary treatments. They have also requested that an hours condition be imposed stipulating that deliveries are limited to 8am-6pm weekdays, 9am-6pm Saturday and not at all on Sunday or Bank Holidays. Further to this, a condition requiring details of the proposed hours of use would be required.
13. Contamination The applicant has submitted a Ground Conditions Desk Study (2013) to formulate a preliminary conceptual model of geo-environmental site conditions, including a preliminary understanding of the likely geological and hydrological conditions. It ultimately concludes that based on historic land uses and its current operational use, the overall risk from land contamination at the site is considered to be low for the current development, and moderate to high for a re-developed site. However, it does note that this would need to
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 36
be confirmed by appropriate intrusive investigation, testing and assessment of the results of the investigation.
Environmental Health has reviewed this study and requested that the Council’s contaminated land conditions be imposed to ensure there is no risk to future occupiers. The Environment Agency has also requested that contaminated land conditions are imposed to protect the quality of ‘Controlled Waters’ receptors on and in the vicinity of the site. In view of the above, it is considered that conditions would ensure that contaminated land does not affect the health of the future occupiers of new development.
14. Convenience Store Impact The proposed development includes provisions for a 186 square metre A1 retail use convenience store on site. This use is classified as being a main town centre use within Annex 2 of the NPPF. Annex 2 also sets out that references to town centres apply to town centres, district centres and local centres but exclude small parades of shops of purely neighbourhood significance. Unless they are identified as centres in Local Plans, existing out- of-centre developments, comprising or including main town centre uses, do not constitute town centres. In this respect, it is important to note that the application site is located outside of existing town, district and local centres as defined in policies S1 and S2 of the Local Plan. It is also not designated as a proposed centre within the Local Plan.
Taking the above into account, it is necessary to note that the Council has no relevant and up-to-date policies on out-of-centre retail developments within the Local Plan. It is consequently necessary to take account of paragraph 24 of the NPPF which outlines the need for Council’s to apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. Essentially the sequential approach means that a proposal for an out-of-centre development that is not in accordance with an up-to-date plan will fail this test if there are suitable, available and viable alternative sites either in an ‘edge-of- centre’ location or within existing centres.
In this case, it is intended that the store would aid in serving the needs of the new residential development on the site. It would further help to meet local need in Galley Common whilst also attracting a small amount of passing trade. Spatially, the catchment area can therefore realistically be defined as the built up residential area of Galley Common which would be contained by open countryside to the north, a disused railway line to the east, Nuneaton- Birmingham railway line to the south and open countryside to the west.
In respect of the above, it is important to note that there is only one existing local centre within Galley Common which is located on the corner of Hickman Road and Valley Road. This centre contains a convenience store (approximately 150 square metres) which contains a post office and ATM. There is also a pharmacy, coffee shop/cafe, barbers, garden supplies shop, party shop/limo hire and doctors surgery within this centre. Further to this, planning permission has been granted, but not implemented, for the ‘erection
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 37
of a local convenience store retail unit (A1 use) and two units for use as either retail (A1 use) or financial and professional services (A2 use) with associated car park and ATM’ on land at Chesterton Drive in Galley Common.
Outside of Galley Common there are 18 convenience stores located within a 6-8 minute drive time from the application site. Kingswood Road District Centre is also located within a 5 minute drive time from the application site and this centre contains an Aldi food store, pub, fish and chips and Chinese takeaway, pizza takeaway, pet supplies shop, bridal shop, hairdressers, beauty salon and Jehovah’s witness hall. A local Nisa convenience store is also located just outside of this defined centre. Another centre is located at Chapel End and contains a similar array of retail units and use as the Kingswood Road District Centre.
The applicant has consequently submitted a sequential assessment as required by paragraph 24 of the NPPF. This identifies that the Kingswood Road and Chapel End District Centres, located 1.2km to 1.4km away from the site respectively, are the only two existing centres within the area of influence of the site. However, it contends that locating the proposed store in either of these centres would not be suitable to cater from the same needs which the store is seeking to serve. It further notes that there are no sites within the existing centres which are suitable of meeting the same requirements of the 186 square metres of provision associated with the proposed development. Aside from the District Centres, the assessment considers the existing local centre in Galley Common. In this respect, it indicates that there are no potential sites which are available either within or on the edge of this centre. Finally, in relation to the approved Chesterton Drive convenience store application, the assessment outlines that this is an out of centre location and therefore provided no policy protection by the NPPF.
In view of the above, the assessment concludes that the application site is considered to be the most sequentially preferable site for the proposed convenience store.
Paragraph 26 of the NPPF requires an impact assessment to be undertaken in support of planning applications for retail, leisure and office developments over 2,500 square metres outside of town centres and not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. However, in this case the proposal is for up to 186 square metres of retail floorspace and an impact assessment is therefore not required.
15. Economic Growth Chapter 1 of the NPPF highlights the need for the planning system to support sustainable economic growth with notable references to job creation and prosperity. In view of this, a Socio-Economic Statement (2014) has been submitted with the application. This has identified the following headline local economic benefits as being derived from the provision of new homes on the application site:
£30.4 million investment in construction on site;
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 38
113 full time equivalent construction jobs per year average over a 5 year build period; £1.87 million household spend uplift in Nuneaton town; £2.28 million household spend uplift in Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough; 18 new full time equivalent jobs in Nuneaton; 22 new full time equivalent jobs in the local area; Greater population helping to continue the viability of local retail and other businesses; 13 jobs sustained in local public services in Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough; Circa 405-415 economically active residents within the new development; and £2.1 million paid to Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council over a 6 year period by way of the New Homes Bonus.
This statement consequently clearly indicates that the proposed development could make a significant and positive contribution to the local economy and the prosperity of the Borough. This is consequently considered to be a matter which carries significant weight in favour of the application.
16. Planning Obligations a. Education WCC has undertaken an assessment of the impact of the proposal on education facilities within the catchment area of the application site. In terms of nursery provision, this assessment has identified that there is no surplus capacity of Early Years pupil places in this area. A request is therefore made to accommodate the 8 pupils it has been calculated that this development would generate. In terms of primary provision, this assessment has identified that the priority area schools, Galley Common Infant School and Michael Drayton Junior schools, are over / at capacity and are forecasted to remain so. Other local primary schools are also full and predicted to remain so. A contribution is therefore required for the additional 57 pupils expected to be generated by this development. In terms of secondary provision, this assessment has identified that the priority area Secondary, Hartshill School, is already over capacity and forecast to remain so from existing pupils. This would occur through larger numbers transferring from primary schools and other local developments in the vicinity. A request has therefore been made for this age group. This request includes 6th form provision because the raising of the participation age will result in an increased demand on the limited places available within the town for post 16 education. A request is therefore made to accommodate the 41 secondary pupils and 10 post 16 pupils it has been calculated that this development would generate. In terms of SEN provision, this assessment indicates that the figures have been rounded to 2 pupils at Primary and 3 pupils at Secondary who are likely to present with special educational needs. No places are available for this sector in this area and therefore a request has been made towards Primary and Secondary SEN provision.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 39
In view of the above, it has been calculated using a formula that a financial contribution of £1,598,030 would be required towards education provision within this locality to offset the detrimental impact on education provision that would otherwise be caused. The applicant has subsequently raised a number of queries with this request and discussions with WCC are therefore ongoing to ensure that the request is justified in accordance with the CIL Regulations listed above. In the event that the request is justified in accordance with the CIL Regulations, the applicant has indicated that they would be willing to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure a financial contribution to education provision.
b. Galley Common Infant School Car Park The application includes proposals for the provision of a car park for use by Galley Common Infant School. This car park would be located on the opposite side of Plough Hill Road to the school and would provide 24 off road parking spaces. The applicant has offered this voluntarily and indicated it this would contribute to an alleviation of pick up and drop off related traffic along Plough Hill Road, and other related roads. The car park would be given to WCC for adoption and maintenance. WCC has consequently outlined that they are, in principle, happy to accept this subject to more detailed discussions with the applicant and other infrastructure providers. The provision of this car park and subsequent adoption and maintenance could therefore be included within a S106 Agreement.
c. Plough Hill Road Crossing The application includes proposals for the provision of a crossing along Plough Hill Road between the application site and Galley Common Infant School. It is envisaged that this would take the form of a Pelican/Puffin crossing. Details of this crossing need to be confirmed by WCC Highways and the applicant but could be secured within a suitably worded condition.
d. Upgrading of The Shuntings Parks and Countryside has undertaken an assessment of the impact that the proposed development would have on The Shuntings which is used by residents in this area for cycling and walking. They have consequently requested a financial contribution of £189,000 towards improvements to The Shunting including the upgrading of the surface of this route. They have particularly indicated that the contribution would be used to complete a section of the Shuntings alongside the proposed development and then take it through Nuneaton Common connecting the new residents with the SUStrans route National Cycle Network 524 that will take them into the town centre and beyond. Discussions with the applicant and Parks and Countryside are therefore ongoing to ensure that the request is justified in accordance with the CIL Regulations listed above. In the event that the request is justified, the financial contribution could be secured through inclusion within a S106 Agreement.
e. Bus Service Improvements and Bus Shelters WCC Highways, in association with Stagecoach, are seeking a financial contribution of £450,000 towards funding enhanced bus service provision to
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 40
the site. This would specifically be used in order to provide connectivity between this significant new development on Plough Hill Road, Nuneaton town centre and nearby settlements. They indicate that the enhanced bus service provision would be focused on Service 18 (Nuneaton Town Centre - Chapel End - Galley Common - Ansley - Old Arley - Gun Hill - Ansley - Galley Common - Chapel End - Nuneaton Town Centre), which is currently an hourly service operated commercially by Stagecoach Midlands. The scope of the enhanced bus service provision involves diverting the Service 18 to access the new development and increasing the service frequency to half- hourly between 0700 - 1900 (Mondays to Saturdays). They indicate that this would substantially improve the attractiveness of the bus service, which would compensate for the extension to journey times in order to serve the new development. Discussions with WCC and Stagecoach are therefore ongoing to ensure that the request is justified in accordance with the CIL Regulations listed above. In the event that the request is justified in accordance with the CIL Regulations, the applicant has indicated that they would be willing to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure a financial contribution to enhanced bus service provision.
Further to the above, the application includes proposals for the provision of two bus shelters along Plough Hill Road by the application site which could be secured via suitably worded conditions.
f. Play and Open Space The Council’s policy for seeking financial contributions towards play and open space is set out within Appendix A of the Residential Design Guide. The penultimate paragraph of this on the first page sets out that that sites of up to 400 dwellings (as in this case) should provide an on site equipped children’s play area with associated informal buffer and a financial contribution for the number of dwellings above 200 (i.e. up to 62 dwellings for this development).
In this case, the applicant is proposing to provide 5.6 hectares of public open space on the application site in addition to two on site equipped children’s play areas. However, the Council’s Parks and Countryside Department has also requested the provision of a multi-use games area on site and are in ongoing to ensure that the request is justified in accordance with the CIL Regulations. As a result of this, they are currently not in a position to confirm how much open space on the site the Council is willing to adopt and maintain. They are also note in a position to specify the amount of financial contributions requested towards play and open space provision and maintenance in the locality. Such matters will consequently form part of the ongoing discussions in relation to play and open space provision on the site.
g. GP Practices NHS England has commented as follows:
‘This proposed development is in the Camp Hill & Galley Common locality. There are 5 GP practices situated in this locality. One of these practices has a list size to wte GP ratio that is significantly below the national average so has capacity to accept new patients
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 41
onto its list. Another of the practices has stated that it could accommodate additional GP sessions within its premises. Galley Common Medical Centre also has consulting rooms that are not used all of the time that it is open so could create capacity should it chose to do so and the GP Patient Survey undertaken in July 2014 showed that 86% of patients registered with this practice were able to get an appointment to see or speak to someone the last time they tried’.
It is on this basis that it is considered that it would not be reasonable to request a financial contribution towards GP practices in the area as this would not be in accordance with the CIL Regulations.
17. Conclusions: Sustainable Development As previously outlined, the NPPF establishes the need for the planning system to achieve sustainable development which is composed of mutually dependent economic, social and environmental dimensions (paragraphs 6 and 7). There is consequently a presumption in favour of applications for sustainable development (paragraphs 49 and 197). In broad terms, this means that the application should be approved providing that it is in accordance with the development plan and other policies within the NPPF, unless material considerations or adverse impacts indicate otherwise (paragraphs 14 and 187).
In this case, the assessment has identified that there is a significant need for new housing within the Borough and that the Council does not have a 5 year housing land supply to meet that need. The development would therefore make a significant positive contribution towards meeting this housing need whilst also providing up to 66 new affordable homes. In turn, it has been demonstrated that the proposed development would make a significant and positive contribution to the local economy and the prosperity of the Borough. In addition, the proposed development could result in the provision of a school car park to alleviate existing on-street parking problems whilst also providing a safe crossing over the road to the school.
The potential adverse impacts of the proposed development in relation to the use of the land, landscape character and appearance, trees and hedgerows, heritage and archaeology, highway safety, traffic flows, accessibility, public rights of way, ecology, flood risk, drainage, air quality noise, contamination, convenience store impact and local infrastructure have all been considered. The assessment has subsequently shown that there would be no adverse impacts in some instances. However, in other instances where potential adverse impacts are identified, it would be possible to mitigate against this impact through a number of different measures and strategies. This mitigation could be secured through conditions and a S106 Legal Agreement to ensure that this is delivered. Nonetheless, it is clear that there would be some unavoidable harm of limited weight in relation to the loss of an area of good quality agricultural land, potential reliance on the use of a private car for some occupiers of the development, moderate adverse effect on the landscape character area, potential loss of one hedgerow and breaks in other important
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 42
hedgerows. However, it is considered that it has not adequately been demonstrated that significant harm of substantial weight would not arise from the potentially significant and detrimental impact of the proposed development on highway safety and traffic flows. It is therefore considered that this potentially significant and detrimental harm is not significantly outweighed by the benefits of the proposed development.
Taking into account the above assessment, it is consequently considered that the proposed development would not be in accordance with the development plan and other policies within the NPPF. It is therefore considered that it has not adequately been demonstrated that the proposed development would achieve sustainable development and should therefore be refused.
RECOMMENDATION: Refusal
REASONS FOR REFUSAL: 1. Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework states: At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen has a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-taking this means: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of- date, granting permission unless: - Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; - Or, specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
2. Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 states: - All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Assessment. Plan and decisions should take account of whether: - The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; - Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; - Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.
3. Policy ENV14 of the Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Local Plan 2006 states: The design and materials of all development should be of a high standard in keeping with the scale and character of the locality. All development should
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 43
comply with Supplementary Planning Guidance and/or Supplementary Planning Documents produced by the Borough and County Council, where detailed guidance is considered necessary.
a. The proposal is contrary to these policies in that it has not adequately been demonstrated that: - The Transport Assessment provides a sufficient basis upon which to determine the impact that the proposed development would have on the highway network. - The increase in traffic at the junction of Plough Hill Road/Coleshill Road resulting from the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety. - The increase in traffic at the junctions of School Hill/Coleshill Road East/ Coleshill Road West and Victoria Road/Camp Hill Road/Bucks Hill Road/ Coleshill Road, would not have a significant and detrimental impact on the highway network. - The residual cumulative impacts of the proposed development would not be severe. The proposed development could have a severe, significant and detrimental impact on traffic flows and highway safety. (Contrary to paragraphs 14 and 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policy ENV14 of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Local Plan, Transport and Roads for Developments: The Warwickshire Guide 2001, and Warwickshire County Council’s Local Transport Plan 2011-2026).
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 44
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 45
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 46
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 47
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Item No. 2
REFERENCE No. 032668
Site Address: Site 117C019 – Land rear of 83-119 Blackhorse Road and off Stockley Road, Longford
Description of Development: Erection of up to 80 dwellings, a community hall, allotments, open space, water attenuation basins and associated infrastructure (Outline with all matters reserved) (Land to the rear of properties 83-119 Blackhorse Road and off Stockley Road) Applicant: Capco Trustees Jersey Limited.
Ward: Poplar
RECOMMENDATION: Refusal on the grounds of harm to the Greenbelt and a lack of very special circumstances required to outweigh this harm.
INTRODUCTION: This is an outline application for residential development for up to 80 dwellings. All matters are reserved to be considered at a future stage and do not form part of the application these are as follows:
Access – accessibility to and within the site for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians in terms of the positioning and treatment of access and circulation routes and how these fit into the surrounding access network. Layout – the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces are provided within the development and their relationship to buildings and spaces outside the development. Scale – the height, width and length of each building proposed in relation to its surroundings. Appearance – The aspects of a building or place which determine the visual impression in makes, including the external built form of the development. Landscaping – Treatment of private and public space to enhance or protect the site’s amenity through hard and soft measures, for example, through planting of trees or hedges or screening by fences or walls.
The site is a relatively small, currently open piece of land, in that it is largely undeveloped, on the edge of the West Midlands Greenbelt. The site measures It is bordered on three sides by development, a mix of residential
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 48
(to the east and south) and some industrial units to the west, which are separated from the site by the railway line which runs along the top of an embankment flanked by small trees and self-set shrubbery and some small saplings. To the north is a largely undeveloped parcel of land which previously contained the Hawkesbury Golf Course, and is now vacant in terms of use, but is used informally my locals for walking and other recreation. The former Hawkesbury Golf Course site although quite tranquil and serene does have some urbanising features too, like noise from surrounding roads, and visual intrusion from the built form. The site it is a man-made landscape and this is difficult to disguise even after years of disuse.
The public footpath B36 runs along the eastern edge of the site before turning to the north west and running roughly parallel with the diagonal northern edge of the site before heading under a small tunnel beneath the railway line further to the north. A spur of the national cycle network also runs along Stockley Road.
On the land which comprises the application there is some evidence of its proximity to the urban area in the power lines which cross the site, the electricity box and the close boarded residential fences which form the southern and eastern boundaries.
The built form which surrounds the site is largely two-storey residential properties, and some single storey, and two-storey in height, industrial buildings. The site does have a somewhat peripheral feel, and does not feel ‘remote’. The urban edge around this site is harsh and is an abrupt end to the built development of Hawkesbury and the north of Coventry, and the south eastern edge of Bedworth. The site is split in two by Stockley Road, and the small roundabout which currently acts somewhat as a traffic calming measure. This also adds to the peripheral feel of this site.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: None.
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES: ENV1 - Greenbelt ENV14 – Supplementary Planning Guidance / Supplementary Planning Documents H3 – Affordable Housing H5 – 10% Adaptable Housing H6 – Planning Obligations R8 – Green Networks National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
CONSULTEES NOTIFIED: Severn Trent Water, WCC Highways, Network Rail, Natural England, The Environment Agency, NBBC Environmental Health, NBBC Planning Policy,
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 49
The Warwickshire Ramblers Association, NBBC Parks and Countryside, The Open Space Society, WCC Archaeology, WCC Infrastructure, WCC Land Drainage, WCC Flood Risk Team, WCC Footpaths, WCC Rights of Way, NBBC Land Drainage Engineer, CPRE Warwickshire, The Bedworth Society, Warwickshire Police, Western Power Distribution, Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, WCC Education, NHS Property Services, Hawkesbury Village Residents Association, NBBC Housing.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES: Objection from: Hawkesbury Village Residents Association objects on the grounds that the proposal will create too many additional houses, that there is a lack of spaces at schools and health care providers, and that the land is in the Greenbelt. They also object because the transport infrastructure will struggle given the KNUCKLE proposal and existing highways issues. They state that if approved the scheme should include the community building, allotments and open space, traffic calming measures and amendments to roads and footpaths.
Network Rail on the grounds that the proposal would increase pedestrian and vehicular traffic using the level crossing, that there is a high potential for noise and vibration from the railway line, that the proposed landscaping includes trees near to the railway line and comments that there is a need for a risk assessment at the design phase.
NBBC Parks and Countryside on the grounds that mitigation and offsetting of biodiversity is not adequate and does not address impacts on protected species with particular reference to reptiles. No objection subject to conditions from: WCC Highways, Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, Warwickshire Police, WCC Archaeology, Fire and Rescue, NBBC Environmental Health, The Environment Agency, Severn Trent Water,
No objection subject to planning obligations from: WCC Infrastructure, WCC Rights of Way,
No objection from: Natural England, NBBC Housing, NHS Property Services, Warwickshire Police, Warwickshire Ramblers Association,
Letter of comment from: NBBC Planning Policy, No response from: The Open Space Society, WCC Land Drainage, WCC Flood Risk Team, WCC Footpaths, NBBC Land Drainage Engineer, CPRE Warwickshire, The Bedworth Society, Western Power Distribution,
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 50
NEIGHBOURS NOTIFIED: The Ronald Wilson Trust, PO Box 48, 48-50 The Esplanade, St Helier, Jersey. The Boat Inn, 69-85 (odd), 95, 97, 99a, 99b, 101-105 (odd), 105b, 107, 109, 113-119 (odd), 127, 129, 110, 110a, 112, 118-126 (even), 132-138 (even), 144-172 (even) Blackhorse Road. The Handmade Flapjack Co.; L.A.R Welders Unit 1, Hyfore Engineering Ltd. Unit 2, Hyfore Developments Unit 3, Turbo Separator unit 4, 67 Blackhorse Road. 8, 10, 16-22 (even), 11- 47 (odd) Sephton Drive. 2-22 (even), 1-43 (odd) Sinclair Drive. 1 Aspen Drive. Neighbouring properties were sent letters notifying the of the proposed development on 8th April 2014, and then some subsequent amended plans letters were sent in the following weeks. Site notices were erected on street furniture 8th April 2014 and a newspaper advert was placed in the Nuneaton News on the 16th May 2014 and the 11th July 2014.
There have been objections from 51 addresses and one on behalf of the Ronald Wilson Trust (owner of the adjacent site) raising the following points:
The nearby application on former Hawkesbury Golf Course was refused previously. The site is designated as Greenbelt within the Local Plan. The additional traffic, car movements, on-street parking and associated transport issues would be exacerbated by the development, and impact upon highway safety. Access and egress from Blackhorse Road is difficult with a weight restricted canal bridge, and traffic lights on to Coventry Road and a large industrial estate. The Automatic Level Crossing already causes congestion which would be compounded. The Railway line is due to become busier. Extra pressure on existing schools and school places. Extra pressure on existing medical and health facilities. Would add pressure to the existing infrastructure The development needs to include a good quality cycle and walking route, this would encourage walking/cycling. The new properties would be directly overlooking of existing properties. Proposal is detract form the current village feel. Concern for the safety of children who will have less space to play on. Would impact on the openness of the Greenbelt, and contribute to urban sprawl. There are habitats and biodiversity on the site. The site forms part of the heritage of Hawkesbury Village Pollution, contamination and risk to health and well-being Would result in the loss of a quiet and tranquil area. The Transport Assessment is not sufficient and does not cover everything expected. There is only 1 shop in the village.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 51
There is a limited bus service at present. The previous appeal on the former Hawkesbury Golf Course site is a material consideration The Secretary of State stated on the previous appeals on the nearby site that the circumstances did not outweigh the harm to the Greenbelt and other identified harm The Hawkesbury Golf Course Site has been promoted for residential development through the emerging Borough Plan
APPRAISAL: The key issues to assess in the determination of this application are; 1. The appropriateness of the principle of development within the Greenbelt, 2. The impact upon the Greenbelt in terms of openness, 3. The impact on visual amenity and landscape character, 4. Housing and affordable housing need and supply, 5. The quality of agricultural land, 6. Highway safety, traffic flows and accessibility, 7. Archaeology, 8. Allotments and community building, 9. Contamination, 10. Air quality, 11. Noise, 12. Ecology, 13. Flooding, 14. Planning obligations 15. Conclusions including very special circumstances
1. The Appropriateness of the Development in the Greenbelt
The development is situated within the West Midlands Greenbelt as designated by saved policy ENV1 of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Local Plan 2006. As such it is necessary to consider whether the proposal constitutes appropriate development within the Greenbelt.
Saved Local Plan Policy ENV1 is relevant to this assessment, as are paragraphs 87 and 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Paragraphs 214 and 215 of the NPPF state that due weight should be given to Development Plan polices adopted after 2004, and that their weight should be given in accordance with their consistency with The Framework. In regard to inappropriateness ENV1 is considered to be very consistent with The Framework’s paragraphs 87 and 89.
This saved local policy and national guidance both give a presumption against inappropriate development within the Greenbelt which, is by definition, harmful to the Greenbelt. Both ENV1 and paragraph 89 of the NPPF set out certain types of development which are acceptable within the Greenbelt, with paragraph 89 stating that new buildings within the Greenbelt are inappropriate except in certain circumstances. The proposal is for residential development
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 52
of up to 80 dwellings and a community hall, allotments, open space, water attenuation basins and other associated infrastructure.
This development does not fall in to the limited categories of what is considered ‘appropriate’ development as identified in local policy, and in national guidance. It is therefore considered that the development is not appropriate in this Greenbelt location and would therefore constitute inappropriate development which would, by definition, be harmful to the Greenbelt. It is considered that the harm carries significant weight against the proposal.
2. Impact on the Openness of the Greenbelt
Paragraph 79 of the NPPF states that; the fundamental aim of Greenbelt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and that the essential characteristics of Greenbelts are their openness and permanence.
In considering the openness of the Greenbelt on this site it is important to understand the context of the site in question. The site lies to the north of Blackhorse Road, and is split in to two by Stockley Road, and the small roundabout on this road. To the east and south of the site is housing, to the west of the site is the industrial estate which is accessed off Blackhorse road, and the railway line is also to this side and separates this site from the industrial estate. The site forms the edge of the Greenbelt in this location, and is in a peripheral location both in terms of its proximity to urban form and in the openness of the Greenbelt. A footpath runs along the edge of the site, and proceeds north towards the railway line which it then traverses via a tunnel enabling access to the industrial area.
To the south and east of the site is the relatively harsh urban edge of Blackhorse Road, and the rear gardens of houses on this road, and Sephton Drive. The houses on Blackhorse Road are mixed in style but are primarily two-storey in height, and form a solid urban edge. The houses on Sephton Drive are more uniform and are also mainly two-storey in height. The only gap in this row of properties (other than the smaller gaps between them) comes at the opening of Stockley Road. The boundary fences, mostly 1.8m high close boarded fences, of the rear gardens of the properties are the first thing seen from the site, the houses and domestic gardens both have some urbanising effect on this portion of the Greenbelt. Stockley Road splits the site in to two, and also has an urbanising effect on this site. To the west the industrial estate is visible as a row of older brick built and newer steel-clad units which are roughly the same height as the two-storey houses which border the site elsewhere. To the north is open land, which extends northwards towards the eastern side of Bedworth. The industrial estate flanks its western side for some short distance but it eventually opens out wider although the open space to the north is still bounded to the west by the railway line. From the application site views north are very serene and the feeling is overwhelmingly one of an open countryside, although the lay of the land and topographical features means this view is not extensive. Views east, south and west are
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 53
more urbanised and harsh, and make for an abrupt boundary with the openness on this site.
Nuneaton and Bedworth, Coventry City and Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth under took a Joint Greenbelt Review in 2009 (JGBR) which states on this particular site (referenced as NB5A in figure 2.3 (Page 10) of the complete appendices), in terms of visual issues; “Minor topographical variety, roadside hedges and trees reduce the general length of views to mid- distance. Detractors include overhead power lines and a subs-station”. The JGBR mentioned elsewhere that there are many constraints to development of this site, but that it was recommended to take this site (NB5a) forward for detailed analysis. The Strategic Housing Site Selection Background Paper (SHSSBP) is a paper which informs the Emerging Borough Plan and forms part of its evidence base. It uses the reference ‘PDA9’ for this parcel of land. In this document the site was taken forward for more detailed analysis, but ultimately was not taken forward in to the emerging borough plan as it was deemed to be less sustainable than the other sites chosen. In terms of openness however, the SHSSBP stated that the site contains the inactive golf course, and Bayton Lakes, but that is not true of this application site which is only the small southern constituent of the larger PDA9.
The application aims to establish the principle of up to 80 houses on the site, and all of the ancillary development which is being applied for here. Despite the amount of open space on site, and the existing built-up area which surrounds the site on the southern, eastern and western side, it is considered that the construction of up to 80 homes on the site would have an impact on the openness of the Greenbelt, by permanently removing the openness and through the permanent loss of character that goes along with this. This impact would be significant and accordingly, and in line with guidance given by the NPPF, significant weight is being given to harm caused to the openness of Greenbelt.
3. The Purposes of Including Land within the Greenbelt
Paragraph 80 of the NPPF sets out the five purposes of including land in the Greenbelt. Since the proposal is sited in what is currently designated as Greenbelt it is necessary to evaluate the varying degrees of conflict, if any, the development of the site would have with these purposes. Firstly it is important to acknowledge that the Joint Greenbelt Review 2009 identified parcels of land which had the potential for development, and discounted those which contributed most significantly to the 5 purposes of the Greenbelt, and took forward those which did not. This site, identified as NB5A in the document was taken forward due to its limited conformity with the 5 purposes of including land within the Greenbelt. The study identified that the land itself already contains urban sprawl from north Coventry. It also mentioned that the site contains an electric sub-station and numerous overhead power lines. It goes on to state that Coventry and Bedworth have already merged so this land would have a limited, and perhaps somewhat ineffectual impact on preventing towns from merging. The JGBR 2009 also states that the countryside has already been encroached upon by the urban area to the
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 54
south east of Bedworth, and that it does not contribute to the setting of historic towns, but that it contributes to urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of redundant and derelict land within the urban settlement area. Overall however the JGBR 2009 stated that this site did have the potential to accommodate housing, which does carry weight in favour of it. The proposed developments conformity with the 5 purposes of including land within the Greenbelt will be assessed below.
The first of these is to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. As already mentioned above the site in question is on the urban fringe, and is somewhat surrounded by development on three sides. The north of Coventry, and the south east of Bedworth currently have quite a harsh edge with mostly two storey development along Blackhorse Road, and within the Industrial Estate, and the newer development of Sephton Drive and Sinclair Drive to the east. This newer development effectively completes the third side of the enclosure of this site, with its only open direction facing the former golf course roughly to the north. The proposal site would not proceed noticeably further north than the developments on either side of it, at least not to any serious degree. Although ‘sprawl’ is probably a harsh way of describing this proposal, it would increase the limit of the urban area and could be seen to incrementally ‘chip’ away this area of open space. But as mentioned before, it would not proceed further north than the existing urban development flanking the site. The now replaced national guidance on Greenbelts held within PPG2: Greenbelts (although extant at the time of previous Local Plan adoption), and the guidance within part of the current national planning policy framework, (the final bullet point of Paragraph 85 of the NPPF) states that the boundaries of Greenbelts should be clearly defined using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees, etcetera. On this site the most obvious and clearly recognisable features are that of Blackhorse Road, the railway line to the west, and Sephton Drive to the east. The development would obviously make the built form cross these boundaries in to the Greenbelt. The Joint Greenbelt Review 2009 identified this parcel of land as not meeting with this purpose of the Greenbelt, in that it would not check the unrestricted sprawl of the urban area since this had already occurred to a certain extend. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) submitted by the applicant also stated this; that there was no perceptible sprawl created by the proposal, mainly because of the surroundings of the development site and the urban form which encloses three sides of the site. It is considered that despite the strong boundaries around the site which could be seen to form the recognisable limit of the GB, that development on this site, beyond the existing urban area, is unlikely to create any major ‘urban sprawl’ beyond that which has already occurred. The development of this site would continue the urban area over what is currently open countryside however, and would because of this constitute some sprawl to a limited degree but since the land is not considered to actively contribute to this purpose there is only very limited conflict with this purpose of including land within the Greenbelt caused by the development, and therefore only limited weight applied to this limited conflict.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 55
The second purpose of Greenbelt is to prevent neighbouring towns from merging in to one another. The proposal will be on the northern edge of Coventry and near to the south-eastern edge of Bedworth, on the northern side of Blackhorse Road and as such will inevitably bring the urban edge further north. The degree to which this will have an impact on the merging of the city/town of Coventry and Bedworth, is felt to be minimal in that it will not encroach further north than the Sephton Drive development to the east, or the industrial estate to the west. It is also considered that this is not the most vulnerable part of Greenbelt in terms of this purpose, since the merging of Coventry and Bedworth has already occurred to a certain extent. Overall there is considered to be no conflict with this purpose of including land within the Greenbelt since development on this site would do little to endanger the individuality of Coventry or Bedworth, nor does the site itself prevent this merging. This is also evidenced within the Joint Greenbelt Review 2009 which states with regard to this sites conflict with this purpose; that Coventry and Bedworth have already merged.
The third purpose is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. As mentioned above the site is surrounding by built form on three sides and is somewhat enclosed by it. It is felt that because of the urban boundaries to the site, its close proximity to the urban area, and the openness of the development proposed that there would be only a limited amount of encroachment on the countryside by this development. The Joint Greenbelt Review states that this site essentially does not have a role to play in assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment since the countryside in this area has already been encroached upon. This is echoed by the LVIA submitted by the applicant. By developing this site, it will inevitably encroach on the openness of this small section of Greenbelt, and would encroach on the countryside albeit to a limited degree in an area where the countryside has already been encroached upon. It is considered that because of the limited way in which the proposal will encroach on the countryside, and the sites lack of purpose in regard to this matter that there is only limited conflict with this purpose of including land within the Greenbelt and as such only limited weight applied to this conflict.
The fourth purpose is to preserve the setting of historic towns. As identified within the Joint Greenbelt Review 2009, the site does not contribute to this purpose of the Greenbelt. The centre of Coventry, and to a degree Bedworth, does have historic parts to them, but the edge of the urban area does not. Indeed the site is just on the cusp of the urban area. It is therefore considered that there is no conflict with this purpose of including land within the Greenbelt.
The fifth purpose is to assist in urban regeneration by promoting derelict and other urban land before Greenbelt land is used. The Joint Greenbelt Review 2009 identifies this land as contributing to assisting in urban regeneration by promoting derelict and urban land. It is considered that this land, like all Greenbelt land assessed in the JGBR 2009 does meet with this purpose in that by restricting development out of the urban area, the housing need must therefore be fulfilled within the built up settlement with Greenbelt sites only
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 56
used as a ‘last resort’. The Borough Plan, which will be discussed in greater detail in other parts of this report, has acknowledged that the housing need outstrips the available land within the urban area, although it is envisaged that Greenbelt development is likely to be at the end of the plan period. With this in mind it is considered that no weight can be applied to the harm caused by this as the Borough Plan, and the additional need for housing, means that Greenbelt development is likely to be a necessity, and although this should be at the end of any plan period the weight of pressure from housing is likely to be such that it is necessary.
It is conclusion it is felt that the development would cause no conflict with 3 of the 5 purposes, however there is a limited degree of conflict with 2 of the 5 (purposes 1, 3). To this limited conflict with 2 of the 5 purposes limited weight should weigh against the proposal. It is prudent to again mention that the JGBR 2009 did state that this site had the potential for accommodating housing development, and as such this carries weight in favour of the proposal.
In The Hawkesbury Golf Course Appeal 2013 (APP/W3710/A/13/2192451 & APP/W3710/A/13/2195969) which is a material consideration in this decision, the Inspectors Report at paragraph 11.16 stated that in that case there was conflict with both the first and third purpose, and although the size of the development is obviously smaller in this proposal, and there are other mitigating factors mentioned above, it is still considered with this scheme, as with the other scheme considered by the Inspector, that there will be conflict (in this case limited conflict) with these purposes of including land within the Greenbelt, 1 and 3.
In the planning statement which accompanies this application it makes reference to the comments of the Inspector at the previous Local Plan (NBB Local Plan 2006) Inquiry, which took place in 2002 (although another took place 2005). The Inspector commented that;
“It is hard to see how it serves a strategic Greenbelt function or could be used to fulfil any of the Greenbelt land use objectives in PPG2 except, possibly, outdoor sport or recreation. However, in the absence of current housing need I have not recommended its allocation in this plan. Hence I conclude that there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant its release from the Greenbelt. It follows that it should remain as Greenbelt land, but that its status as such should be kept under review” Paragraph 7.15
In considering this point it is important to recognise that this is a material consideration of this planning application. While the statement does give a good indication of the quality of this Greenbelt land in the eyes of an Inspector and the extent to which it serves the functions of Greenbelt, the question of whether the land remains in the Greenbelt is not a subject for this planning application to consider. The process for Greenbelt release should take place only through the Local Plan process, and then only in exceptional circumstances (unless very special circumstances exist in any potential
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 57
planning application) as the Inspector in 2002 mentioned; the status of the land should be kept under review. This is being done in the emerging Borough Plan. Put simply, the purpose of this application is to determine the harm which the development may cause to the Greenbelt, along with all other material considerations, and whether or not very special circumstances exist which clearly outweigh any harm created. It is therefore considered that the Inspectors comments do carry some weight in favour of the proposal, and give a good indication of the quality of the land in the eyes of an Inspector.
The potential for other sites to come forward which are potentially more acceptable, and the allowance for a strategic view of the Borough and sub- regional area, must be taken in to account in order to adequately consider the wider strategic viewpoint. The extent of existing Greenbelt within Nuneaton & Bedworth area is the subject of not only a borough wide review but also a Strategic Joint Greenbelt Study pertaining Coventry City, Nuneaton & Bedworth, Rugby and Warwick. The process of examining the boundaries, the need for areas of release to accommodate growth and potential additional areas for inclusion in the Greenbelt, is at an early stage within the plan making process. An important material consideration that the strategic Greenbelt review will grapple with is the availability of existing sites and areas that can accommodate growth without the need for the Greenbelt release, or in the event of the necessity for Greenbelt release, then the best and most sustainable location for this. The culmination of this examination is yet to be realised, but the proposals should be properly tested through the full extent of the currently ongoing Local Plan process, however the outcome of such an exercise cannot yet be known.
4. The Impact on Landscape Character and Visual Amenity
Two of the core planning principles outlined within paragraph 17 of the NPPF establish the need to ‘Take account of the different roles and character of different areas…recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside’ and ‘Help conserve and enhance the natural environment… land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value’. In view of the above it is necessary to have regard to the Council’s ‘TEP’ Land Use Designations Study which include: Volume 1: Landscape Character Assessment (2012); Volume 2: Policy Recommendations (2012); Volume 3 (Site Analysis and Selection); and Stage 2: Individual Site Assessment (2012). These studies are collectively being used to inform the emerging Borough Plan. They assess existing landscape character and the capacity of this landscape to accommodate change. To this effect the land outside the urban area has been broken down into a number of parcels for the purpose of further analysis. The conclusions of these studies are consequently material considerations to take into account in the determination of this application. The applicant has submitted a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) (dated March 2014) with the application.
Overall the Council’s study, prepared by TEP, draws the conclusion that the landscape character of the area has an urban character and because of this and the poor quality of the existing urban edge the site is considered to have
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 58
a high capacity for residential development. There is scope to improve views of the settlement using high quality development and the use of greater vegetation screening to break up views of the urban edge from the canal and countryside beyond. The report then recommended that the site be taken forward in the emerging Borough Plan with potential for residential development with a ‘High’ landscape capacity. A number of landscape features, primarily grassland, would be modified or removed. The LVIA goes on to state, as is echoed by the Council’s TEP study, that the site lies within the Nuneaton and Bedworth Urban Fringes landscape character area, and that the impact on that landscape area is of a negligible magnitude and would be minimal and neutral.
The harm to the landscape character of the area would be minimal, and mostly restricted to the site and its immediate surroundings. As stated in the LVIA the impact on visual amenity would also be minimal, for the same reasons. The harm attributed to this impact on visual amenity, and the impact on landscape character would be limited. The LVIA states in regard to the visual impact on Recreational Routes that; visual effects on the footpaths immediate vicinity would be major-moderate and on balance adverse. For the remainder of the footpath the effects would reduce to moderate and on balance, adverse. On other rights of way nearby, the effects are moderate- slight and on balance neutral. The urbanising effect of 80 houses on this site, and the other built form is considered to have a minimal impact on the visual amenity of the area and its immediate surroundings. It is therefore considered that the proposals impact on this regard is minimal and carries only very limited weight against the proposal in regard to its impact on visual amenity, but that the weight attributed to any harm to the landscape character would be none and therefore neutral weight it attributed to this consideration.
It is prudent to mention that in the Hawkesbury Golf Course Appeal on the site nearby, the Inspectors Report attributed some weight to the fact that the site has been assessed as being, in landscape terms, a strong potential candidate for development, and the Secretary of State (SoS) agreed with this. This site has similar features, strengths and weaknesses, so it is consequently considered that some weight should be applied to this. On the nearby Hawkesbury Golf Course Scheme, overall the Inspector reasoned (IR11.45- 46) that there was no significant impact on visual amenity caused by the proposal.
5. Existing and Future Housing Need and Housing Land Supply
National guidance, in the form of the NPPF, identifies a need to boost the housing supply across the country, and sets out the requirement for Councils to fully and objectively assess housing need across the housing market area, and to have regard to cooperation with neighbouring authorities. Paragraphs 47, 157 and 159 of the NPPF are most applicable to identifying housing need. Within paragraph 47 there is a requirement for local authorities to identify a deliverable five year housing land supply to meet the need identified through the Local Plan process. There is also the need to ensure choice and competition in the market for land and with this in mind a 5% buffer is further
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 59
required and this increases to 20% where there is a persistent under delivery of new homes.
A Five Year Land Supply Statement published by the Council in November 2013 outlines that the current 5 year housing requirement is now 2,350 dwellings or 470 dwellings a year. This figure has been calculated by subtracting the total number of new homes (849) built between 2010-2013 from the interim target of providing 7,900 homes between 2010-2028. This gives a target of providing 7,051 homes over a 15 year period between 2013- 2028 which equates to 2,350 dwellings over 5 years or 470 dwellings a year. The statement also acknowledges that recent housing completion figures across the Borough have been low and that there is subsequently a record of under delivery of housing in recent years against the interim target. In calculating a five year land supply the Council has therefore made an allowance for an additional buffer of 20% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. The statement consequently indicates that Borough has a 2.70 year land supply with a 20% buffer (or 3.09 year land supply with a 5% buffer).
In the Hawkesbury Appeal Decision it was agreed by all parties including the Inspector and the SoS that there was not a 5 year land supply and that this weighed significantly in favour of the proposal.
Overall, it is recognised that the Council does not have a five year supply of deliverable housing land to meet the identified housing need and that this in itself is a matter which weighs significantly in favour of the application. This is therefore considered to be a deliverable site and one which would make a significant and positive contribution towards meeting the identified housing need in the Borough.
Additionally; in regard to housing need the recently amended Paragraph 034 of the National Planning Practice Guidance states: “Unmet housing need (including for traveller sites) is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Greenbelt and other harm to constitute the ‘very special circumstances’ justifying inappropriate development on a site within the Greenbelt”. This is also a material consideration, and will help to inform the process of determining if very special circumstances exist.
Affordable Housing Need and Supply:
In regard to affordable housing it is firstly important to note that the Borough Council has recently made a change to the way in which it administrates housing need, and those in need of housing. The previously identified housing need, made clear in the Council’s Housing Strategy 2010 was 495 per annum based on the figures available at the time. However, the Council recently published an update to its affordable housing need through the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2013 which gives a net new affordable dwellings per annum figure of 151 until 2031. This reduction in numerical need is mainly due to a combination of account being given to only those in actual identifiable housing need at the time of the SHMA data collection phase
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 60
(which was around 2500 as opposed to the full figure of 6000 on the list at the time), account being given to the private rented market in meeting some part of the need for affordable housing, and the ‘backlog’ of unmet need being spread over a longer timeframe. This resulted in the SHMA figure being significantly lower than previously identified.
In 2012/13 the Council saw the completion of 100 affordable units and in 2013/14 Council anticipate the figure to be 125 affordable units. So it is clear that despite the reduced annual completion target of 151 net new dwellings, the current provision is falling short of this target and therefore the need continues to increase.
It is considered that in relation to Affordable Housing Need it has been demonstrated that under-delivery of affordable homes, relative to need for them continues to intensify. The recently published SHMA has reduced the net need for new affordable housing, but this is in line with a reduction in those eligible to apply and spreading that need over a longer time frame (and other factors mentioned above). A proposal such as this would provide a good deal of affordable housing within a development which provides a mixture of market and affordable housing, in an area with a high proportion of owner- occupation, within a relatively short time frame. The 20 dwellings (25%) of affordable housing provided by this scheme is welcomed, and as such this weighs significantly in favour of the proposal.
6. The Use of Land for Agriculture
The land in question currently has no perceived use, however since the land is designated as Greenbelt, agriculture could be an appropriate use for the site. It is important therefore to consider the potential for the loss of this land which could be used for agriculture, which is an accepted land use within the Greenbelt. Paragraph 112 of the NPPF is therefore relevant and outlines the need to consider the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land.
The Strategic Housing Site Selection Summary, a background paper of the Borough Plan which forms part of the evidence base for its proposals, designated this piece of land as PDA9, and states that the site is ‘Grade 4’ (Poor) agricultural land, one of the lower Grade’s of Agricultural Land Classification (the classifications range from 1 – excellent to 5 – very poor). This grading is taken from the Natural England Agricultural Land Classification Map for the West Midlands 2010.
Consequently the loss of this land for the purposes of agriculture is not considered to carry weight against the proposal since the land in question is poor in terms of quality and versatility, and the weight applied to this would weigh neutrally.
7. Highway safety, traffic flows and accessibility
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 61
One of the ‘core planning principles’ outlined within paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out the need for planning to ‘actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable’. It goes on to elaborate on this, and outlines the need to consider sustainable transport modes, the suitability and safety of accesses, and whether improvements can be undertaken to the transport network to limit the impact of developments (paragraphs 32, 34 and 35). It also indicates the value of travel plans and the promotion of a mix of uses on larger residential developments (paragraphs 17, 36 and 38).
It is with this in mind that the application has been accompanied by a Transport Assessment (TA). The TA assesses the highways and transport implications of the proposed development on the application site to the rear of Blackhorse Road, and off Stockley Road. This information is important at this stage in establishing the principle of the development however ‘access’ itself is a reserved matter which is to be considered at a later date with the submission of all the reserved matters.
The Transport Assessment considered the transport issues relating to the proposed construction of the development on this vacant site and made a review of the policy context within which the development must be considered. The report considered the existing conditions in the vicinity of the site and set out the baseline transport data and it was considered that the development offers good opportunities for the use of sustainable travel and that the development will achieve safe and suitable access for all people.
WCC Highways have responded to the consultation and are relatively content for the scheme to go ahead, providing conditions are attached to any approval. These relate to; a traffic management order before occupation of market housing, road and footpaths to be in accordance with WCC Guidance in the Warwickshire Guide 2001, a construction management plan, provision of an emergency access, no development commenced until an access for vehicles has been provided, access to have 8m kerbed radius turnouts, visibility splays and that a bellmouth is laid out and constructed.
In the Inspectors Report for the Hawkesbury Decision (APP/W3710/A/13/2192451 & APP/W3710/A/13/2195969) at paragraph 11.19 to 11.32 it was stated that the evidence demonstrated that the additional traffic likely to be generated by the proposed development could be adequately accommodated within the existing transport network, without any significant adverse impact on the safety of pedestrians and other road users. The SoS also agreed when the appeal was recovered that this was the case.
Network Rail have raised an objection due to the increase in pressure on transport infrastructure, however it is not felt that this objection would stand up to being a reason for refusal, especially given the previous Inspectors comments on the existing transport network, and the findings of the TA.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 62
Consequently, in this case, given the details submitted and the consultation responses received, and the reasons given above it is also considered that there would be no harm which would weigh against the proposal in regard to highway safety, access or sustainable transport issues. This weighs neutrally, neither for nor against the proposal.
8. Archaeology
Chapter 12 of the NPPF outlines the need to assess the impact of proposed developments on the historic environment when considering planning applications. As part of the consultation process of this application Warwickshire County Archaeologists were consulted and requested to make a response. The County responded and stated that “It is probable that this proposed site was in agricultural use throughout the medieval and later periods and the possible site of Hawkesbury/Tackley Deserted Medieval Settlement (Warwickshire Historic Environment Record MWA463) may have been located just to the north-east of the proposed development. While there is an absence of other known archaeological sites from the immediate vicinity of this site prior to this period, this may be due to a lack of previous archaeological investigations across this area, rather than an absence of activity during the pre-medieval periods. There is therefore a potential for previously unknown archaeological deposits, pre-dating the medieval and later agricultural use of this site, to survive across this area. Any such features are likely to be impacted upon by the proposed development”. It was therefore requested that a condition be included on any approval that required the applicant, agents or the eventual owner of the land to secure the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted and approved.
The NPPF at paragraph 135 states that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. It goes on to state that a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. In this case it is felt that any potential harm could be mitigated by the scheme of works proposed by a condition on any approval, and consequently the harm to any potential heritage or archaeology on the site would be minimised.
9. Allotments, Community Orchard and Community Centre
At the inquiry on the nearby site, it was established that there was a need for allotments and a need for a community centre. The plans for this development show a small area to the north west of the site which is to be set aside as allotments and a community orchard. The plans also propose a ‘public building’ which will house the community centre on the site. The proposed community centre, and the allotments, would be located close to the centre of Hawkesbury Village, and as such would be within walking distance of a large number of properties and residents. It is predicted that this community centre would serve mainly a local need, although the indicative layout does show some car parking. The maintenance and management of the community use
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 63
and the allotments would need to be secured through a legal agreement and a management plan.
In the Inspectors Report on the Hawkesbury Appeals the Inspector noted that the “provision of these local facilities is a benefit to which I attach considerable weight”. The Secretary of State however disagreed with the Inspector and only attributed this some weight. Accordingly in this planning application the proposed allotments, and the community use, would carry some weight in favour of the proposal.
10. Contaminated Land
The NPPF sets out the need to ensure that contaminated land does not affect the health of the future occupiers of new development (paragraphs 109, 120 and 121).
It is within this context that the applicant has submitted a Geo-Environmental Assessment (January 2014). This report is comprised of a desk-based and phase 1, geo-environmental preliminary risk assessment. This has been assessed by the Council’s Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) Officer and has been deemed acceptable providing a condition is added which requires mitigation for any contamination discovered on the site.
In addition to this the EA also requested that a contamination investigation condition be applied, however to avoid duplication this is not to be added to the permission, the Council EHO condition will be added instead.
It is considered that this, along with the findings of the Geo-Environmental Assessment, is sufficient in order to protect future users and other ‘receptors’ from harm at a later date and during the construction phase. It is therefore considered that this would not cause a significant level of harm, and limited weight in favour should be given to the proposed mitigation and remediation which may take place.
11. Air Quality
The NPPF establishes the need to consider whether the proposed development would result in unacceptable levels of air quality to the detriment of new or existing development (paragraph 109). It further outlines a requirement to consider the impact on Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) and the cumulative impacts on this (paragraph 124).
To appreciate the context of Air Quality in the Borough it is relevant to note that the Council has in the recent past declared two Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) due to level exceeding the annual mean NO2 Air Quality Standards (AQS) in these areas. Both of these AQMAs are located in the centre of Nuneaton approximately 2.5 km north of the application site. The first of these is along the Leicester Road Gyratory, and the other covering Central Avenue. Subsequent to declaring the AQMA the Council has
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 64
produced an Air Quality Action Plan setting out measures to improve air quality within the town.
Since the proposal would be far from the existing AQMAs and would have a negligible impact on air quality, this should have limited weight in favour of the proposal. The Councils Environmental Health Team have some concerns over the potential impact of the scheme of air quality, however they have suggested conditions which would overcome this concern. It is therefore considered that there would be no unacceptable impact on Air Quality.
12. Noise
The NPPF outlines the need to consider the impact of noise resulting from new development on health, quality of life and areas of tranquillity (paragraph 123). It also indicates the need to consider measures, including the use of conditions, to minimise noise and mitigate against the impact from it.
It is with this in mind that the applicant has submitted an Environmental Noise Assessment (April 2014).
The conclusions of this report state that noise from the nearby commercial units was assessed, but infrequent low levels meant that it was not dominant on site and is not likely to be a determining factor. It goes on to say that suitable mitigation has been specified to allow even the worst affected properties to achieve the ‘good’ criteria from BS8233:1999 on both road and rail boundaries to the site. The Councils Environmental Health Officer stated that the aim should be to reach ‘good’ standards in accordance with BS8233, so with this in mind the development is consequently considered to be acceptable in regard to noise.
13. Ecology
The NPPF outlines a need to minimise the impact of proposed developments on biodiversity as well as contributing to and enhancing this where possible (paragraphs 109, 113, 114, 117 and 118). It particularly highlights the need to consider the impact on ecological networks, protected wildlife, priority species and priority habitats.
It is within the context of the above that the applicant has submitted a Habitat Survey in the first instance and this identified that some more survey work could be required, this was then supplemented by three separate surveys on Bats, Newts and Reptiles. The original Habitat Survey concludes that if the recommendations were carried out then the development should be compliant with the law and planning policy with respect to designated sites and ecological enhancement measures.
The original Habitat Survey submitted with the application was supplemented by three additional statements have been scrutinised by the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust and they have responded with no objection, subject to conditions which cover the implementation of mitigation measures attached to
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 65
any approval. This is felt to be acceptable, and that if these mitigation measures are implemented then there should be no unacceptable harm to the biodiversity of the site.
NBBC Parks and Countryside originally raised an objection stating that firstly several reports were outstanding, but these have now been submitted, and that mitigation and offsetting on biodiversity is not adequate and does not address impacts on protected species. Further comments have been received and the Parks and Countryside Team wish to uphold their objection. The comments of Parks and Countryside relate to the loss of habitat for reptiles on the site, and state that the proposed 15%-20% retention of this habitat is insufficient, and that an acceptable strategy would be to retain all of the existing, high risk, habitat.
This objection from Parks and Countryside is noted and it is accepted that some limited harm to biodiversity may arise from allowing the proposed development. It is considered that although the reduction of the reptile habitat down to 15-20% of its original size is not ideal, the additional benefit of including more habitat would not be significant. In any event, conditions could be imposed requiring an ecological construction management plan, and potentially further mitigation measures, to any potential approval. The construction management plan could also require details of each phase of construction, including vegetation clearance, rubble pile dismantling, etcetera and for details of the habitat creation to be evidenced in photographs. On balance, it is therefore considered that the grounds for objection from Parks and Countryside are not of sufficient weight to warrant refusal of the application, and any approval should include conditions on ecology matters.
14. Flooding
The NPPF requires that consideration is given to the potential impact of flooding on new development whilst also ensuring that flood risk is not increased elsewhere as a result of it (paragraphs 100-103). It also sets out a sequential risk-based approach to the location of development to steer this away from the areas at highest risk. Further guidance is provided on flooding and flood risk in the CLG Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
In view of the above it is necessary to have regard to the Council’s ‘Climate Change – Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA)’ at Level 1 (2008) and Level 2 (2012). The level 1 SFRA outlines the results of a review of available flood related policy and data across the region. It then sets out recommendations and guidance in relation to flood risk and drainage policy which generally underpins national guidance. The level 2 SFRA builds on this and also outlines a detailed assessment of potential development sites that have been put forwards in relation to flood risk. It also sets out recommendations for Flood Risk Assessments for individual sites and general guidance for flood risk.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 66
The application site itself is classified within the SFRA Level 2 as being within ‘PDA9’, although this encompasses a large piece of land in this area, including this site and the rest of the former Hawkesbury Golf Course Site. This identifies that the primary flood risk is ‘from surface water flooding and overland flows. With further development and the creation of impermeable ground surfaces, surface water may become a problem.’
The application was accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), this stated within its conclusions that based upon available information, there is not considered to be a significant risk from fluvial or pluvial storm water run-off from the surrounding roads or land. The Environment Agency (EA) have been consulted with this FRA and responded with a no objection, subject to some conditions which relate to a contamination risk strategy, and the remediation of any potential contamination.
In relation to drainage of the site Severn Trent Water have responded with a no objection to the development, subject to a condition requiring drainage plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage which is deemed acceptable and WCC Flood Risk Team have not responded on the development in regard to surface water drainage.
It is considered that with the conditions requested by The EA, and the information contained within the FRA the proposal will adequately manage its impact on flooding and flood risk. As mentioned in the Council’s SFRA Level 2 the site is within Flood Zone 1 (the least at risk of all land). It is therefore considered that there will be no unacceptable harm caused to flooding or flood risk and that the proposal is therefore acceptable in regard to this consideration.
15. Planning Obligations
The NPPF sets out that the planning obligations should be considered where otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable (paragraph 203). However, paragraph 204 of the NPPF and Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2012 makes it clear that these obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:
a. necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b. directly related to the development; and c. fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
The Council consulted with various consultees during the application and some of these have requested planning obligations to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms.
Education: Warwickshire County Council have requested £476,258 which is split in the following way: o Early years £23,374;
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 67
o Primary schools £198,679; o Secondary schools £175,308; o Secondary Post-16 £47,382; o Primary SEN Education £13,079; o Secondary SEN Education £18,436;
It is anticipated that there may be some negotiation over this figure between the Education Authority and the applicant, as things progress. The Applicant has queried the WCC Secondary Schools request of £175,308 as the Inspector on the previous appeal on the nearby land at Hawkesbury stated that; “I conclude that the residential element of the development proposals would place an increased demand on existing local educational facilities. While there would be sufficient secondary school places available to accommodate this increased demand, there would be a shortfall in primary school places and SEN provision”. Although the WCC have responded to state that the requirements are based on the need at the time of the occupancy of the dwellings which is a point well made, it is considered that the statement by the Inspector does carry weight, as the number of dwellings was many more than this current application and the Inspector stated that it is not necessary. It is considered by officers that this request for secondary school would not be a reasonable request as it would not be CIL compliant to request the monies for Secondary Schools, which is in line with the Inspectors comments. The trigger point for the payment of the other education monies is still to be clarified.
Libraries: In relation to Library contributions the County have requested £13,655, the applicant is content with this, as are officers. This amount would be required at a certain point in the development, but this trigger point is yet to be decided.
Affordable Housing: In respect of affordable housing; the tenure mix is to be agreed with the Council prior to the commencement of any phase of the development. The trigger point is also still to be agreed, however schemes in the past have been along the lines of no more than 80% of the market housing for any phase of the development must be occupied until the affordable housing for that phase have been transferred to a registered provider, or a scheme to that effect.
Community Facilities: In regard to community facilities, the proposed community building is on site, and the management of this would need to be provided by a management company and this would need to be written in to the legal agreement.
Healthcare: In respect of Healthcare, the NHS CCG has requested no financial contribution.
Play and Open space:
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 68
Since little adoptable play and formal open space is being provided the usual figure of £2815 per 2 bed dwelling (in total £225,200), will be required. In addition to this the open space on site including the storm water basin and storm water pond, this is unlikely to be adopted by the Council and as such a management and maintenance scheme/company will need to be secured.
Rights of Way: In relation to Rights of Way the WCC Rights of Way team requested contributions of £1660 to be used within 1.5 miles of the site for footpath improvements.
Highways Contributions: In regard to Highways contributions this is three-fold, firstly a request came from the County for £13,000 for Bus Infrastructure, and secondly the Highway Authority requested £60,000 for the provision of CCTV cameras and to revalidate the signalisation. The Highways Authority have requested that this contribution be made prior to the occupation of the 100th dwelling, which seems like a reasonable and measureable trigger point to be included within the legal agreement. They have also asked for £75 per dwelling for sustainability welcome packs, however this Authority has usually asked for the applicant to provide the sustainability packs via a condition, rather than the money request by a s106.
Conclusion and Very special circumstances
In order to aid the Councils assessment of the proposal the applicant has put forward a number of points in an attempt to prove that very special circumstances exist. These are; the housing land supply, or more precisely a lack of a 5 year supply of housing land (given significant weight in the report above), the affordable housing delivery afforded by the development (and the need and lack of supply associated with this) (significant weight), the proposed allotments and community building (some weight).
In addition to these points, material considerations such as the Joint Greenbelt Review’s assessment of the site, the previous Inspectors comments on the 2002 Local Plan Inquiry, that the site has been identified as having some capacity for residential development in background papers of the Borough Plan and the provision of planning obligations, along with other material considerations, all weigh in favour of the proposal.
Considerations which weigh against the proposal are its harm by way of inappropriateness (significant weight), its impact on openness of the Greenbelt (significant weight), its limited conflict with 2 of the 5 purposes of including land within the Greenbelt (limited weight), and the proposals impact on the visual amenity of the area (limited weight).
Overall it is a very close balance of weight, however it considered that collectively the considerations mentioned by the applicant in support of the application, and explored above, do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Greenbelt, and that very special circumstances do not exist, which is in
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 69
line with guidance in the NPPF, paragraph 87 and 88, and the development is therefore contrary to these sections of the NPPF and saved policy ENV1 of the Local Plan 2006.
REASONS FOR REFUSAL:
1 (i)Env1 - Within the Green Belt development will not normally be permitted unless it is for: ·Agriculture and forestry. ·Essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, for cemeteries and for other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt, and which do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. ·Limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings. ·Limited infilling or redevelopment of major existing developed sites identified in adopted local plans.
(ii) Paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework states:
80. Green Belt serves five purposes: - To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; - To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; - To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; - To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and - To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
(iii)Paragraph 87 of the National Planning Policy Framework states:
87. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
(iv)Paragraph 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework states:
88. When considering any planning application, local authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
(v)This application is contrary to these policies in that it would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. It would adversely impact upon the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt as well as the purpose of including land within the Green Belt. (Contrary to ENV1 of the saved Local Plan, and paragraphs 80, and 87 of the National Planning Policy Framework.)
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 70
(vi)The information submitted to support the application does not constitute very special circumstances which clearly outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and by reason of the detrimental impact on openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt, or the conflict with the purpose of including land within the Green Belt. It has not been demonstrated that there is justification for a departure from policy in this location, to allow the development. (Contrary to paragraph 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework).
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 71
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 72
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 73
Looking West on Stockley Road at the rear of Blackhorse Road
Looking North on Stockley Road towards the former Golf Course
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 74
Looking East on Stockley Road towards Sephton Drive
Looking South on Stockley Road towards Blackhorse Road
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 75
Item No. 3
REFERENCE No. 032665
Site Address: Land off Triton Road (Site 62C004), Shepperton Business Park, Triton Road, Nuneaton
Description of Development: Erection of 12 affordable flats and 24 affordable houses Applicant: Westleigh Developments Ltd
Ward: Wembrook
RECOMMENDATION: Refusal on the grounds of noise and the resultant harm to residential amenity, the potential impact on existing and future industrial and economic development, and a lack of financial contributions towards planning obligations where there is capacity to do so; both in terms of play and open space monies and educational financial requests.
INTRODUCTION:
The application site comprises 0.65 hectares of vacant land off Triton Road, Nuneaton. The last known use of this land was for allotments but the site has not been used for this purpose for a number of years and is therefore considered to have a nil use class. The land is relatively flat but is raised higher than the adjacent road with some sloping towards the edges. It is predominately comprised of overgrown scrubland with a number of established trees being located along a small area of land to the west.
The land to the north of the application site is occupied by an industrial building and residential care home (Shepperton Court). The industrial building has a B8 use and is currently occupied by Thule Towing Systems who manufacture and distribute Thule towbars. The building itself is two storeys height and constructed from brick and metal cladding. A service yard associated with this use is also located immediately adjacent to the boundary of the application site. The residential care home is two storeys in height and is constructed from bricks with a concrete tiled roof. This building is separated from the application site by an area of open space at a distance of 8 metres. A number of windows to residential rooms within the care home are located within the southern elevation facing the application site. The boundary between these two sites contains a number of mature trees that act as a screen to this industrial area.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 76
The land to the northeast of the application site comprises of a number of buildings in employment use which, together with Thule Towing Systems, make up Centrovell Trading Estate. Unit 6 has a B8 use and is occupied by Caterers Supplies Ltd, Units 3-5 have a B2 use and are occupied by Freeman and Proctor Ltd., Unit 2 has a B2 use and is occupied by ARRK and Unit 1 has a B2 use and is occupied by Britannia Tyres.
The land to the east of the application site is occupied by a building known as Flaval House which provides space for a number of employment uses. This building is constructed from brick and corrugated roof panels. It is both two- storey and single-storey in nature. The site of Flaval House is separated from the surrounding roads by a 2 metre high galvanised steel palisade fence. The business known as McFaddens Civil Engineering Ltd is a B1/B8 use which occupies the part of Flaval House closest to the application site. This business has an office on site and also stores engineering equipment in the building and yard which is then taken away off site for use.
The land to the immediate south of the application site is a public highway known as Triton Road. This road is a cul-de-sac that only provides vehicular access to the application site, Triton Showers, a garage court, allotments and rear access to a residential property. Pedestrian access from the road to a footpath along Coventry Canal to the west is also available. The business known as Triton Showers is located on the opposite side of the road to the appeal site and has planning permission to operate as a B1 and B8 use.
The land to the southeast of the application site comprises of an electricity substation and a gated garage court constructed from pre-fabricated concrete panels with flat roofs. A 2 metre high brick wall is then located adjacent to a Triton Road highway verge overgrown with shrubs to form a boundary to the rear gardens of 4 residential properties located with Caldwell Road. The rear elevations of these properties are located over 22 metres from the highway of Triton Road. The property of 55 Caldwell Road has a single storey triple garage that opens out onto Triton Road and is accessed via a dropped kerb from this. A number of allotments are located at a greater distance to the southeast of the application site and these form a significant natural space between Triton Showers and the rear gardens of associated residential properties within Caldwell Road.
Coventry Canal is located to the immediate west of the application site and this also benefits from a pedestrian footpath that runs alongside it. A number of mature trees and shrubs form a hedgerow on the opposite side of the canal to the application site. Beyond this hedgerow are the rear gardens to residential properties that make up Waterbridge Gardens which is a cul-de- sac that is accessed off Coventry Road. The residential properties associated with these dwellings are both two storey and single storey in nature.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 77
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
031309: Residential development of up to 40 houses (outline with all matters reserved). Refused 28/05/2012. Appeal withdrawn 17/04/2013.
011618: Vary condition 6 of planning permission 10466 to allow units 4-7 to be used for B8 warehousing. Approved 05/07/2007.
010466: Erection of 9 units for light industrial use (B1). Approved 07/04/2006.
TP/0158/01: erection of units for light industrial use (B1) (outline). Approved 21/11/2001.
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES: EMP1 – Employment Allocations EMP14 – Protecting Employment Land ENV14 – Supplementary Planning Guidance / Supplementary Planning Documents H3 – Affordable Housing H5 – 10% Adaptable Housing H6 – Planning Obligations R8 – Green Networks T10 – Car Parking Standards National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
CONSULTEES NOTIFIED: British Waterways, Environment Agency, Inland Waterways Association, National Grid, NBBC Environmental Health, NBBC Housing, NBBC Land and Property, NBBC Parks and Countryside, NBBC Planning Policy, NBBC Refuse and Cleansing, Severn Trent Water, Warwickshire Police, WCC Flood Risk, WCC Highways, WCC Planning, Western Power Distribution.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES: Objection from: NBBC Land and Property Manager on the grounds that the viability appraisal submitted with the scheme states that there is capacity within the scheme to accommodate the financial planning obligations.
NBBC Parks and Countryside on the grounds that there would be a net loss of biodiversity, the survey work was undertaken outside of recognised survey seasons, complementary habitat to the Coventry Canal to be lost, and there are no play and open space contributions.
WCC Highways objected to the original plans, which have now been superseded, and an updated response to the latest amended plans is expected. It is anticipated that this will be included on the addendum to the agenda.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 78
Environmental Health on the grounds that they would need to see and agree the glazing and ventilation specification taking in to account LAmax levels (peak noise levels) not submitted with the application. No consideration has been given to surrounding industrial premises and the potential future noise impacts. Noise impact to proposed properties would be greater than to existing properties in the surrounding area. The Council has powers to ensure that businesses cease noisy activities if disturbance arises.
No objection subject to conditions from: Canal and River Trust, Severn Trent Water
No objection subject to planning obligations from: WCC Infrastructure
No objection from: NBBC Refuse and Cleansing
Comments from: National Grid, NBBC Housing, NBBC Planning Policy, Warwickshire Police
No comments from: Environment Agency
No response from: British Waterways, Inland Waterways Association, WCC Flood Risk, WCC Planning, Western Power Distribution.
NEIGHBOURS NOTIFIED: ARRK, Arrow Taxis, Britannia Tyres Ltd, Caldwell Road DIY, Caterers Supplies Ltd, Eluvia, Freeman & Proctor Ltd, McFaddens Engineering, NPL Technologies, Thule Towing Systems, Triton Showers, Versatile Bathrooms, 51-77 (odd) Caldwell Road. 18 Coombe Drive. 3-10 (inc) Shepperton Court, The Warden Shepperton Court, 100-114, 110a Coventry Road. 68 Dorlecote Road. 19 Gloucester Close. 15 Langdale Drive. 16 Melfort Close. Wembrook Neighbourhood Watch 11 Red Deeps. Shepperton Allotment Association 6 Shepperton Street. 10 The Raywoods. 26 Ullswater Avenue. 1-23 (inc), 25-45 Watersbridge Gardens. Coventry and Warwickshire Chamber of Commerce. Gratton Planning Services, Vanity Close, Stone. Legal and General Property, One Coleman Street, London. Marcus Jones MP. Norcros, Station Road, Wilmslow. Plastic Paint Shop Ltd, Coventry Road, Hinckley. Reed Smith LLP, 20 Primrose Street, London. Wilkinsons Printers, Whitacre Road, Nuneaton.
Neighbouring properties were sent letters notifying them of the proposed development on the 22nd April 2014. Site Notices were erected on street furniture on the 28th May 2014 and the application was advertised in the Nuneaton News on the 16th May 2014.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 79
There have been objections from 13 addresses including a letter from Marcus Jones MP, and 1 anonymous responder, raising the following points:
Could cause loss of jobs. Risking jobs in employment starved area. Triton Showers have indicated they would relocate away from town if residential is allowed. Triton Showers largest private sector employer in Nuneaton and employ 350 people. Triton Showers make significant contribution to local economy from taxation, purchase of goods and services, and spending by employees. Triton Showers occupies important position in local economy and has strong local workforce. Established industrial estate/business park buoyant in economic activity terms. Should do everything can to ensure success of Triton and other businesses. Land was brought for industrial units and should be used for this purpose now economy improving. Economic conditions improving and potential sites like this may become attractive for employment uses. Conflicts with development vision for area in which application site located. Established employed area within Abbey and Wembrook area and emerging Borough Plan indicates vision to support business activity and strengthening existing employment estates in this area. Allowing residential would undermine emerging Borough Plan thereby eroding private sector confidence. Employment sites should not be used for housing. Sites suitable for employment should be protected against speculative developments for alternative uses. Should protect land allocated for future employment uses. Corporate Plan and Sustainable Community Plan seek to promote robust economy and provide supportive environment for business - approving application would undermine this to detriment of business confidence. Residential use would harm character and operation of existing and future business enterprises in established employment area. Introduction of conflicting residential use. Too close to commercial premises of Triton Showers. Triton showers operate from leasehold premises with outstanding lease period of only 5 years. Owners of Triton Showers building deciding future investment plans in medium term and need confidence Triton can continue to operate efficiently and successfully without dangers and limitations of housing on doorstep. Threat to investment and renewal at Triton Showers building.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 80
Complaints would cause harm to Triton Showers and potential future occupiers of building and would reduce attractiveness of commercial premises. Would conflict with operational activities of Thule. Threat to economic growth (contrary para. 19 NPPF). Harm to existing businesses due to conflict and compromising future development needs/aspirations by having to demonstrate harm to residential amenity would not occur (para. 20 NPPF). Intensification or expansion of manufacturing operations at existing successful businesses would inevitably cause further harm to future occupiers amenity. Legitimate activities and operational requirements of businesses would be harmed by introduction of residential use. Proper weight needs to be given to needs of existing businesses and the harm that would be caused by approval. Evidence base of Borough Plan includes Technical Paper on Existing Employment Estates. Caldwell Road Industrial Estate surrounding application site identified as area requiring investment to remain part of employment portfolio. Would be little investment if residential approved. Thule are growing business activities and expect to increase activity on single shift system within current planning restrictions. If continues to grow it is likely it will need to operate the facility over a two shift system with increased activity in rear of premises. This would extend period where noise is generated. Thule are expanding business and activity will increase over coming months and years. Noise and traffic Impacts from Triton Showers would become more evident when site activity increases. No restrictions on hours of operation for Triton Showers Triton Showers need to provide flexibility in production to meet demand in competitive business environment and improving economic climate so more likely to operate expanded shift patterns. Expanded shift patterns would give rise to greater impacts and conflicts with proposed residential properties. Allowing residential would have adverse impact on Triton Showers confidence and give rise to relocating whole of head office and manufacturing facility. Triton Showers lease only has a few years before expiring so company will soon consider future location options and could easily identify location with no impediments to business activities. Relocation of Triton Showers would have serious local economic consequences. Triton Showers requires operational flexibility and absence of obstacles which can inhibit or threaten manufacturing activities. Housing and established industrial uses incompatible and would result in conflict. Houses and Triton Showers premises would face each other across Triton Road.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 81
Manufacturing activities give rise to noise levels not appropriate for residential. Triton Showers and any manufacturing enterprises generate significant traffic movements. Not a quiet peaceful area suitable for residential. Noise from vehicle safety alarms, loading, unloading of vehicles and pallet movements. Complaints about noise, traffic, health and safety, and security from future occupiers likely. Not possible to create and maintain acceptable levels of residential amenity for future occupiers. New residents will object to traffic noise from businesses. New residents will object to air pollution from businesses. Precautionary approach needed given residential in established employment area. Unless a clause stipulating that no complaints would be dealt with on noise or traffic issues when residents move in should be refused. Would not create a pleasant and attractive place to live due to industrial and commercial premises with associated noise and traffic movements. Noise Report submitted in support of Triton Showers objection indicates that if permission is granted, the future residents with currently proposed layout and glazing would not be suitably be protected against noise. Good standards of amenity would not be achieves (contrary para. 17 NPPF). New homes already granted permission across Borough so not needed here. Need for new housing does not mean all undeveloped urban sites should be favourably considered for housing. Better sites for housing yet to be developed. Query whether homes would be for rent or first time buyers. Site unsuitable location for affordable housing. Development would be isolated. High levels of vehicle movements in area. Query where cars would park if no space left on site. On street parking along Triton Road already an issue. HGV’s parking in Triton Road. Commercial premises with associated traffic movements close to homes with children inadvisable and dangerous. Would result in more problems with access to allotments and garage owners from traffic and parking. Increased traffic would harm deliveries to and from local businesses. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic creating hazards for deliveries. Conflict between movements associated with Triton’s manufacturing and that generated through residential scheme with significant number of drives and accesses directly onto Triton Road.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 82
Loss of wildlife habitat. Leave trees inbetween entrance road and canal. Possible vandalism to site. Shepperton Allotment Association has good working relationship with Triton Showers. Lack of Borough Plan creating uncertainty. Query whether piecemeal development can delivery necessary infrastructure. Reasons for refusing previous application at site for housing still remain. Construction activity and parking would be disruptive to Triton Showers operations. Triton Showers utilise proven operational practices and procedures appropriate to established employment area. Triton Road is cul de sac and becomes very busy and potentially dangerous at certain times of day, week and month. When comprehensively rather than selectively considered, prevailing conditions are not conducive to introduction of residential use in established employment area. Transport Review and Noise Report submitted in support of Triton Showers objection shows indicates inadequacies of material submitted with application and provides clear reasons for refusing application.
A Petition of objection with 191 signatures from employees of Triton Showers was received raising the following points: Concerned for future of jobs if housing goes ahead. Triton would have no good reason to invest if there are future conflicts between the factory and housing. Shepperton Park is an industrial estate. Already significant traffic movements of commercial vehicles (especially HGVs). 300 Triton employees on site at any one time. Additional domestic traffic would impact safety when going to and from work. Volume of traffic dangerous and not good for residents of development and their children.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 83
Letter of support was received from Cllr Kondakor raising the following points: Wrongly permitted building on countryside land whilst sustainable brownfield sites such as this are left as waste ground. Good walking, bus and cycle links to town centre and employment sites. Would quickly provide affordable homes where needed. Site not viable for employment use. Flats permitted next to West Coast Mainline so noise arguments weak if homes properly designed. Permission would be granted at appeal and questions will be raised about waste of public money rejecting application.
APPRAISAL: The key issues to assess in the determination of this application are; 18. Sustainable Development 19. Housing Need and Housing Land Supply 20. Land Designation and Use 21. Noise 22. Highway Safety, Traffic Flows, Parking Provision and Accessibility 23. Ecology, Trees and Hedgerows 24. Flood Risk and Drainage 25. Contamination 26. Economic Growth 27. Visual Amenity 28. Residential Amenity 29. Planning Obligations 30. Conclusions: Sustainable Development
1. Sustainable Development
The NPPF establishes the need for the planning system to achieve sustainable development which is composed of mutually dependent economic, social and environmental dimensions (paragraphs 6 and 7). There is consequently a presumption in favour of applications for sustainable development (paragraphs 49 and 197). In broad terms, this means that the application should be approved providing that it is in accordance with the development plan and other policies within the NPPF, unless material considerations or adverse impacts indicate otherwise (paragraphs 14 and 187). An assessment of this application is therefore outlined below.
2. Housing Need and Housing Land Supply
The NPPF sets out a need to significantly boost the supply of housing and therefore requires the Council to fully and objectively assess housing need across the housing market area in co-operation with neighbouring authorities (paragraphs 47, 157 and 159). There is also a requirement for the Council to identify a deliverable five year supply of housing land to meet this identified need (paragraph 47). However, to ensure choice and competition in the
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 84
market for land, a 5% buffer is further required and this increases to 20% where there is a persistent under delivery of new homes.
A five year land supply statement published by the Council in November 2013 outlines that the current 5 year housing requirement is now 2,350 dwellings or 470 dwellings a year. This figure has been calculated by subtracting the total number of new homes (849) built between 2010-2013 from the interim target of providing 7,900 homes between 2010-2028. This gives a target of providing 7,051 homes over a 15 year period between 2013-2028 which equates to 2,350 dwellings over 5 years or 470 dwellings a year. The statement also acknowledges that recent housing completion figures across the Borough have been low and that there is subsequently a record of under delivery of housing in recent years against the interim target. In calculating a five year land supply, the Council has therefore made an allowance for an additional buffer of 20% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. The statement consequently indicates that Borough has a 2.7 year land supply with a 20% buffer (or 3.09 year land supply with a 5% buffer).
Further to the above, it is necessary to be aware that the Council’s current use of the 7,900 new homes figure has recently been challenged at appeal inquiries at Hawkesbury Golf Course and Tunnel Road where it was also contended that the five year supply was actually 1.4 and 1.5 years respectively. However, the Secretary of State and Inspectors did not reach a conclusion on the exact scale of shortfall but rather accepted the agreement that there was a shortfall to which significant weight in favour of the applications could be attached. Nonetheless, in the latter Tunnel Road case, the Inspector noted that the housing supply situation is likely to be much worse than the Council has assessed due to the Council’s failure to address the needs of the housing market area rather than just its own needs.
Regardless of what housing figures and methods are used for calculating the Council’s five year housing land supply, it is recognised that the Council does not have a five year supply of deliverable housing land to meet currently identified housing need. This is consequently a matter which in itself carries significant weight in favour of the application because it would improve the number of available houses in the Borough and thereby contribute towards resolving current housing land supply issues. Given that this is a full planning application it is also considered that this would be a deliverable site.
Affordable Housing:
Further to the above matters, it is recognised that all of the 36 proposed dwellings would be affordable dwellings. This would consequently exceed the requirements of policy H3 of the Local Plan which stipulates that 25% of the homes should be affordable. The Council’s Housing Strategy Team has welcomed this and highlighted that as of the 1st September 2014, there were 2,055 live applicants registered on HomeHunt seeking affordable accommodation in the Borough. They also indicate that this figure will increase if current trends continue as documented and evidenced within the Coventry and Warwickshire Joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) November 2013 and Housing Needs Survey. Indeed, the SHMA
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 85
indicates a need for an average of 151 affordable dwellings per annum and they indicate that this target has not been met for the past three years. Whilst it is expected that this target should be surpassed for this year, on average this target has not been met. Further to this, they state that the Housing Needs Survey indicates a 495 shortfall in the number of affordable dwelling in the Borough per annum. The proposed development would consequently make a positive contribution towards meeting this need and this is therefore a matter which carries significant weight in favour of the application.
Aside from the need for new housing, Housing Strategy has acknowledged that the ward of Wembrook already has a mix of family and single person affordable accommodation. They nonetheless indicate that the proposed development on this site would be a welcome geographical addition due to its proximity to the industrial hub in this area and the town centre. Despite this, it is important to recognise that the proposed development would result in the concentration of 36 affordable dwellings all in one location. It is consequently considered that there is some conflict with paragraph 50 of the NPPF which sets out the need for new housing to achieve ‘inclusive and mixed communities’ and ‘mixed and balanced communities’. Although there are residential dwellings in the wider area, these too tend to be affordable homes rather privately owned market housing. Furthermore, the physical juxtaposition of the site is such that this would be largely isolated in nature owing to its position at the end of a cul-de-sac surrounded by commercial properties on three sides and a canal on the other side. The residential complex of Shepperton Court also backs onto the site and lacks direct connections to this. Indeed, the application site spatially has the appearance as belonging to the industrial estate rather than neighbouring residential properties and would consequently appear as a stand alone isolated site of all affordable dwellings. The lack of integration and appearance as a self contained development could create the impression of a ‘ghetto’ which is clearly not desirable. However, it is recognised that case law indicates that it would be difficult to sustain this argument as a reason for refusal at appeal. It is therefore considered that the harm that would arise from this is a matter which can only be given limited weight against the application.
Aside from housing need, the types of homes people require is an important consideration. In this respect it is noted that the proposal is seeking to provide 6 one bedroom flats, 6 two bedroom flats, 16 two bedroom houses, 7 three bedroom houses and 1 four bedroom house. The flats would be located in two detached blocks which would be two-and-a-half storeys in height. The houses would take the form of terraced and semi-detached properties which would be two storeys in height. This would consequently represent a good mix of the types of homes that people require.
3. Land Designation and Use
The application site was originally identified for use as employment land in February 1993. This followed a direction of the Council to allocate finance for infrastructure and other works to facilitate the development of surplus allotment land for light industrial and/or office purposes. Shepperton Business
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 86
Park was one such site and a planning brief was therefore prepared for this. Triton Showers was subsequently constructed on plot 1 of this land and plot 2 was offered for freehold sale as 0.6 hectares of B1 (and potentially B8) development land. Further to this, outline planning permission was granted for the use of this site for employment purposes in November 2001. Full applications for the erection of 9 units for B1 light industrial uses and B8 warehousing were subsequently approved in April 2006 and July 2007 respectively.
It is within the context of the above that the application site was listed as ‘Shepperton Business Park’ in extant planning policy EMP1 (Employment Allocations) of the Local Plan 2006. This policy states that ‘Industrial and Employment development (falling within the Use Classes of B1, B2 and B8) for 1996-2011 will be accommodated primarily in the following locations, subject to nearby residential amenities not being adversely affected’. The list indicates that the Shepperton Business Park site provides ‘0.6 hectares’ of employment land in the ‘pipeline’ (i.e. land completed, under construction or with planning permission). In this respect it therefore needs to be recognised that the site was included within this list because of November 2001 outline planning permission.
The applicant rightly contends that policy EMP1 is dynamic with sites continuously being added to the ‘pipeline’ as new permissions are granted and other sites falling out of the ‘pipeline’ as permissions on unallocated sites lapse. Taking this into account, it is recognised that the final planning application for the erection of 9 units for B1 and B8 uses on this site expired in July 2010 (ref: 011618). It therefore has to be accepted that the site has ceased to form part of the ‘pipeline’ of sites listed in policy EMP1. It also has to be accepted that the site is not an employment ‘commitment’ by virtue of it not benefiting from an extant permission for four years. As a result of this, it is therefore considered that extant planning policy EMP14 (Protecting Employment Land) of the Local Plan 2006 is not relevant because the application site is not a committed site.
The Borough Plan currently being prepared by the Council will include allocations for new employment land, and the ‘Preferred Option’ stage of this document identified an aspiration to deliver 75 hectares of new employment land between 2010 and 2028. Converting this employment land target into an annual average rate, this equates to 4.61 hectares per year. However, the Council’s Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) 2013 indicates that the average actual build rate is currently 1.41 ha per year. Over the last four years, however, there has been on average 6.59 hectares of employment land with full permission per year and an average of 14.23 hectares with outline permission available for development each year. Essentially this means that whilst employment land is available, the development has not materialised. The AMR has therefore identified that further work needs to be undertaken to identify why these permissions have not come forward.
Aside from the employment land target, the Preferred Options Site Allocations Map did not indicate that the application site is allocated for employment purposes. The agent therefore contends that is a material consideration
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 87
indicating that the site is not considered to be an employment site. However, as this document has yet to be submitted for examination it is subject to change and can therefore be afforded little weight as a material consideration. Indeed, employment allocations need to be subjected to detailed assessment and scrutiny as part of the Council’s review of the Borough Plan that takes into account all consultation responses.
It is within this context that it is necessary to be aware of Planning Policy’s comments on this application. In particular, they draw attention to the Council’s Employment Land Review (ELR) (2010) which forms part of the evidence base for the emerging Borough Plan. This ELR looks at the future direction of employment land growth within the Borough. To do this, the ELR has looked at a range of potential employment sites and assessed these against a wide range of criteria. Each site was then given a score and rank to indicate which sites were the most suitable. In this case, the application site was identified as P19 ‘Shepperton Business Park’ within the ELR. The assessment of this site shows that it scored very well and was subsequently ranked as being good in relation to market and sustainability criteria and excellent in relation to physical criteria. The result of this is that the site was selected to remain as part of the revised portfolio of proposed employment sites. This is significant because it confirms that the site is still a suitable and deliverable employment site. Indeed, this contrasts with other sites that have previously been allocated as employment land within policy EMP1 of the Local Plan and that the ELR now indicates have been removed from the employment land portfolio due to concerns over deliverability. A further point of note is that the ELR recommends that the wider Caldwell Road Industrial Estate as a whole be kept in the portfolio with a view to being redeveloped during the plan period.
Despite the potential of the application site as an employment site in the ELR, regard must be had to the history of this site and paragraph 22 of the NPPF which sets out that:
‘Planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities’.
In this respect, it is important to recognise that the site was marketed for employment land over a number of years. Despite this, the site was never developed and remains vacant to this day. The Head of Land and Property at the Council has consequently looked at whether the marketing of the site has been carried out properly. In this respect, he has commented as follows:
‘You should be aware that we sold the land in October 2001 for £310,000. I can't comment on marketing prior to 2007, when
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 88
Loveitts took over, although the various documents refer to marketing from 2001 which must have been shortly after we sold the land. Latterly the site has been advertised on a number of bases:- for design and build, for completed freehold or leasehold units or as a straight sale of the land for a number of units or a single unit up to 35,000 sq ft. The asking price is £450,000 although some advertisements refer to "price on application". I gather national agents Lambert Smith Hampton have additionally been appointed to try to achieve a sale of the site/development.
The site itself is somewhat difficult as it lacks presence being effectively 'back land' situated off the main road behind Flavell House. It is also quite close to residential development and I assume that green 'buffers' would need to be left to the Canal and Shepperton Court so not all the site is developable. I understand that the proximity to residential development was a factor in planning for B8 use being granted on part of the site only. We sold off land in Caldwell Road (now Dunns Close) in the mid 2000s for a price in the region of £250,000 to £300,000 so this would give a basis for the asking price for the subject site of around £450,000 although it is arguably less valuable than the Caldwell Road land. The owners of the Caldwell Road development suffered financially and were in administration.
Another factor worthy of consideration is the financial crisis from 2008. From this point really no speculative warehouse/industrial development has been carried out and apart from this factor there has of course been a general fall in manufacturing across the Country. Any recent development has tended to be promoted as design and build as developers could make profit from construction rather than from a land transaction where the land value was possibly nominal. Also developments tended towards large distribution warehousing with little or no development of smaller individual units for production. The subject site is not large enough or well enough situated for modern distribution warehousing.
I have carried out a couple of development appraisals on the site and the figure I have come out at is in the region of £350,000. I would note that if I used the out turn rental values which were being achieved for the Dunns Close units my figure would be lower.
So overall my perception is that the marketing campaign has been relatively extensive and has encompassed a number of alternative means of disposal. I can see that the vendor would wish to cover his outlay on the site including purchase price and holding costs over several years and the figure of £450,000 will undoubtedly be designed to do this. However it is my opinion that the asking price for employment use is optimistic and there is something of a contradiction in the agent's correspondence which on the one hand indicates the site is relatively poor whilst at the same time not
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 89
apparently reflecting this fact in the asking price. It is impossible to say that had the price been reduced it would have led to a disposal as I am advised that only one very low offer was received. There is little or no comparable transactional evidence for this type of site and indeed the agents note on the preferable Hemdale Business park refers to design and build development.
I have no experience of grant funding in these circumstances although I think it unlikely that a purely commercial development like this would attract any grant although it is possible a purchaser/lessee might have been able to attract funding depending on how they intended to use the site/premises. We do now have a local discretionary rate relief policy in place which can exempt qualifying businesses from payment of rates for up to 3 years but this has only recently been introduced’.
In respect of the latter point, NBBC Planning Policy has indicated that Wembrook ward has been placed on the 2014-2020 Assisted Areas Map following consultations by the Government. The ward will therefore receive state aid that will encourage business growth in this area of the Borough. Assisted Areas are those places in less economically advantaged locations where there is good potential for economic growth. In these areas regional aid can be offered to projects, under state aid rules. This support is to encourage business growth and job creation, which can positively affect these locations and ultimately the whole UK economy.
Overall, on the basis of the evidence available, it is considered that the application site has probably been advertised for long enough and properly enough to conclude that an employment use on the site is unlikely to be forthcoming in the short-term. It is also important to note that this has occurred at a time in which there has been a low demand and high level of supply for employment land across the Borough as a whole. However, despite this, the recession and challenging economic circumstances, the occupancy of buildings within the Caldwell Road Industrial Estate has remained high. The economy is also now improving and there is no fundamental reason to suggest that the application site would not be viable for employment uses within the Borough Plan period. It is also important to note that the indicated asking price of the site is optimistic and may have therefore played a significant part in deterring potential investors and developers of the land. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to assume that the owner’s enthusiasm for anything other than residential development may have waivered since the first interest for that purpose. Indeed, the value of the land for residential purposes rather than employment purposes is significantly higher. The prospect of obtaining planning permission for residential dwellings is therefore likely to have impacted on the willingness of the owner to lower the asking price or indeed accept lower offers. In addition, it is considered that the applicant has not demonstrated that grant funding is not available to assist with the development of this land for employment purposes. Despite this, it is accepted that it would be unreasonable for the Council to refuse the application on the grounds that it would result in the loss of employment land. This is because the application site is not currently designated as employment
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 90
land and does not have any extant planning permissions for the development of employment uses upon this. Nonetheless, this situation does not mean that an employment use on the site would never come forwards or that this site should be precluded from inclusion as employment land within the emerging Borough Plan.
Aside from the above matters, the NPPF (paragraphs 17 and 111) and Local Plan favour the development of brownfield land over greenfield land. In this respect, the application site comprises 0.65 hectares of vacant land off Triton Road, Nuneaton. The last known use of this land was for allotments but the site has not been used for this purpose for a number of years and is therefore considered to have a nil use class. The land is relatively flat but is raised higher than the adjacent road with some sloping towards the edges. It is predominately comprised of overgrown scrubland with a number of established trees being located along a small area of land to the west. The land is therefore classified as greenfield land within the existing urban area.
Despite the presumption in favour of developing brownfield land over greenfield land, regard must be had to the value of this greenfield land. In this respect, the existing value of this greenfield land is considered to be limited given that it serves no real purpose and that it is not usable as a piece of public open space. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the site is located within the urban area and is accessible in regards to services and amenities. The development of this land would consequently be sequentially preferable to the development of alternative greenfield sites outside of the defined urban area.
4. Noise
Paragraph 123 of the NPPF outlines that ‘Planning policies and decisions should aim to: Avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; Mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions; Recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established; and Identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason’. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF is consistent with this and outlines that planning should seek a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.
a. Noise Reports
It is within the context of the above that the applicant has submitted an Environmental Noise Assessment 2014. This assessment is based upon a noise survey undertaken in April 2013 which was used to establish noise
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 91
levels within the area surrounding the site. In particular, this identified that the main noise sources were that from road traffic and commercial activity. The highest noise levels on the site were recorded around the boundary with the Thule Towing Systems delivery yard and along Triton Road itself. It was therefore identified that noise levels would be such that the ‘good’ internal and external standards required by BS8233:1999 would not be met for all proposed dwellings without mitigation. It is consequently proposed that a 2.50 metre high acoustic close boarded wooden fence (with a mass of 10kg/m²) would be installed to the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. It is further proposed that the glazing to living rooms and bedrooms to a number of identified properties within the scheme would meet specific glazing specifications (of 4.12.4). An acoustic ventilation strategy would also be required. The assessment consequently concludes that such mitigation would ensure that the ‘good’ internal and external standards required by BS8233:1999 would be met for all properties.
Further to this, Triton Showers instructed consultants White Young Green to produce a Noise Assessment Report (ref: A087571) in support of their objections to the proposed development. This assessment was based upon an independent noise survey undertaken in May 2014 which was used to establish noise levels within the area surrounding the site. In particular, this identified that the main noise sources were that from road traffic and commercial activity. This particularly identifies that noise from deliveries to Triton Showers is predicted to exceed background noise levels at locations across the proposed site during the daytime and night time. It therefore contends that it is likely that this would result in complaints. Furthermore, it contends that the existing noise environment and activities associated with Triton Showers is such that internal criteria for noise for a number of properties within the proposed development would be exceeded. They therefore believe that noise control regulations would impose unreasonable restrictions on Triton Showers and that the proposed development consequently fails to comply with the NPPF. Aside from this, the assessment outlines a critique of the applicant’s noise report. In particular, they highlight that the applicant’s report has failed to include an LAmax assessment which would consider the effects of instantaneous noise such as clatters and bangs and the effects of this noise at night on sleep disturbance. They therefore contend that the proposed glazing specification would not achieve recommended levels and that this relies on windows being closed. Further to this, they outline that average noise levels (LAeq) are not comparable to their own monitoring and the levels consequently exceed internal WHO criteria for bedrooms and living rooms when windows are open and also with windows closed during the night time. In addition, they identify that the applicant has not undertaken a BS4142 (Method for Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas) Assessment which would help to establish whether complaints are likely or not likely to be received. Based on their own assessment of this, they contend that this reveals that complaints would be likely. Finally, they consider that there are issues with the noise sources used in the intrusion assessment. In particular, they contend that there is an under estimate in the number of vehicular movements along Triton Road causing an under prediction in the noise levels that would be experienced by the proposed residential dwellings.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 92
The applicant responded to the above with an Acoustic Review 2014. Although not formally submitted to Development Control, the review was sent to Environmental Health and is consequently considered to be a material consideration. This review contends that LAmax levels recorded within their survey revealed that LAmax levels did not occur regularly enough to warrant enhanced glazing above that proposed. However, they do indicate that the glazing specification could be upgraded to mitigate against this if considered to be necessary. In regard to average noise levels (LAeq), the review contends that it is only necessary to meet the WHO criteria if glazing is ignored as a mitigation option due to the only means of ventilation being an open window. They therefore indicate that alternative means of mechanical ventilation can be provided thus ensuring that the glazing does act as mitigation. In relation to the absence of a BS4142 assessment, the review contends that this would not be beneficial because existing residential properties in the area are an equal distance away from the noise sources. It therefore reasons that the occupiers of these properties would be just as likely to complain as residents of the proposed development. However, they indicate that if a BS4142 assessment was required, additional mitigation could be provided. In relation to noise sources, the review indicates that the noise monitoring position used by WYG is actually close to the Triton Showers delivery yard area rather than being in the position of the closest proposed residential property. They further indicate that road traffic along Triton Road is low. However, they indicate that road traffic noise can be adequately mitigated against through suitable glazing specifications.
It is within the context of the above that Environmental Health has assessed both the applicant’s and White Young Green noise reports whilst also considering the applicant’s Acoustic Review. They have subsequently commented as follows:
‘Both Triton and the developers have produced their own noise reports and it is for us to formulate an opinion based on both reports. I can only reiterate that the assessment and proposed mitigation derived from those noise levels measured in April 2013 by noise. co.uk Ltd demonstrates that the development is achievable. The issue of LAmax has been raised in the report for Triton, whilst this may not have been asked for directly it is a consideration in BS8288 and therefore should have been addressed when considering what attenuation was necessary to achieve the 'good standard'. Noise co.uk.ltd have indicated that the level specified in the WYG report could be achieved by upgrading the glazing. We would want to see and agree the glazing (and ventilation?), any such specification to take into consideration LAmax. Please note to maintain the good stand this is reliant upon the windows being kept closed.
My biggest concern is whilst the development is achievable in the current noise climate there has been no thought given to the unrestricted use the surrounding premises have and the impact they may have on future residential properties, for example
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 93
increased deliveries, changes in the hours of operation, changes in the type of activities at the site eg noisier industries coming in. The developers are using the argument that the commercial/industrial premises are already surrounded by existing residential receptors and they would have a limiting factor on the level of noise they can generate from their premises. I would have to disagree with this, as the new development would not benefit from the resulting drop off in noise level distant offer, being that much closer than those receptors in Shepperton Court, Wadebridge Gardens and Caldwell Road. It is therefore these new receptors who would be first in line to be disturbed by noise.
Environmental Protection has the powers to ensure where possible businesses are using best practice, but it is not a guarantee that noise will be totally eliminated. If this development does go ahead this could potentially put restrictions on the existing businesses and expose people to unreasonable/elevated noise levels’.
Further to this, Environmental Health has indicated that they have concerns regarding the plant (including cooling fans) associated with the telecommunication towers to the northeast of the application site. They are particularly concerned with the tonal nature of the noise emitted from this and would consequently require ‘confirmation of any particular frequencies that could be an issue and whether the proposed mitigation would offer sufficient attenuation to it/them’.
b. Existing Noise Levels
Despite the concerns with the applicant’s noise report, it is considered that on balance, mitigation measures could be provided within the proposed development to adequately ensure that existing noise levels within the area surrounding the site do not cause detrimental harm to residential amenity if all windows within noise receptive dwellings are kept closed. It is within this context that the applicant has currently only proposed to provide mitigation measures in the form of a 2.50 metre high acoustic close boarded wooden fence (with a mass of 10kg/m²) to the northern and eastern boundaries of the site, glazing specification of 4mm glass-12mm gap-4mm glass in identified properties, and an unspecified acoustic ventilation strategy. However, given the shortcomings of the applicant’s noise report as outlined above, it is considered that the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that these proposed mitigation measures would not prevent noise from causing detrimental harm to residential amenity. Indeed, the applicant’s own Acoustic Review concludes that further mitigation could be provided in the form of an upgraded glazing specification to deal with the identified areas of concern. In the absence of details of this further mitigation, it would be necessary to impose a condition requiring details of this. Furthermore, it is considered that it would be necessary to impose a condition requiring details of a whole house ventilation system with air cooling/conditioning unit. This would be required because alternative options such as acoustic trickle vents would only provide a degree of air flow and would not cool a house down to an acceptable level on hot days. Without an air cooling/conditioning unit it would therefore be
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 94
highly likely that residents would open windows which would leave occupants susceptible to noise levels that are likely to cause sleep disturbance.
Notwithstanding the above, it would have to be accepted that whilst the mitigation measures that could be incorporated into the proposed houses would attenuate noise levels to a certain degree, they would not remove the potential for a nuisance to be caused to the occupants of the proposed houses. Furthermore, it is clearly the case that for the potential mitigation measures to work, all windows within noise receptive dwellings would need to be kept closed. Indeed, even if mechanical ventilation is provided, this would not preclude the possibility of residents wanting to open a window for fresh air and/or cooling and it would be unreasonable to expect them not to do so. One potential solution to this would be to impose a condition stipulating that all windows in noise receptive elevations should be non-openable. However, it is considered that this would not be an acceptable solution due to the significant and negative impact this would have on the living standards of future occupiers. In addition, there are inherent difficulties in ensuring that non- openable windows comply with building regulations which require that there is a means of escape via first floor windows to bedrooms. In this respect, the Council’s Building Control Officer has raised concerns based on experience that emergency access via non-openable windows is problematic and the applicant has not demonstrated how this could be achieved. In the absence of the applicant being able to guarantee that windows would remain closed, it is considered that general noise levels and maximum (peak) noise levels would be intrusive and likely to cause detrimental disturbance having regard to the proximity of the industrial units and specific site characteristics.
Aside from the above, a further point of consideration relates to the maintenance and replacement of glazing and acoustic fencing. Indeed, there would come a point in time when glazing would need to be replaced and it cannot be guaranteed that this would be replaced in accordance with the required glazing specification to attenuate against noise with windows closed. In the same way, the acoustic fencing would deteriorate over time and there would come a point where this would need to be repaired and/or replaced. It cannot be guaranteed that this would be carried out in accordance with the required acoustic fencing specification. In the event that the required glazing specification and/or acoustic fencing are not installed, it is likely that residents would be subjected to noise which could cause detrimental disturbance. A condition could therefore be imposed requiring the maintenance of the glazing and acoustic fencing in perpetuity but the enforcement of this would be highly problematic. For example, home owners and/or those responsible for the maintenance of the properties would be unlikely to be aware of any such condition and could proceed to replace the windows and/or the acoustic fencing. It is also unlikely that the Council would receive an enforcement complaint for the replacement of windows and/or acoustic fencing. This would mean that the Council would be unlikely to know that replacement has been carried out. Such issues are likely to be compounded by changes in ownership and/or changes in personnel with the Registered Provider.
c. Future Noise Levels
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 95
Further to the above matters, it is considered that there would be a fundamental issue with the compatibility of the proposed residential dwellings and surrounding industrial premises. Indeed, the proposal would result in two different land uses which would remain incompatible in principle. In this respect, whilst the applicant contends that noise mitigation measures could be provided to mitigate against existing noise levels, they are not able to demonstrate that potential future noise levels could be adequately mitigated against. This is a significant concern because the surrounding industrial units have the potential to create much higher levels of noise. For example, existing businesses could start operating more intensely than they do at present. For instance, they could increase the number of days and hours which they operate their business, increase the number of deliveries to and from the business, employ more staff, and intensify their business operations and production capabilities. Further to this, machinery, processes and ownership can change on industrial estates and there is no restriction on the hours of working in or around the premises in this area. In addition, certain alterations and extensions could be made to the existing industrial premises under permitted development rights without specific permission which could affect future occupiers. Such potential future noise levels could not be mitigated against as it is not known what noise levels would be generated by the full array of potential changes that could take place in the area. As a result, this could therefore lead to significant adverse impacts on the health and quality of life of the occupiers of the proposed dwellings. The points raised above in relation to the future maintenance of glazing and/or acoustic fencing are also relevant to this.
The potential for the above to occur is considered to be high. Indeed, Triton Showers has clearly set out in a letter dated the 7th October 2014 that ‘in response to an improving economic climate, and the need to provide flexibility in production to meet demand in a very competitive business environment, Triton is now more likely to operate expanded shift patterns’. To this effect they note that ‘Triton has just completed an extremely busy September with a workforce approaching 400 with regular 12 hour shift’. Further to this, Thule Towbar Systems has clearly set out in an e-mail dated the 2nd October 2014 that ‘Thule are currently growing its business activities with Jaguar Land Rover and fully expect to have increased activity on a single shift system within the current planning restrictions. If the business continues to grow with other UK manufacturers then it is likely we will need to operate the facility over a 2 shift system with increased activity at the rear of the premises. This would extend the period where noise is generated. This is an expanding business and activity will increase over the coming months/years’. It is therefore considered that the applicant cannot mitigate against potential future noise from existing commercial businesses in the area surrounding the proposed residential development.
d. Impact on Existing Businesses
It is within the context of the above that particular regard should be had to paragraph 123 of the NPPF which stipulates that decisions should ‘recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 96
unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established’. The PPG is consistent with this and indicates that ‘The potential effect on an existing business of a new residential development being located close to it should be carefully considered as the existing noise levels from the business may be regarded as unacceptable by the new residents and subject to enforcement action. In the case of an established business, the policy set out in the third bullet of paragraph 123 of the Framework should be followed’. Paragraph 2.3 of the Noise Policy Statement for England also indicates that ‘the broad aim of noise management has been to separate noise sources from sensitive noise receivers and to ‘minimise’ noise’.
In this case, the proposed dwellings would be situated immediately adjacent to and within the vicinity of a number of businesses which operate under B1, B2 and B8 use classes. It is consequently considered that the proposal could result in the undue inhibition of the legitimate activity of these existing noise generating uses from the introduction of residential uses close by. Indeed, the proposal has the potential to have a considerable and detrimental impact upon the business operations of these surrounding businesses. This is because the business operations and vehicular movements associated with these businesses generate noise that would have the potential to cause disturbance and nuisance to the future occupants of the proposed dwellings that would not otherwise effect existing residential properties in the wider area surrounding the application site. It is also considered that allowing the proposed development could restrict the potential for businesses to change or expand their existing operations. This is because any changes or expansion is likely to result in the creation of noise that has the potential to cause a disturbance or nuisance to residential properties. In addition, there is the potential for one of the existing businesses to leave and be replaced by another business in the same use class. The business operations and associated vehicular movements of a new business have the potential to be very different and more intensive to that which previously occurred.
It is consequently clear that there are a range of circumstances which could result in significantly more noise being generated than that which occurs at present. Such scenarios have the potential to give rise to complaints about noise from the surrounding industrial premises from the future occupiers of the proposed residential dwellings that would not otherwise occur. These complaints would then need to be investigated by the Council’s Environmental Health Department in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act and other relevant legislation. This could then lead to formal requests for businesses to curtail their business operations or the serving of noise abatement notices to force businesses to do this. Such a situation would be unfair to these businesses who have to be flexible and reactive in their business operations to remain competitive within the context of an ever changing marketplace. Indeed, the proposal could prejudice industrial expansion as it would not provide a prudent allowance for the expansion and diversification of industrial and commercial premises. Such a situation would be contrary to paragraph 123 of the NPPF which outlines that businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 97
uses since they were established. The proximity of the surrounding industrial uses to the proposed residential development would clearly result in a ‘bad neighbour’ development that the planning system should seek to avoid. As a consequence of this, the proposed residential development could undermine and inhibit the economic function of existing businesses in the area and threaten existing jobs and the potential creation of additional jobs. This would have a knock-on effect to the local economy in terms of a loss of taxes, reliance on benefits and reduction in the spending of individuals on products and services. Such a situation would therefore have a negative impact on securing sustainable economic growth as required by paragraphs 18-21 of the NPPF.
The potential for the above to arise is considered to be valid taking into account that existing and potential noise could result in complaints from residents. It is further important to note that the Council has received letters of objection from Triton Showers and Thule Towbar Systems in relation to the planning application, expressing concern that a residential development would have the potential to harm their business operations. These concerns are outlined above and within the neighbour representations section. This consequently validates and gives extra weight to the considerations outlined here. An additional important point of note is that Triton Showers has clearly set out in a letter dated the 7th October 2014 that allowing a residential development in this location would have an adverse impact on their business confidence. It would also give rise to their consideration of relocating their whole head office and manufacturing facility from this area. This is a legitimate possibility as they indicate that their lease only has a few years left before expiring so the company will soon consider future location options and could easily identify a location with no impediments to business activities if residential permission is allowed. Importantly, they note that Triton Showers requires operational flexibility and the absence of obstacles which can inhibit or threaten manufacturing activities. Such concerns consequently need to be given significant weight. This is particularly so because Triton Showers are one of the largest private sector employers in the Borough employing nearly 400 members of staff. Many of these staff are local employees who rely on Triton for the livelihoods. The company also trades with many local businesses and this consequently generates further employment opportunities and prosperity. The loss of this business in an area of known deprivation would consequently have far reaching and detrimental economic and social impacts that cannot be dismissed and therefore needs to be given due weight.
e. Impact on Caldwell Road Industrial Estate
On a broader note, there is a legitimate concern that granting permission for the proposed residential development would have a significant and detrimental effect on the Caldwell Road Industrial Estate. This could arise due to the erosion of business confidence resulting from concerns that existing business operations would need to be curtailed or that future expansion plans may be undermined, meet opposition and/or generate complaints. In such a scenario businesses may look to relocate elsewhere and/or cease to further invest in the units that make up the estate. This is a particular concern because the Council’s ELR recommends that Caldwell Road Industrial Estate
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 98
should be kept in the Borough’s employment land portfolio with a view to being redeveloped during the plan period. It is consequently clear that this would be threatened if the proposed development is allowed. This is because businesses would be less inclined to remain in the area or indeed expand whilst the potential for redevelopment would also be greatly diminished. Such situation could undermine the Council’s aspirations for achieving sustainable development and economic growth in the Borough. In turn, allowing this application could also set a precedent for encouraging further applications for residential developments on existing employment sites which if allowed could have significant and detrimental economic impacts. f. Potential for Noise Complaints from Existing Properties Compared to Proposed Properties
Notwithstanding the above, the applicant has advanced arguments that there are a number of existing residential properties in the area which are located an equal distance away from the existing businesses as the proposed residential properties. They therefore contend that the occupiers of these properties would be just as likely to complain as residents of the proposed development if noise disturbs them. As a result, they reason that these existing residential properties act as a check which would already restrict the potential for these businesses to create more noise.
In this respect it is important to note that Triton Road provides the only vehicular access point to Triton Showers, the application site, a garage court, allotments and rear access to a residential property. Vehicles travelling along Triton Road in connection with Triton Showers consequently do not pass in front of, or significantly near to, any existing residential dwellings. The existing residential properties in the area are also located a significant distance away from the Triton Showers building. Indeed, the residential rooms within Shepperton Court are 75 metres away from Triton Road and 89 metres away from the Triton Showers building. The 4 residential properties of 51-57 (odd) Caldwell Road have 20 metre long rear gardens which back onto Triton Road with the boundary line to these being distinguished with a 2 metre high brick wall. It is also the rear elevations to these 4 properties rather than the front that face towards Triton Road. The rear elevations of other residential properties along Caldwell Road don’t face towards Triton Road but do face towards the front elevation of the Triton Showers building at a distance of 60 metres over rear gardens, allotments and a parking area. The Triton Showers building itself also acts as a substantial physical barrier to noise from the delivery yard to the this business. Residential properties within Waterbridge Gardens are separated from Triton Road by Coventry Canal and are also screened by significant and mature trees and hedges. In any event, the closest property of 45 Waterbridge Gardens is 35 metres away from Triton Road and 75 metres away from the Triton Showers building. In view of these separation distances, it is considered that existing vehicular traffic flows along Triton Road in connection with Triton Showers does not cause detrimental noise disturbance to any existing residential properties. It is also considered that the business operations within the Triton Showers building do not cause detrimental noise disturbance to any existing residential properties.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 99
In relation to the proposed residential development, the proposed layout plan indicates that the front elevations of 10 dwellings (plots 1 to 10) and side elevations of 3 dwellings (plots 11 to 13) would be located adjacent to the pedestrian footway alongside Triton Road. Two of these properties would be located virtually on the pavement (0.40 metres at the closest point) with the others being set back (7.30 metres at the furthest point) from the road along which vehicles associated with Triton Showers travel. The closest of these properties (plot 1) would also be located 15.20 metres away from the side elevation of the Triton Showers building. This would therefore result in the proposed dwellings being located much closer to Triton Road and the Triton Showers building than the existing residential properties within the vicinity. It is therefore considered that the business operations of Triton Showers and the vehicular movements associated with this would have a greater detrimental impact upon the residential amenity of future occupants of the proposed dwellings than that of existing residential properties in the area.
Aside from Triton Road and the Triton showers building, the proposed layout plan also shows that 2 of the proposed dwellings (plots 22 and 23) would be located immediately adjacent to the service yard for Thule Towing Systems. The southern elevation of the Thule building facing the application site also contains loading bays. The closest existing residential properties to the Thule site are located at Shepperton Court but these are 15 metres away from the service yard and 22 metres away from the building. A number of mature trees are also located to the boundary of the Shepperton Court and Thule site which help to screen the business operations from view and thereby reduce perceived noise issues. This would differ to the proposed dwellings which would be located immediately adjacent to the service yard and 22.50 metres away from the building. It is therefore considered that the business operations of Thule Towing Systems and the vehicular movements associated with this within the service yard and at the loading bays, would have a greater detrimental impact upon the residential amenity of future occupants of the proposed dwellings than that of existing residential dwellings in the area.
In addition to the Thule site, the proposed layout plan shows that 7 of the proposed dwellings (plots 1 and 17 to 22) would be located immediately adjacent to Flavel House where a number of different businesses within B1, B2 and B8 uses operate. Plots 20 to 23 would also be particularly susceptible to noise from the open yard of this building which would feature noise from the machines stored in connection with the civil engineering business and car repairs. The closest existing residential properties to the Flavel House site are located at Shepperton Court but these are 92 metres away from the service yard and 66 metres away from the building. A number of mature trees are also located to the boundary of the Shepperton Court and Thule site which help to screen the business operations from view and thereby reduce perceived noise issues. This would differ to the proposed dwellings which would be located immediately adjacent the building and 33 metres away from the yard area. It is therefore considered that the business operations at Flavel House and the vehicular movements and noise within the associated service yard, would have a greater detrimental impact upon the residential amenity of future occupants of the proposed dwellings than that of existing residential dwellings in the area.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 100
Further to the above, there are a number of B2 and B8 uses to the northeast and east of the application site. Of particular note is that the B2 businesses to the northeast of the application site are currently screened from all residential properties within the area by other buildings. In any event, the closest of these to the nearest B2 use stands at 85 metres. This would differ to the proposed dwellings which would be located in a direct view of these B2 uses at a distance of 44 metres. The service yard for these uses is also located to the immediate northeast of the application site. It is therefore considered that the business operations of these B2 uses and the vehicular movements associated with them in the service yard would have a greater detrimental impact upon the residential amenity of the future occupants of the proposed dwellings than that of existing residential dwellings in the area.
It is also considered that the above issues with regards to physical separation distances are compounded by the fact that a residential use on the application site would be at odds with the employment uses that it would be situated and seen against. Indeed, a residential development in this location would be inappropriate and would fail to integrate with the employment units. This differs from the other residential properties within the vicinity of the application site in that they form part of a wider residential area and are accessed off residential roads. Indeed, it is only the rear elevations and associated gardens of these properties that face towards the employment units at distance. The application site would be seen as part of the wider employment area and would indeed be accessed off a road that principally only serves an employment unit. The front elevations of a number of dwellings within the scheme would also directly face an employment unit. There is consequently a concern that this inappropriate physical relationship would further exacerbate the potential for noise issues to be an issue for the future occupants of the proposed dwellings.
In respect of this issue, Environmental Health has advised that:
‘Without wishing to state the obvious, the further away a noise sensitive receptor is from a noise source the less chance of complaint. In addition distance coupled with other means of attenuation again reduces the chance of complaint. Those noise sensitive premises in Shepperton Court, Wadebridge Gardens and Caldwell Road are afforded the benefit of distance as opposed to the new development which would be located no more than 15.20 meters across the road.
I previously advised you that different noise sources would reduce over distance depending on how the source is viewed that is as a line source or a point source. For a line source there would be a reduction in 3dB per doubling of distance and for a point source there is a reduction 6dB per doubling of distance. In this instance there would be a reduction of 6dB per doubling of distance, those receptors at Wadebridge, Shepperton and Caldwell would benefit far greater than those new receptors directly across from Triton.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 101
Although they do give a perception of providing a barrier against noise, trees and hedges do not offer much in the way of attenuation no more than say 2-3 dB, to achieve a more noticeable reduction in noise you would need to look at a more substantial barrier such as close boarded fencing, acoustic fencing or a brick wall etc’.
The applicant has contended that the existing properties surrounding the application site act as a check which restricts the potential for businesses to create additional noise. However, in view of the above comments and reasoning it is considered that this is not the case.
g. Noise Conclusions
Overall, it is considered that it is clearly and demonstrably the case that the proposed residential dwellings would be incompatible with the existing employment uses in this area and is therefore inappropriate in principle. Potential mitigation measures would not provide acceptable solutions to mitigate against existing and potential noise generated by the businesses located around the application site. Furthermore, allowing residential dwellings in this location is likely to give rise to complaints from the future occupiers of these dwellings. This has the significant potential to result in restrictions being imposed on businesses which would result in the undue inhibition of the legitimate activity of existing noise generating uses. This would consequently be prejudicial to industrial expansion and economic growth. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not be sustainable and would fail to be in accordance with paragraphs 18-21 and 123 of the NPPF. This is subsequently a matter which weighs significantly against allowing the proposed development.
5. Highway Safety, Traffic Flows, Parking Provision and Accessibility
One of the core planning principles outlined within paragraph 17 of the NPPF outlines the need for planning to ‘actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable’. It then further expands on this and sets out the need to consider sustainable transport modes, the suitability and safety of accesses, and whether improvements can be undertaken to the transport network to limit the impact of developments (paragraphs 32, 34 and 35). It also indicates the value of travel plans and the promotion of a mix of uses on larger residential developments (paragraphs 17, 36 and 38).
Access
In this case it is proposed that the application site would be accessed directly off Triton Road. This is currently an un-adopted road owned by Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council and access is gained to the wider highway network via a T-junction with Caldwell Road. In relation to plots 1-10, direct access onto Triton Road would be gained via dropped kerb access points to the proposed parking areas for each dwelling. For the remaining plots, it is
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 102
proposed that a new access road would be created off the end of the existing turning head within Triton Road. Priority would be given to vehicles on Triton Road and accessing the site.
The Transport Statement submitted by the applicant indicates that these proposed access arrangements would be acceptable. However, a Transport Review submitted in support of Triton Shower’s objection contends that it is the relationship between the proposed driveways, level of parking provision and risks associated with industrial traffic on this road which causes concern and objection.
It is within the context of the above that Warwickshire County Council Highways initially objected to the proposed layout due the detrimental impact it was considered that this would have on highway safety. These grounds for objection centred around visibility splays and issues that would arise from the proposed parking layout. However, the applicant has subsequently amended the proposed layout plan and this has been submitted to Highways for further comments. However, a response had not been received by the 15th October 2014 when the Officer report and recommendation for Planning Applications Committee on the 28th October 2014 was required to be completed. An addendum item detailing the Highways response will consequently be prepared if this is received before the 28th October 2014 Committee.
Traffic Flows
The Transport Statement submitted by the applicant contends that proposed residential traffic generation would be very low with 12-16 vehicles (two-way) during the AM peak and 22 vehicles (two-way) during the PM peak. It consequently indicates that this low level of traffic generation when combined with Triton Showers traffic would not cause any traffic engineering or highway safety issues. They further note that Triton Road is 7.40 metres wide and that even if some on-street parking occurred from Triton Showers, there would still be a sufficient carriageway width for two cars (or a car and a lorry) to pass each other. Warwickshire County Council Highways has subsequently assessed this and raised no objection to the proposed development in terms of traffic flows resulting from this on Triton Road and the surrounding area.
Parking Provision
The applicant is proposed to provide a total of 55 off road car parking spaces for the 36 proposed dwellings. This would consequently equate to 1.5 spaces per dwelling which would be in accordance with the Council’s traditional parking standards.
Accessibility of Facilities and Services
The NPPF seeks to promote a mix of land uses within large scale residential developments (paragraphs 37, 38 and 70). A range of local services and facilities should all be within walking distance of most properties. Such an approach is endorsed within Building for Life 12 which the Council draws on when considering applications. Further guidance is set out in the Institute of
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 103
Highways and Transportation (IHT) publication Guidelines for Providing Journeys on Foot (2000) which provides a widely accepted standard for assessing reasonable walking distances. This indicates that an acceptable walking distance for most purposes is considered to be 800 metres with a preferred maximum of 1.2 km. For schools and employment sites it indicates that an acceptable walking distance for most purposes is considered to be 1km with a preferred maximum of 2 km. However, the Guidelines make the point that what is acceptable in individual terms will vary depending on such factors as the quality and size of shops, individual fitness and physical ability, the purpose of the journey, alternative travel options and general deterrents to walking.
In respect of this site, it is noted that the proposed dwellings would be within the preferred maximum IHT preferred walking distances to the closest primary school, secondary school, college, GP surgery, dentist, employment sites, supermarket, public house and leisure centre. However, the proposed dwellings would be located beyond the preferred maximum IHT preferred walking distances to a library. However, the topography of the area is fairly flat which would increase the perceived attractiveness of walking. Further to this, it is considered that the site benefits from direct access to National Cycle Route N52 which runs along the canal towpath to Nuneaton town centre. Bus services within the area are also considered to be good and regular. All of this indicates that the accessibility of the application site by a range of sustainable transport options is good thereby reducing reliance on private vehicles.
6. Ecology, Trees and Hedgerows
The NPPF outlines a need to minimise the impact of proposed developments on biodiversity as well as contributing to and enhancing this where possible (paragraphs 109, 113, 114, 117 and 118). It particularly highlights the need to consider the impact on ecological networks, protected wildlife, priority species and priority habitats.
It is within the context of the above that the applicant has submitted an Ecological Appraisal (January 2013) and Updated Walkover Survey (March 2014). This has involved the undertaking of a desktop study and phase 1 habitat walkover survey. It was consequently noted that the scrub cover on the site was a medium classification habitat whilst the remaining habitats were low-medium and low classification habitats in the form of scattered trees, earth banks, defunct hedgerow, cleared scrubland and canal (located outside of the site boundary). The potential for protected species on the site was subsequently given a value evaluated by the habitat suitability, records within a 1km radius of the site and evidence found on site. This identified that on the site there was a medium potential for birds, low-medium potential for amphibians, reptiles, hedgehogs and badgers, and low potential for otters, crayfish and watervoles. It concludes that the most valuable habitat on the site is the scrub and defunct hedgerow to the west of the site. This area offers potential nesting opportunities for birds, sheltering opportunities for reptiles and amphibians, and foraging opportunities for hedgehogs and badgers. It therefore recommends that:
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 104
- The scattered trees and the defunct hedgerow, should be retained and protected, where practicable for the purposes of ensuring that potential bird nesting habitat and a source of food for overwintering thrush species is maintained. - Any scrub or trees, to be removed to facilitate the development should be surveyed for nesting birds immediately prior to commencement of works by a person competent to do so and due vigilance should also be maintained during construction to ensure that no breeding birds are disturbed during the construction process should nesting commence thereafter. - Works should be timed to avoid bird nesting season typically between March-September inclusive. - Nest boxes for blackbirds, dunnock, robin and blackcap should be provided on site to maintain and enhance the existing breeding possibilities. In addition to this, all such nesting facilities should be sited away from roads, erected on any suitable proposed buildings or existing trees on a north-east orientation. - Rubble piles should be carefully dismantled by hand as there is a low- medium potential for these features to be used as shelter by amphibians or reptiles. If evidence of newts or reptiles is found, works must stop and a suitably qualified ecologist should be contacted for advice on how best to proceed. - The cleared track ways should be kept at their current length, discouraging scrub from encroaching and increasing the biodiversity on Site. - Given the proximity to the Coventry Canal within 2m of the Site boundary, Pollution Prevention Guidelines (Environment Agency) should be taken into account. - The area along the western boundary which will be used as public open green space indicated on the Site plan and should be enhanced with native tree and shrub species which typically bear fruits, seeds or nuts so could be eaten by native birds and invertebrates, and planting that offers ground shelter. As well as this, the addition of hedgerows along the remaining boundaries would also be welcome as this would enhance the Site's boundary features. These measures would act as connective corridors with the surrounding landscape. - Should evidence of protected or notable species (i.e. hedgehogs, reptiles or amphibians) be discovered during works ecological consultants or the local office of Natural England should be contacted for advice.
Parks and Countryside has subsequently assessed this and raised an objection to the proposed development on a number of grounds. In the first instance, they consider that the proposal would result in a significant net loss of biodiversity against NPPF requirements with no attempt to minimise, mitigate and offset. Moreover, they note that all survey work has been undertaken in winter months outside of recognised survey seasons. Furthermore, it is identified that the site is located immediately adjacent to the Coventry Canal Strategic Green Infrastructure Corridor but all complementary habitat would be lost and no attempt would be made to complement and enhance the corridor. They therefore outline that the application could only be
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 105
supported with appropriate survey work, the retention and enhancement of a greater width of habitat adjacent to the Canal, and other mitigation measures.
In respect of the above, the grounds of objection from Parks and Countryside are noted and it is accepted that some limited harm to biodiversity may arise from allowing the proposed development. However, it is considered that they have not given due weight to the recommendations of the Ecological Appraisal as outlined above. Indeed, conditions could be imposed requiring details of landscaping adjacent to the canal with the associated retention of existing trees and hedges where appropriate. Whilst it would be preferable for the indicated landscape buffer in this area of the site to be wider, it is considered that detrimental harm of such significance to warrant refusal would not arise if this is not provided. Although survey work should have been undertaken during recognised seasons, the nature of the site and judgements made is such that different findings to that noted in the Ecological Appraisal is considered unlikely. In any event, conditions could be imposed requiring an ecological construction management plan to be submitted. This would require the site to be surveyed for protected species prior to development commencing whilst also detailing procedures to be followed in the event that species are discovered during construction. A further condition requiring bird boxes to be installed within the development would assist in offsetting the impact on biodiversity. On balance, it is therefore considered that the grounds for objection from Parks and Countryside are not of sufficient weight to warrant refusing the application.
7. Flood Risk and Drainage
The NPPF requires that consideration is given to the potential impact of flooding on new development whilst also ensuring that flood risk is not increased elsewhere as a result of it (paragraphs 100-103). It also sets out a sequential risk-based approach to the location of development to steer this away from the areas at highest risk.
In respect of the above, the applicant has not submitted a Flood Risk Assessment and is not required to do so by the NPPF. However, the applicant has indicated that they propose to deal with surface water from the proposed development via main sewers. This approach is considered to be undesirable as the application site is currently greenfield land and the development of this for 36 dwellings would generate a not insignificant amount of surface water run off. Relying on main sewers to dispose of this water could consequently increase flood risk off the application site. Nonetheless, the Environment Agency were consulted and have responded to indicate that they do not wish to comment on the application. WCC Flood Risk were also consulted but have not responded to this. In the absence of an objection from these organisations it is consequently considered that it would be difficult to substantiate a refusal on the grounds that it has not adequately been demonstrated that the proposed development would not increase flood risk elsewhere. A standard condition requiring details of the proposed disposal of surface water and foul sewage as requested by Severn Trent Water would therefore be necessary to ensure that this issue is suitably addressed.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 106
8. Contamination
The NPPF sets out the need to ensure that contaminated land does not affect the health of the future occupiers of new development (paragraphs 109, 120 and 121).
No information has been submitted with the application to establish the risk of contamination at this site. Environmental Health has subsequently requested that the Council’s contaminated land conditions be attached to any approval to ensure there is no risk to the health of future occupiers, and this is considered to be acceptable in planning terms.
9. Economic Growth
Chapter 1 of the NPPF highlights the need for the planning system to support sustainable economic growth with notable references to job creation and prosperity.
In respect of the above, it is recognised that the proposed development would result in money being invested in construction on the site, employment relating to construction jobs over the build period, new household spending in the Borough, contribution to the viability of local retail outlets and additional Council tax revenue and New Homes Bonus. Such matters would have a positive impact on the local economy and prosperity of the Borough. However, such matters need to be weighed against the potentially significant and detrimental negative effects that the proposed development could have on the local economy and prosperity of the Borough as detailed in the ‘Noise’ section above. In this respect, it is considered that the positive impacts do not outweigh the potentially negative impacts that could arise if permission is granted.
10. Visual Amenity
In relation to density, policy ENV14 of the Local Plan requires development to comply with Supplementary Planning Guidance and in turn allows for consideration of the Residential Design Guide. Paragraph 3.5 of this guide sets out that the overall density of new developments should be between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare. In this case the proposal is for the development of 36 dwellings on 0.65 hectares of land providing a density of 55 dwellings per hectare. The proposal would therefore fail to comply with this guideline and would represent a high density development which indicates the need to give careful and detailed consideration to the acceptability of the proposed layout and appearance of the proposed dwellings within the scheme.
Further to the above, policy ENV14 of the Local Plan 2006 sets out that ‘The design and materials of all development should be of a high standard in keeping with the scale and character of the locality’. This policy also requires development to comply with Supplementary Planning Guidance and in turn allows for consideration of the Residential Design Guide which sets out design principles for new dwellings. Paragraph 17 and chapter 7 of the NPPF
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 107
are also relevant and set out the importance of good design in relation to new development.
Within an immediate context, the proposed development would be situated and seen against industrial units. To the north, the Thule building is two storeys in height and constructed from brick and metal cladding. To the east, the Flavel House building which is constructed from brick and corrugated roof panels and is both two-storey and single-storey in nature. To the south, the Triton Showers building takes the form of a modern purpose built unit constructed from brick and metal cladding with an equivalent height of 3 residential storeys. However, beyond the rear boundary of the application site is the two storey detached building of Shepperton Court which contains a number of warden controlled flats. This building is of a simple appearance with a gable/hipped roof and elevations constructed from bricks. Within the wider area, the rear elevations of residential dwellings located along Caldwell Road are also visible towards the entrance of Triton Road. These residential dwellings take the form of two-storey terraced properties constructed from bricks and finished with hipped roofs. The result of this is a streetscene and area predominately characterised by the presence and domination of industrial properties.
In regard to the impact on the character of the area and visual amenity, it is proposed that the 36 dwellings would be located in an almost rectangular fashion around the perimeter of the site.
Ten of these properties (plots 1-10) would directly face onto Triton Road and would take the form of two-storey semi-detached and terraced dwellings. The front elevations of these dwellings would be located 0.50 metres to 7 metres away from the public highway footpath. The dwellings would be of a simple and uniform appearance being finished in gable roofs and featuring both brick and render to the elevations. Design features would be limited to the use of gable and flat roof canopies over the front doors and partial use of stone headers and cills to the windows in the front elevations. Parking spaces would be located both inbetween and to the front of the proposed dwellings.
The proposed new access road created off the end of the existing turning head within Triton Road would extend off this and sweep around 180-degrees through the centre of the proposed development before culminating in a hammerhead. At the junction of Triton Road and the proposed access road it is proposed that six dwellings would be located over three floors within one single detached block which would be two-and-a-half storeys in height (plots 11-16). This would be located immediately adjacent to the 10 dwellings which would front Triton Road and would be sited on a corner plot which would front three roads. It has consequently been designed so that it would contain a number of windows within all of the elevations facing these roads with the effect that it would create active frontages. The block would be finished with a gable roof whilst the elevations would predominately be constructed from brick with a limited use of render. Specific design features include Juliette balconies, some gable dormer windows to the third floor, and brick on edge headers and cills to the windows. Parking spaces to these dwellings would be located adjacent to the rear of gardens to plots 9 and 10 which front Triton
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 108
Road. A bin and cycle store would also be located to the side of this building. A small area of landscaping would surround the north, south and west elevations of the building.
To the northwest corner of the proposed development, it is proposed that six dwellings would be located over three floors within one single detached block which would be two-and-a-half storeys in height (plots 31-36). This would be located immediately adjacent to the 8 dwellings which would front the proposed access road and would be sited on a corner plot which would front two roads to the east and south and canal to the west. It has consequently been designed so that it would contain a number of windows within all of the elevations facing these roads and the canal with the effect that it would create active frontages. The block would be finished with a gable roof whilst the elevations would predominately be constructed from brick with a limited use of render. Specific design features include Juliette balconies, some gable dormer windows to the third floor, and brick on edge headers and cills to the windows. Parking spaces to these dwellings would be located in a small parking court between the northern elevation of the building and northern boundary of the application site. A bin store would also be located to the side of this building. A small area of landscaping would surround the east, south and west elevations of the building.
Eight of these properties (plots 23-30) would directly face onto the proposed access road and would take the form of two-storey semi-detached and terraced dwellings. The front elevations of these dwellings would be located 6.30 to 6.60 metres away from the proposed public highway footpath. The dwellings would be of a simple and uniform appearance being finished in gable roofs and featuring both brick and render to the elevations. Design features would include two gable end elevations facing the road, use of gable and flat roof canopies over the front doors and partial use of stone headers and cills to the windows in the front elevations. Parking spaces would be located both inbetween and to the front of the proposed dwellings.
Six of these properties (plots 17 to 21) would directly face onto the proposed access road and would take the form of two-storey terraced dwellings. The front elevations of these dwellings would be located 1 to 6 metres away from the proposed public highway footpath. The dwellings would be of a simple and uniform appearance being finished in gable roofs and featuring both brick and render to the elevations. Design features would include a gable end elevation facing the road at the head of the hammerhead, use of gable and flat roof canopies over the front doors and partial use of stone headers and cills to the windows in the front elevations. Parking spaces would be located both inbetween and to the front of the proposed dwellings.
In terms of the acceptability of this, it is considered that the size of the site and proposed layout and design of the development is such that it would create its own distinct character and identity. This would particularly be the case because the proposed residential development would be seen against and within the immediate context of existing industrial buildings and would therefore appear as an isolated standalone development. Indeed, other residential properties within the vicinity of the application site form part of a
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 109
wider residential area and are accessed off residential roads. The application site would differ to this in that it would be seen as part of the wider employment area and would indeed be accessed off a road that principally only serves an employment unit.
In respect of the above, it is acknowledged that the character and identity that could be created here is relatively constrained by the size and shape of the site. The applicant has consequently responded to this by proposing a layout which would see dwellings fronting onto Triton Road and the proposed access road in an almost rectangular fashion around the perimeter of the site. The result of this is such that the proposed development would achieve a clearly defined urban edge that would address the existing and proposed road. Indeed active frontages would be created onto these roads and the Coventry Canal Towpath resulting in natural surveillance of these areas whilst also creating visual interest to the buildings. The massing of the development would be further broken up through the staggering of the building line along Triton Road and incorporation of different building heights. The incorporation of two-and-a-half storey blocks of flats and buildings with gable end elevations facing the street helps to provide landmark buildings that would help to create a sense of place. Subject to further details, the proposed landscaping areas around the proposed flat blocks has the potential to help break up and soften the proposed urban development.
Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the proposed provision of parking at the front of the majority of properties across the scheme is such that this would dominate the streetscene and have a negative impact upon this. There are also valid concerns that the proposed tandem parking bays in a row of three sets inbetween plots 2 and 3 would dominate this area and be at odds with the visual appearance of this part of the site. In addition, the presence of parking to the front of properties along one side of the proposed access road and the presence of five parking spaces in a row and rear boundary treatments to the gardens of other properties on the other side would create a blank and inactive elevation to the streetscene. On a further point, the proposed communal bin and bike stores with narrow open access footpath link would appear cramped and fail to create an attractive, secure and inviting entrance to these flats. Finally, it is considered that the overall scheme appears to create an over-intensive development which relies on the use of uniform and plain buildings without significant variation and inappropriate parking treatments.
Overall, it is considered that the areas of concern outlined above would result in some harm to the visual appearance of the proposed scheme. Despite this, it is considered that on balance, the proposed design, scale, massing, height, layout and materials of the proposed dwellings would be acceptable having regard to the immediate and wider area in which they would be located. Indeed, the harm which would occur would not be of such significance and detriment in this predominately industrial location to warrant refusal.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 110
11. Residential Amenity
Policy ENV14 of the Local Plan requires development to comply with Supplementary Planning Guidance and in turn allows for consideration of the Residential Design Guide. Paragraph 9 of this guide provides clear guidance on the way buildings relate to each other and the consequential impact of this on levels of acceptable amenity for both existing and future occupiers. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF is also relevant and sets out the need for planning to deliver a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of buildings.
Impact on Shepperton Court Bedsits and Flats
The rear elevation of this building contains 1-bedroom flats to the corners and 4 bedsits to the middle on the ground floor. This layout is also repeated on the first floor. The flats have a kitchen window and lounge window to the rear elevations. The bedsits have a bedroom/living room window and a kitchen window to the rear elevations. These windows are consequently all original windows to habitable rooms and are therefore protected in accordance with paragraph 9.2 of the RDG
The proposed side elevation of the two-and-a-half storey block of flats to the northwest corner of the application site would be located opposite the rear elevation of Shepperton Court at a distance of 19.86 metres. This proposed side elevation would contain bedroom windows to the ground, first and second floors which would therefore be classified as habitable rooms. Paragraph 9.3 of the RDG indicates that ‘In the interests of protecting privacy, a minimum 20 metres separation distance is required between the existing ground and first floor habitable room windows and proposed ground and first floor habitable room windows. Where a three storey development is proposed a distance of 30 metres will normally be required where such an elevation containing windows faces another elevation with windows. This is in the interests of preventing an oppressive sense of enclosure’. In this case the proposal is for a two-and-a-half storey building and it is therefore considered that the required separation distance should be 25 metres. The proposed development would consequently not achieve a separation distance of 25 metres between the existing original ground and first floor habitable room windows in Shepperton Court and the proposed habitable room windows over three floors as required by paragraph 9.3 of the RDG. However, it is important to be aware that this paragraph does indicate that distances may be reduced if the views are across public areas such as front gardens, open space and highways. In this case, there would be a shared car park and communal bin store located inbetween the existing and proposed buildings. The communal grounds of open space around Shepperton Court are also situated inbetween the two buildings. On balance, it is therefore considered that the proposal would not result in an oppressive sense of enclosure or loss of privacy to Shepperton Court and would consequently be acceptable.
The proposed two storey dwellings to the northern boundary of the application site would be located opposite the rear elevation of Shepperton Court at a
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 111
distance of 19.60 metres. This proposed rear elevation would contain habitable windows in the form of ground floor lounge and lounge/diner windows whilst the first floor would contain bedroom windows. The proposal would therefore not achieve a separation distance of 20 metres between the existing original ground and first floor habitable room windows in Shepperton Court and the proposed habitable room windows as required by paragraph 9.3 of the RDG. However, it is noted that the rear gardens of the proposed dwellings and communal grounds of open space around Shepperton Court are also situated inbetween the two buildings. On balance, it is therefore considered that whilst some harm would occur, this harm would not be of such significance and detriment in terms of creating an oppressive sense of enclosure or loss of privacy to Shepperton Court to warrant refusal.
Impact on Other Properties
It is considered that there would be no detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the occupants of any other properties resulting from this proposal.
Internal Residential Amenity
The relationship of proposed dwellings within the scheme and the associated impact on the residential amenity of future occupants is considered to be acceptable on the whole. However, there are some instances where the proposed development would not comply with the RDG and these are therefore detailed below.
Plots 14-15 and Plot 10: A proposed first floor kitchen window to one of the flats would be located 6.50 metres away from the rear private amenity space to the dwelling at plot 10. This would therefore fail to comply with paragraph 9.4 of the RDG which requires a distance of 7 metres for such circumstances. Nonetheless, it is recognised that there would be a bin store adjacent to this private amenity space at plot 10 and there would only be a relatively slight infringement of 0.50 metres. It is consequently considered that whilst some harm would occur, this harm would not be of such significance and detriment in terms of loss of privacy to warrant refusal.
Plot 1 and Triton Showers: The proposed ground floor kitchen window would be located 15.50 metres away from the existing three storey Triton Showers. This would therefore not comply with paragraph 9.5 of the RDG which requires a separation distance of 16 metres. However, in this case it is considered that there would be some views at an obscure angle past the side elevation of Triton Showers. The view of Triton Showers would also be over a road thereby reducing the perceived closeness to a degree. It is consequently considered that whilst some harm would occur, this harm would not be of such significance and detriment in terms of loss of privacy to warrant refusal.
Plot 30 and Plots 14-16: The proposed front elevation at plot 30 would contain habitable windows in the form of a kitchen and bedroom window to the ground and first floor respectively. The proposed side elevation of the two-and-a-half storey block of flats would be located opposite the front elevation of plot 30 at a distance of 21.46 metres. This proposed side elevation would contain
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 112
secondary living/dining/kitchen windows to the ground, first and second floors which would therefore be classified as habitable rooms. As the proposal is for a two-and-a-half storey block of flats it is therefore considered that the required separation distance should be 25 metres as outlined above. The proposed development would consequently not achieve a separation distance of 25 metres between the ground and first floor habitable room windows in plot 30 and the proposed habitable room windows over three floors as required by paragraph 9.3 of the RDG. However, it is important to be aware that this paragraph does indicate that distances may be reduced if the views are across public areas such as front gardens, open space and highways. In this case, there would be a parking area, access road and communal area of open space inbetween the buildings. On balance, it is therefore considered that the proposal would not result in an oppressive sense of enclosure or loss of privacy and would consequently be acceptable.
12. Planning Obligations
The NPPF sets out that the planning obligations should be considered where otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable (paragraph 203). However, paragraph 204 of the NPPF and Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2012 makes it clear that these obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:
d. necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; e. directly related to the development; and f. fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
One of the core planning principles outlined within paragraph 17 of the NPPF also outlines the need for planning to ‘take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs’. Policy H6 of the Local Plan is consistent with this and indicates that ‘the Council will seek appropriate planning obligations to meet any increased demand for, health, education, social/community, public transport services and facilities, public open space, nature conservation mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures that arises directly from the development’. Following consultation, the Council has requested that this development provides financial contributions towards play facilities, open space and education provision to offset the impact of the development.
a. Play and Open Space
In accordance with policy H6 of the Local Plan and Appendix A of the Residential Design Guide, the Council requires a monetary contribution in respect of play and open space facilities. In this case it is proposed to erect 36 new dwellings which would be comprised of six 1-bedroom dwellings and thirty 2+ bedroom dwellings. The total requested financial contribution towards play and open space is therefore £94,056.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 113
Notwithstanding the above, the applicant has indicated that they are not willing to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure a financial contribution towards play and open space within the area surrounding the application site. The lack of contribution to meet the recreational needs of the future occupiers of this proposed development would therefore lead to additional pressure on, and increased use of, existing open space and play facilities in the area to the detriment of the amenities of the locality. It would also set a precedent that would allow proposals for similar housing developments to not contribute to open space and play facilities in the area and would therefore further erode the amenities of the locality. This would consequently have a significant and detrimental impact on the Borough and would undermine the sustainability of this as a place to live.
b. Education Facilities
Educational facilities are often at the heart of our communities. They provide places where children and young people can be nurtured and learn about the world around them. Innovative and forward looking schools are the key to creating a skilled and knowledgeable workforce who are able to compete and be successful within today’s economy. They also help individuals to realise their aspirations and achieve their potential. It is therefore essential to ensure that the provision of education facilities remains at a high level which meets the demands and expectations required by contemporary society.
As new residential development often leads to an increased demand for more school places, it is therefore necessary to seek a financial contribution towards the cost of school infrastructure and additional educational facilities including classrooms to accommodate pupils from the new development. Developer contributions consequently help to ensure that future generations are able to learn in purpose built facilities which enable children to become tomorrow’s leaders.
In this case, Warwickshire County Council has undertaken an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on education facilities within the catchment area of the application site. In terms of nursery provision, this assessment has identified that there is no surplus capacity of Early Years pupil places in this area. A request is therefore made to accommodate the 1 pupil it has been calculated that this development would generate. In terms of primary provision, this assessment has identified that the priority area school, Wembrook Primary, is full and forecast to remain so. Other local primary schools are also full and predicted to remain so. A contribution is therefore required for the additional 7 pupils expected to be generated by this development. In terms of secondary provision, this assessment has identified that the priority area Secondary, George Eliot School, is already forecast to fill from existing pupils through larger numbers transferring from primary schools and other local developments in the vicinity. A request has therefore been made for this age group. This request includes 6th form provision because the raising of the participation age will result in an increased demand on the limited places available within the town for post 16 education. A request is therefore made to accommodate the 5 secondary pupils and 1 post 16 pupils it has been calculated that this development would generate. In terms of SEN
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 114
provision, this assessment indicates that the figures have been rounded to less than one pupil at Primary and Secondary who are likely to present with special educational needs. No request has therefore been made towards Primary or Secondary SEN provision. The result of this is that it has therefore been calculated that a financial contribution of £182,335 would be required towards education provision within the area surrounding the application site in order to offset the detrimental impact that would otherwise arise.
Notwithstanding the above, the applicant has stated that they are not willing to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure a financial contribution towards education provision within the catchment area of the application site. The lack of contribution to meet the educational needs of the new occupants of the development would therefore lead to additional pressure on, and increased use of, existing schools in the area to their detriment. It would also set a precedent that would allow proposals for similar housing developments to not contribute to education facilities in the area and would therefore cause further detriment to the existing schools in this locality. This would consequently have a significant and detrimental impact on the Borough and would undermine the sustainability of this as a place to live.
c. Financial Appraisal
The applicant contends that the proposed development would not be viable if they are required to make a total financial contribution of £113,453 (comprising of £94,056 for play and open space and £182,335 for education provision) to offset the impact of this development. The applicant has submitted a viability appraisal to demonstrate this. The associated viability assessment notes that the proposal is for wholly affordable housing and that affordable housing does not generate market returns. They contend that:
‘Based on our cost and income profile we have established that in pursuit of a proposal to provide much needed affordable homes in NBBC the cost of the scheme is only matched by income payable by WHA, our cost profile does not include for commuted sum payments it follows the incomes we can secure to fund the project cannot extend to meet commuted sum payments. The cost submission includes only construction profit of 3% and 10% to cover overhead, this level of profitability is well below a typical developer return’.
The Council’s Land and Property Manager has subsequently assessed the financial appraisal and commented as follows:
- ‘Scheme Value: I am not that different from the Applicant here although I believe there is insufficient difference between their 2 bed and 3 bed houses and I have used £150,000 for the 3 bed houses. - Costs: I have severe reservations about the scheme costs. This is not a difficult site being fairly level with ample road frontage. I am not aware there is any issue with stability or contamination although this would be established by ground survey and have
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 115
assumed for the present that there are no such issues. Overall the costs look high to me and I have a sum here of £2.3 mill (excluding fees). - Fees: I believe the fees are out of all proportion to the development. It appears that WHA are taking a fee of £434,137 (for what exactly?) whilst Westleigh are taking £276,200 (presumably for development management) and there are 'normal' design fees of £202,561 which in itself looks high as I would normally expect design fees to be around 8% of construction costs. There is also a construction profit of £78,993. So if I have assessed the matter correctly this gives fees of £991,891 or 43% of my construction cost and 36% of the Applicant's construction cost. It is appreciated that the appraisal is not showing any developer's profit. - Land Value: we have discussed this in the past in terms of whether the site had been properly marketed and whether the then asking price was appropriate. The site has been marketed unsuccessfully for employment use for many years at £450,000. I note that the land value is included in the appraisal at £850,000 and I can see no justification for this. A figure of £850,000 equates to around £567,000 per acre which represents better sites around Nuneaton suitable for market housing whereas this one is 'back land' adjacent to factories (although it also adjoins the Canal) and is not necessarily available for residential development let alone market development. I would note that if the land value is included in the Applicant's appraisal at £450,000 then, even having regard to the other factors noted above there are ample funds available for the Section 106 payments. - Overall viability: On the basis of my calculation using £450,000 for the land value I believe that the development would not only deliver the Section 106 payments but also a developer's profit of around £520,000 which, whilst much less than the various fees being taken out of the development noted under 'Fees' above, is significantly more than would normally be expected for an affordable housing scheme’.
The above comments were submitted to the applicant who was subsequently given the opportunity to revise their position or request that the viability assessment and appraisal be assessed independently by the District Valuer. However, the applicant confirmed in a telephone conversation that they maintained their position as outlined in the assessment. In this respect, it is considered that the advice from the Council’s Land and Property Manager is clear in that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the proposed development would still be viable even if all the requested financial contributions are paid. Due to the detrimental impact that the none provision of the requested contributions would have on play and open space and education provision, it is therefore considered that the proposed development would not be sustainable and that this is a matter which weighs significantly against the proposed development.
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 116
13. Conclusions: Sustainable Development
As previously outlined, the NPPF establishes the need for the planning system to achieve sustainable development which is composed of mutually dependent economic, social and environmental dimensions (paragraphs 6 and 7). There is consequently a presumption in favour of applications for sustainable development (paragraphs 49 and 197). In broad terms, this means that the application should be approved providing that it is in accordance with the development plan and other policies within the NPPF, unless material considerations or adverse impacts indicate otherwise (paragraphs 14 and 187).
In this case, the assessment has identified that there is a significant need for new housing within the Borough and that the Council does not have a 5 year housing land supply to meet that need. The development would therefore make a positive contribution towards meeting this housing need whilst also providing 36 new affordable homes. In turn, the proposed development would make a positive contribution to the local economy in some areas such as construction investment and jobs.
The potential adverse impacts of the proposed development in relation to the use of the land, noise, highway safety, traffic flows, parking provision, accessibility, ecology, trees, hedgerows, flood risk, drainage, contamination, visual amenity, residential amenity, and local infrastructure have all been considered. The assessment has subsequently shown that there would be no adverse impacts in some instances. However, in other instances where potential adverse impacts are identified, it would be possible to mitigate against this impact through a number of different measures and strategies. This mitigation could be secured through conditions to ensure that this is delivered. Nonetheless, it is clear that there would be some harm of limited weight in relation to flood risk off the application site, the impact on biodiversity on the site, impact on visual amenities and impact on residential amenities. However, it is considered that significant harm of substantial weight would arise in respect of the impact on future occupiers from noise generated by surrounding industrial units. In turn, this noise could lead to complaints about the noise which could result in restrictions being placed upon these surrounding industrial units. This would consequently have a significant and detrimental impact on the economy. Further to this, the proposed development would not provide financial contributions to mitigate against the increased pressure on, and increase use of, local infrastructure in terms of play and open space and education provision. It is therefore considered that the significant and detrimental harm resulting from this is not outweighed by the benefits of the proposed development.
Taking into account the above assessment, it is consequently considered that the proposed development would not be in accordance with the development plan and other policies within the NPPF. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not achieve sustainable development and should therefore be refused.
REASONS FOR REFUSAL:
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 117
1. Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework states: At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-taking this means: Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out‑of‑date, granting permission unless: – Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or – Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
2. Paragraph 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework states: Within the overarching roles that the planning system ought to play, a set of core land-use planning principles should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. These 12 principles are that planning should: Proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. Plans should take account of market signals, such as land prices and housing affordability, and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities [principle 3]; Take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs [principle 12].
3. Paragraphs 18 to 20 of the National Planning Policy Framework states: [18] The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future. [19] The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. [20] To help achieve economic growth, local planning authorities should plan proactively to meet the development needs of business and support an economy fit for the 21st century.
4. Paragraph 72 of the National Planning Policy Framework states: The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 118
collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should: Give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools; and Work with schools promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted.
5. Paragraph 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework states: Planning policies and decisions should aim to: Avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; Mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions; Recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established; and Identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.
6. Policy H6 of the Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Local Plan 2006 states: The Council will seek appropriate planning obligations to meet any increased demand for health, education, social / community, public transport services and facilities, sport and play facilities, public open space, nature conservation mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures that arises directly from the development.
7. Policy ENV14 of the Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Local Plan 2006 states: The design and materials of all development should be of a high standard in keeping with the scale and character of the locality. All development should comply with Supplementary Planning Guidance and/or Supplementary Planning Documents produced by the Borough and County Council, where detailed guidance is considered necessary.
a. The proposal is contrary to these policies in that it would result in the creation of a substantial residential development within an established industrial estate and immediately adjacent to industrial premises. The proposed residential use would not be compatible with these employment uses and would not be able to adequately mitigate against the existing and potential future noise levels associated with the operations and vehicular movements of these industrial premises. These noise levels would therefore result in a significant, detrimental and unacceptable impact upon the living conditions and residential amenity of the future occupants of the proposed development. In turn, the proposed residential development could result in restrictions being placed upon the operations, activities and vehicular movements of existing noise generating uses in this area. It could also inhibit the potential future growth and expansion of existing businesses whilst undermining the economic function and viability of Caldwell Road Industrial Estate. Moreover, the proposed residential development could result in a
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 119
major employer relocating away from the Borough to the detriment of economic growth, prosperity and job security for existing employees. (Contrary to paragraphs 12, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework).
b. The proposal is contrary to these policies in that it would make no contribution towards the provision and maintenance of open space and play facilities in the area. The lack of contribution to meet the recreational needs of new occupants of the development would lead to additional pressure on, and increased use of, existing open space and play facilities in the area to the detriment of the amenities of the locality. It would also set a precedent that would allow proposals for similar housing developments to not contribute to open space and play facilities in the area and would therefore further erode the amenities of the locality. Furthermore, the financial appraisal and supporting information submitted with the application does not adequately justify that the scheme is not in a viable position to make a financial contribution towards the provision and maintenance of open space and play facilities in the area. (Contrary to paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policy H6 and ENV14 of the Local Plan and paragraph 5.4 and Appendix A of the Residential Design Guide 2004).
c. The proposal is contrary to these policies in that it would make no contribution towards the provision of education facilities in the area. The lack of contribution to meet the educational needs of new occupants of the development would lead to additional pressure on, and increased use of, existing schools in the area to their detriment. It would also set a precedent that would allow proposals for similar housing developments to not contribute to education facilities in the area and would therefore cause further detriment to the existing schools in this locality. Furthermore, the financial appraisal and supporting information submitted with the application does not adequately justify that the scheme is not in a viable position to make a financial contribution towards the provision of education facilities in the area. (Contrary to paragraphs 12, 14 and 72 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy H6 of the Local Plan).
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 120
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 121
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 122
Road Proposed Street Scene from Triton
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 123
South East corner towards the North
West
South East showing the site towards the North West
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 124
NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL
Report to: Planning Applications Committee – 28 October 2014
From: Director – Governance and Recreation
Subject: Proposed amendments to the Code of Practice for Councillors and Officers dealing with Planning Matters
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To consider recommendations from Standards Committee to amend the Code of practice for Councillors and Officers dealing with Planning Matters set out in Part 5D of the Council’s Constitution (the Code).
2. Recommendation
2.1 That the proposed changes to the Code of Practice for Councillors and Officers dealing with Planning Matters as set out in Appendix A be considered and the Committee’s comments be passed to the Standards Committee for consideration at its meeting on the 1st December.
3. Background
3.1 The Constitution Review Working Party (CRWP) has suggested potential amendments to the Council’s Constitution with respect to the Code, which are reproduced as Appendix A. On the 29th September, Standards Committee considered the suggested amendments and resolved:
‘Appendix [A] be referred to Planning Applications Committee for consideration and any comments be reported back to this Committee at its meeting on 1st December 2014, prior to being submitted to Council for approval.’
3.2 The majority of the changes either reflect changes in legislation; the Council’s Code of Conduct or the composition of the Council. However, the key change that this Committee needs to consider is the proposed mechanism to delay a decision which is contrary to the officer recommendation and which the senior planning officer present is of the view that inadequate reasons from a technical standpoint are being given to justify a refusal. The proposal is for such a motion to stand over to the next meeting of the Committee in order to allow officers to prepare a report on the merits of the motion and, preferably, to seek further advice from the statutory consultee as to its technical merits.
3.3 The principal reason for bringing forward this proposal is the attendant risk of a successful costs claim for an unreasonable refusal where the Council is unable to present technical evidence in support of its decision. The proposed mechanism is an attempt to ensure that the committee has all of the relevant and appropriate evidence and advice before it in order to make its final decision.
PHILIP RICHARDSON
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 125 Appendix A
5D - CODE OF PRACTICE FOR COUNCILLORS AND OFFICERS DEALING WITH PLANNING MATTERS
Contents Page
1. Introduction
2. Training
3. Declaration and Registration of Interests
4. Predisposition, Bias and Pre-determination
5. Public Speaking at Committee
6. Development Proposals submitted by Councillors and Officers and Development by the Council
7. Lobbying
8. Pre-application Discussions
9. Officers’ Reports to Committee
10. Decision Making – Material Planning Considerations
11. Voting and Decisions contrary to Officer Recommendation
12. Site Visits
13. Regular Review of Decisions
14. Breaches
5 - 33
Constitution Version 3 Approved and incorporating all changes up to 17 April 2013
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 126
1. Introduction
The Council is the Local Planning Authority for Nuneaton and Bedworth.
The Council’s planning decisions must be taken with regard to policies contained in its Development Plan, and any supplementary planning guidance unless material considerations justify a departure.
Many minor applications are dealt with by officers under delegated authority, as provided for under the constitution. Major applications involving Council owned land, those raising substantial objections, and those as requested by Members are determined by the Planning Applications Committee.
This Code of Practice for Planning Matters sets out the rules and procedures for determining planning applications and enforcement actions.
The Member Code of Conduct requires: Deleted: Councillors
5. You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or the Council Deleted: authority into disrepute.
6. You— (a) must not use or attempt to use your position as a member improperly to confer on or secure for yourself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage […]
7 [...] (2) You must give reasons for all decisions in accordance with any statutory requirements and any reasonable additional requirements imposed by the Council […]” Deleted: your authority
The law relating to the planning process obliges Councillors to act in a quasi-judicial and independent manner.
The key objectives of this Code, therefore are:
- to protect the Council and individual Councillors from allegations of unfairness, findings of maladministration and legal challenge and - to ensure that the role of officers, developers and applicants/members of the public are understood.
5 - 34
Constitution Version 3 Approved and incorporating all changes up to 17 April 2013
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 127 2. Training
2.1 The planning process requires Councillors to take decisions within a legal framework which is evolving continuously through legislation and case law.
2.2 Therefore only Councillors who have either received accredited training in planning procedures and planning law in the preceding 2 years or, in the case of new Councillors, received in-house training within 2 months of the Annual Council Meeting or until such training is received shall be eligible to serve on the Planning Applications Committee. A Member who has not received the required training will not be permitted to serve on the Committee until such time as the training requirements are fulfilled.
2.3 Councillors considering membership of the Planning Applications Committee should carefully consider the potential for conflict of interest. For example, Councillors who may be, or are closely associated with, local builders, estate agents, land owners or other people likely to be interested in the use or development of land will need to consider whether they can effectively perform their role in the light of such interests.
3. Registration and Declaration of Interests
3.1 Registration of Interests The Code of Conduct requires Councillors to register and declare their interests. These requirements must be followed scrupulously and councillors should review their situation regularly. Guidance on the registration and declaration of interests may be sought from the Council’s Monitoring Officer. Ultimate responsibility for fulfilling the requirements rests individually with each councillor.
A register of members’ interests is maintained by the Council’s Monitoring Officer, and is available for public inspection. Councillors must provide the Monitoring Officer with written details of relevant interests within 28 days of his/her election, or appointment to office. Any changes to those interests must similarly be notified within 28 days of the Councillor becoming aware of such changes.
3.2 Declaration of Interests
3.2.1 Disclosable Pecuniary Interests Deleted: Personal Interests The Code of Conduct defines a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any Deleted: personal interest matter under discussion as: Deleted: to a greater extent than other council tax (1) any matter relating to an interest in respect of which the Councillor payers, ratepayers or has given notice in the statutory register of members’ interests; and inhabitants of the relevant ward, (2) if a decision upon it might reasonably be regarded as affecting the Deleted: , a relative well-being or financial position of themselves or their spouse, or Deleted: a friend 5 - 35
Constitution Version 3 Approved and incorporating all changes up to 17 April 2013
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 128 . any employment or business carried on by such persons; . any person who employs or has appointed such persons, any firm in which in which they are a partner, or any company of which they are directors; or . any corporate body in which such persons have a beneficial interest in a class of securities exceeding the nominal value of £25,000. Deleted: ; Deleted: or¶ Where a Councillor considers they have such an interest in a matter, they any body which the councillor is required to register in the must always declare it, but it does not then necessarily follow that the statutory register of interests, in which such persons hold a interest debars the Councillor from participation in the discussion. position of general control or management. Members who have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest may seek a Deleted: personal dispensation from the Council’s Standards Committee to speak and/or Deleted: personal vote an a matter. Subject to satisfying the requirements of the legislation, Deleted: personal a dispensation is likely to be given unless the interest is one that is likely Deleted: i to be regarded as impeding the Councillor’s ability to judge the public interest in an application.
Where a member has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, Standards Committee has granted a dispensation to all members to speak at
Planning Applications Committee, according them the same rights as Deleted: because of their members of the public. membership of another body to which they were appointed by the authority or another public body need not declare a personal interest unless they 3.2.2 Other Interests intend to speak. The Councillor may need to consider whether the interest is an Other Deleted: Members who Interest as defined by the Code. share an interest with most people in a ward will not be required to declare a personal (i) Other interests now only arise if a matter affects a member’s family (but interest.¶ not their spouse) or close associates in a way which: Deleted: Prejudicial Deleted: then (a) relates to their finances or well being; or Deleted: s (b) concerns a regulatory function including planning and licensing Deleted: personal
where a reasonable member of the public with knowledge of the facts Deleted: prejudicial one would believe their ability to judge the public interest would be impaired. Formatted: Font: Not Bold Deleted: Prejudicial (ii) Members have the same rights to speak to meetings as members of the Deleted: , public even in circumstances where they have a prejudicial interest. Deleted: their Formatted: Indent: Left: Accordingly, it is now possible for a Member who has a Disclosable 35.25 pt Pecuniary Interest with a dispensation to attend a meeting of Planning Formatted: Indent: Left: Applications Committee to speak (and if a specific dispensation has been 35.25 pt granted, to vote) and if the interest is an Other Interest, to attend such a Deleted: personal and prejudicial meetingfor the purpose of making representations, answering questions or giving evidence in the same way that the public are able to do so. Deleted: i Deleted: but only However once a Member has spoken (unless a dispensation to vote has Formatted: Indent: Left: 35.25 pt been given), he or she must leave the meeting room, as previously Deleted: done so 5 - 36
Constitution Version 3 Approved and incorporating all changes up to 17 April 2013
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 129 required and cannot remain in the public gallery to observe the vote on the matter. Deleted: , Deleted: and accordingly the 4. Bias and Predetermination prohibition would include not staying and listening to subsequent debate. 4.1 There are other situations where Councillors should not participate in deciding a particular application. This is mainly when there is the possibility of bias being alleged. This may occur as a result of lobbying (see paragraph 7). It could occur if a Councillor expresses a firm view Deleted: d during a site visit which they also make clear will not change in any circumstances (in other words they have a closed mind on the matter) and this is clearly seen during the course of the debate at the meeting Deleted: (see paragraph 12).
If a Councillor has any uncertainty on a particular application he or she should consult the Council’s Monitoring Officer for advice.
4.2 Councillors must not fetter their discretion or restrict their freedom of choice. Whilst they must keep an open mind on how they will vote on any Deleted: T planning matter prior to formal consideration of the matter at the meeting of the planning authority: hearing the officer’s presentation: and evidence Deleted: , and arguments on both sides, they are permitted to express a preliminary view to local electors on the matter if they wish. If they do, they should make it clear that this predisposition to a particular view of the matter might change, dependent upon other information coming to light, most notably through the course of the debate at the meeting itself.
4.3 Having a closed mind and then taking part in the decision will put the Council at risk of a finding of maladministration and of legal proceedings on the grounds of bias or pre-determination or a failure to take into account all of the factors enabling the proposal to be considered on its merits. The decision could, in such circumstances be set aside by the courts.
4.4 Councillors should consider themselves able to take part in the debate on Formatted: Indent: Left: 36 a proposal when acting as part of a consultee body where they are also a pt, Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Tabs: member of the consulting council, for example, or both a borough and 58.9 pt, List tab + Not at 78 county councillor), provided: pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 36 pt, Tabs: 58.9 pt, List tab + (a) the proposal does not substantially effect the well being or financial Not at 78 pt standing of the consultee body: Formatted: Indent: Left: 34.9 pt (b) they make it clear to the consultee: Formatted: Indent: Left: 52.9 pt, Tabs: 73.05 pt, List their views are expressed on the limited information tab + Not at 92.15 pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 51.8 pt they have reserved judgement until they hear all of the relevant Formatted: Indent: Left: information; and 51.8 pt, Tabs: 73.05 pt, List tab + Not at 92.15 pt they have not in any way committed themselves as to how they Formatted: Indent: Left: 51.8 pt, Tabs: 73.05 pt, List may vote when the proposal comes before the Committee; and tab + Not at 92.15 pt 5 - 37
Constitution Version 3 Approved and incorporating all changes up to 17 April 2013
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 130
(c) they disclose the personal interest regarding their membership or Formatted: Indent: Left: 36 pt, Tabs: 58.9 pt, List tab + role when the Committee comes to consider the proposal. Not at 78 pt
4.5 Councillors should not speak and vote on a proposal where they have fettered their discretion of they are pre-determined. They do not also have to withdraw, but they may prefer to do so for the sake of appearance.
4.6 Councillors should explain that they do not intend to speak and vote because they have or they could reasonably be perceived as having judged the matter elsewhere, so that this may be recorded in the minutes.
4.7 Councillors should take the opportunity to exercise their separate speaking rights as a representative of local electors where they wish to support those electors regardless of the merits of the case. . If they do Deleted: , they should: Deleted: but do not have a personal and prejudicial interest (a) advise the Chair that they wish to speak in this capacity before commencement of the item
(b) remove themselves from the member seating area for the duration of that item
(c) ensure that their actions are recorded.
5. Public Speaking at Planning Applications Committee
The Council operates a system of public speaking at all of its Formatted: Indent: Left: committees. Planning Applications Committee is no exception. However, 35.45 pt by necessity, the number of speakers is limited and the time allowed for speeches is limited to 3 minutes per speaker. In operating the system, it is the role of the Chair to ensure that all speakers are dealt with fairly and equally. To assist with this process, those allowed to speak at the Planning Applications Committee and the order of speakers is as follows:
5.1. Councillors on Planning Applications Committee who have declared a Disclosable or Deemed Disclosable Interest or who have indicated that Deleted: prejudicial they have a predetermined view of the matter under consideration; Deleted: i
5.2. Ward Members of specific applications who are not members of the Committee; and
5.3 Two speakers against and two for the proposal
A Ward Member or a Member of an adjoining ward of a specific Deleted: of a specific application, where there is no ward member representative on the application Planning Applications Committee, be allowed to participate during Formatted: Indent: Left: 35.45 pt consideration of that item but be not allowed to vote. 5 - 38
Constitution Version 3 Approved and incorporating all changes up to 17 April 2013
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 131
Deleted: ¶ 6. Development Proposals Submitted by Councillors and Officers and ¶ Development by the Council
6.1 All proposals by Councillors and Officers and all proposals by the Council itself will be determined by Planning Applications Committee, regardless of any scheme of delegation in force at the time. A Councillor or an officer who has submitted a planning application will take no part in the determination of that application or the decision-making process leading to the determination of that application.
6.2 Councillors and Officers who submit a planning application or who have an application submitted on their behalf shall notify the Head of Development Control in writing of that submission.
6.3 All personal applications by Councillors or Officers will be designated as such on the face of the agenda, including Officer’s job titles.
6.4 Councillors who act as agents for people pursuing a planning matter with the Council shall take no part in the processing or determination of that application.
6.5 All applications submitted on behalf of the Council shall have both the officer name and their job title on the face of the agenda
7. Lobbying
7.1 Lobbying, or seeking to influence a decision, is a normal part of the political process. Councillors should, however, be aware that any attempt to influence their decision by way of lobbying could call their impartiality into question. Councillors should at all times follow the guidelines set out below. There is always a clear need for members of the Planning Applications Committee to declare at the appropriate meeting when lobbying or an attempt at lobbying has taken place on an item.
The following points are, offered as guidance:
7.2 Lobbying of Councillors
Do explain to those lobbying or attempting to lobby you that, whilst you can listen to what is said, it might prejudice your impartiality and Deleted: will therefore your ability to participate in the Committee’s decision making if you express an intention to vote one way or another or to express such a firm point of view that it amounts to the same thing.
Do remember that your overriding duty is to the whole community not just to the people in your ward and, taking account of the need to make decisions impartially, that you should not improperly favour, 5 - 39
Constitution Version 3 Approved and incorporating all changes up to 17 April 2013
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 132 or appear to improperly favour, any person, company, group or locality.
Do not accept gifts or hospitality from any person involved in or affected by a planning proposal. This might be construed as a bribe for the purposes of the Bribery Act 2010, which is a serious criminal offence. Deleted: If you do, it would lead to you having a prejudicial interest in the matter. Do copy or pass on any lobbying correspondence you receive to the Head of Development Control at the earliest opportunity.
Do inform the Monitoring Officer where you feel you have been exposed to undue or excessive lobbying or approaches (including inappropriate offers of gifts or hospitality), who will in turn advise the appropriate officers to follow the matter up.
7.3 Lobbying by Councillors
Do not become a member of, lead or represent an organisation Formatted: Indent: Left: 54 pt, Tabs: 72 pt, List tab + Not whose primary purpose is to lobby to promote or oppose planning at 36 pt proposals. If you do, you may be viewed as having a biased or Deleted: will predetermined view of the matter and are likely to have a Deemed Disclosable Pecuniary Interest. Deleted: e Deleted: fettered Do join general interest groups which reflect your areas of interest Deleted: your discretion and which concentrate on issues beyond particular planning Deleted: personal and prejudicial interest. proposals, such as the Victorian Society, Campaign to Protect Formatted: Indent: Left: 36 Rural England, Ramblers Association or a local civic society, but pt disclose an Other Interest where that organisation has made Formatted: Indent: Left: 54 representations on a particular proposal and make it clear to that pt, Tabs: 72 pt, List tab + Not organisation and the Committee that you have reserved at 36 pt judgement and the independence to make up your own mind on Deleted: personal i each separate proposal Formatted: Indent: Left: 18 Do not lobby Councillors regarding your concerns or views nor pt attempt to persuade them that they should decide how to vote in Formatted: Indent: Left: 36 pt, Tabs: 54 pt, List tab + Not advance of the meeting at which any planning decision is to be taken at 36 pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 18 Do not decide or discuss how to vote on any application at any sort of pt political group meeting, or lobby any other Member to do so. Formatted: Indent: Left: 36 pt, Tabs: 54 pt, List tab + Not at 36 pt 8. Pre-Application Discussions
8.1 Local planning authorities are encouraged to enter into pre-application discussions with potential applicants. In addition, negotiations and discussions are likely to continue after an application has been submitted. Such discussions can often be interpreted by the public, and especially objectors, as prejudicing the planning decision making process.
5 - 40
Constitution Version 3 Approved and incorporating all changes up to 17 April 2013
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 133 8.2 In order to allay such perceptions, pre-application discussions should take place within clear guidelines as follows:
8.2.1 Pre-application discussions should normally be conducted at officer level. In some cases pre-application presentations may be made to all Councillors to enable large strategic schemes to be considered generally before the application comes to committee. Such presentations are a form of lobbying and Members must not express any strong views or state how they or other Members might vote.
8.2.2 Pre-application discussions should make clear at the outset that the discussion will not bind the Council to making a particular decision and that any views expressed are provisional. By the very nature of such meetings not all relevant information will be to hand, neither will formal consultations with interested parties have taken place.
8.2.3 Advice should be consistent and based upon the Development Plan, Supplementary Planning Documents and material considerations. In Deleted: Guidance addition, all officers taking part in such discussions will make their decision-making role clear.
8.2.4 An officer shall take a written note of all meetings.
9. Officers’ Reports to Committees
It is important for the Council to be able to demonstrate in its decision making that there has been adequate consideration of all the relevant issues, consistency and clear reasoning leading to the decision. Officers’ reports to Committee will, therefore:
. Be in writing . Be accurate, give details of the consultations carried out and cover the substance of objections of those who have been consulted . Provide clear explanation, where necessary, of submitted plans . Contain clear references to the Development Plan, Supplementary Planning Documents, site and related history and any other material Deleted: Guidance considerations . Have clear recommendation for approval with reasons and if appropriate conditions or a refusal with reasons . In any recommendation for a departure from the Development Plan will set out the material considerations which justify this.
10. Decision Making – Material Planning Considerations
10.1 Members should only consider the planning merits of an application as set out before the Planning Applications Committee in determining whether or not to grant planning permission. Members are not to give weight to non-planning related matters that may be raised by members of the public.
5 - 41
Constitution Version 3 Approved and incorporating all changes up to 17 April 2013
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 134 10.2 Further, an applicant or objector may not raise any substantial new information at a meeting (including by way of correspondence, other documents, photographs or models) at the Planning Applications Committee without due notice at least 24 hours before the Committee meeting or the consent of the Committee
10.3 Any attempts by applicants or objectors (or their agents) to introduce such information in breach of this Code must be taken into consideration by Members in arriving at their final decision.
10.4 Planning applications are considered with regard to the policies within the Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Documents. Deleted: Guidance Applications must be determined in accordance with policy unless Supplementary Planning Documents and material considerations indicate Deleted: Guidance otherwise. Material considerations include matters such as the site history and appeal decisions. All these policies and factors must be weighed together before a decision at Committee is made.
10.5 If a decision of a Committee appears to be made other than on planning grounds it could be open to legal challenge. If it is appealed, and a Planning Inspector or the Court decides the decision to be flawed, it may be overturned. This could have serious cost implications for the Council.
10.6 If the majority of Members on a Planning Applications Committee make a decision which is contrary to the Head of Development Control’s recommendations, reasons for the decision need to be given. Officers will at this point outline to Members the implications of the decision they are making.
11. Voting Decisions Contrary to Officers’ Recommendation
11.1 A recommendation in a report to Planning Applications Committee is a recommendation from the Head of Development Control, based upon his or her understanding of the merits of an application when assessed against the prevailing Development Plan and any other relevant material considerations.
11.2 Notwithstanding the recommendation from the Head of Development Control, it is for the Planning Applications Committee itself to determine the merits of the application and to form a view as to whether the application is acceptable in planning terms or not. The report of the Head of Development Control is not binding on the Committee, which has to come to its own view on the matter, guided by the Officer Report and any subsequent oral advice given at the meeting.
11.3 Because the Officer recommendation is not binding on the Committee, it is necessary for the decision to be taken in accordance with the normal Council Procedure Rules which apply to Planning Applications Committee. This means that before the matter can be debated, a motion has to be moved and seconded. The debate can then ensue upon the 5 - 42
Constitution Version 3 Approved and incorporating all changes up to 17 April 2013
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 135 motion, as moved. In moving a motion, the Committee is not bound to move the recommendation of the Head of Development Control. However, if a councillor wishes to propose a motion be taken contrary to Deleted: C the Officer Report, that member must make clear his/her planning Deleted: who reasons for doing so at the time of making the proposal. Those reasons Deleted: decision will form the basis for the Committee’s decision and shall be noted in the Deleted: officer advice minutes of the meeting. Deleted: should
Deleted: The proposal should 11.4 Where a motion is contrary to the Officer Report, the Chairman will allow be made before any vote takes the Senior Planning officer present at the meeting to consider the merits place on the Officer’s recommendation. of the reasons given and respond to them. Councillors must consider the officer advice given and, in particular, whether the reasons given by the Deleted: 2 mover of the motion can be sustained at appeal. Deleted: proposal has been made and seconded to take a decision 11.5 Where the mover and seconder of a motion move a reason for refusal Deleted: officer advice relating to technical matters (such as an objection to a proposal on Deleted: highways or drainage grounds) and the chair is of the opinion that there Deleted: before the vote is is broad support from the Committee with that motion, the chair shall ask taken, if necessary the committee to signal whether they are minded to support the motion and, if a majority of the members so indicate, the Head of Development Control (or their representative) may request that the item be deferred in order to consult further with the statutory consultee(s) on the merits of the reason or reasons given. The chair will seek a proposer and seconder to this request and the Committee will consider its merits as though a procedural motion pursuant to Council procedure Rule 13.11 (iii) has been moved and seconded. If approved, the motion to defer will be put to the vote and if that is approved, the motion to refuse the application will stand deferred to the next meeting of the Committee as uncompleted business in accordance with Council procedure Rule 13.11 (d) (ii).
11.6 The Head of Development Control will present a further report to the Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 Planning Applications Committee containing the motion as moved and pt, Hanging: 35.25 pt seconded, together with the reasons given at the earlier meeting and the comments from the statutory consultees as to the merits of those reasons and any additional advice from the Head of Development Control. The Committee may then determine to deal with the matter as it sees fit having regard to the motion then before it or such other motion as may be moved by members in accordance with the Council Procedure Rules.
Deleted: can debate the officer’s advice further before 12. Committee Site Visits taking the vote.¶
The purpose of a visit to an application site is to clarify and gather information on planning issues relating to the site. It is a meeting of the Council to which the Member Code of Conduct applies. However, it is not Deleted: I to provide a forum for debate and discussion on the merits of the application, at that time. Therefore, Committee Site Visits will be conducted subject to the following criteria:
5 - 43
Constitution Version 3 Approved and incorporating all changes up to 17 April 2013
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 136 (a) A site visit is for the purpose of viewing the site and ascertaining facts. They will take place only if authorised by the Committee where the Committee considers it is unable to determine an application on the basis on the officers’ report to the Committee alone. (b) Authorised attendance at a site visit shall be limited to members of the Planning Applications Committee and appropriate Officers. (c) There shall be no discussion of the merits of any application during the site visit. Such discussion will only take place at a meeting of the Committee. (d) Applicants or their representative and the occupiers of any properties adjoining the site that Members have indicated they wish to visit shall be notified of the visit but shall not be permitted to make representations to members of the Committee during a site visit. They may, however, give any purely factual information which is requested by Members through the representative of the Head of Development Control and which cannot be ascertained by Deleted: Department viewing alone. (e) At the start of the site visit the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee or the representative of the Head of Development Control Department shall make reference to the Code of Conduct for Committee Site Visits as set out in the Agenda papers to explain and make clear to all those attending the Code’s requirements for the conduct of site visits.
13. Regular Review of Decisions
13.1 Councillors shall on an annual basis receive a written report and visit a sample of implemented planning permissions to assess the quality of the decisions. The aim of this will be to monitor and improve the quality and consistency of decision-making, thereby strengthening public confidence, and can help with reviews of planning policy.
13.2 On a periodic basis there shall be a Review of a broad range of categories for example major and minor development, permitted departures, upheld appeals, listed buildings works and enforcement cases. The Review will be conducted by a person or organisation independent of the Planning Applications Committee and the Development Control Department. The Planning Applications Committee will formally consider the Review and decide whether it gives rise to the need to review any policies or practices.
14. Breaches of this Code of Practice
14.1 Failure to comply with this Code of Practice may be a breach of the Member Code of Conduct and could lead to a complaint being made to Deleted: Members’ the Standards Committee. Failure of an officer to comply with the Code of Practice may lead to disciplinary proceedings.
5 - 44
Constitution Version 3 Approved and incorporating all changes up to 17 April 2013
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 137 14.2 Breach of this Code may also put the Council at risk of proceedings on the legality or maladministration of the related decision.
5 - 45
Constitution Version 3 Approved and incorporating all changes up to 17 April 2013
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 138 GUIDE TO USE CLASSES IN ENGLAND Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order (as amended 2014) Class Category Description Permitted Change A1 Shops Shops, retail warehouse, post offices, ticket and travel To a mixed use as A1 & up to 2 flats. Temporary permitted change agencies, sale of cold food for consumption off the premises, (2 years) for up to 150 sq m to A2, A3, B1 (interchangeable with hairdressers, funeral directors, hire shops, dry cleaners, notification). Permitted change to C3, together with building internet cafes. operations ‘reasonable necessary’ for conversion (subject to prior approval process) A2 Financial & Professional Banks, building societies, estate and employment agencies, To Class A1 where there is a ground floor display window and to a Services professional services (not health or medical services) betting mixed use of any purpose within Class A2 & up to 2 flats. Temporary offices permitted change (2 years) for up to 150 sq m to A2, A3, B1 (interchangeable with notification) Permitted change to C3, together with building operations ‘reasonable necessary’ for conversion (subject to prior approval process) A3 Food & Drink Restaurants and cafes To Class A1 where there is a ground floor display window and Class A2. Temporary permitted change (2 years) for up to 150 sq m to A2, A3, B1 (interchangeable with notification) A4 Drinking Establishments Public houses, wine bars or other such drinking To A1, A2 or A3 establishments Temporary permitted change (2 years) for up to 150 sq m to A2, A3, B1 (interchangeable with notification) A5 Hot Food Takeaway For the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises A1, A2 or A3 Temporary permitted change (2 years) for up to 150 sq m to A2, A3, B1 (interchangeable with notification)
B1 Business a) Office other than a use within Class A2 Permitted B1 change to Class B8 subject to total floorspace being b) Research and development of products or processes no greater than 500 sq m c) For any industrial process (which can be carried out in any B1(a) office permitted change to C3 subject to: prior approval residential area without causing detriment to the amenity of processes; previous use timings; limitations and exempt area (until the area 30/5/16) Temporary permitted change (2 years) for up to 150 sq m to A2, A3, B1 (interchangeable with notification) Permitted change from B1 to state funded school (and back to previous lawful use) B2 General Industrial Industrial process other than one falling within Class B1 B1 and B8. Permitted change to B8 is subject to total floorspace being no greater than 500 sq m B8 Storage or Distribution Use for storage or as a distribution centre B1 subject to total floorspace being no greater than 500 sq m
C1 Hotels Hotels, boarding and guest houses, (where no significant To state funded school or registered nursery (and back to previous element of care is provided) lawful use) (prior approval) C2 Residential Institutions Residential accommodation, care homes, residential schools, To state funded school or registered nursery (and back to previous colleges or training centres, hospitals, nursing homes lawful use) (prior approval) Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 139 Class Category Description Permitted Change C2A Secure Residential Prisons, young offenders institutions, detention centres, To state funded school or registered nursery (and back to previous Institutions secure training centres, custody centres, short-term holding lawful use) (prior approval) centres, secure hospitals, secure local authority accommodation, military barracks C3 Dwellings Use as a dwelling house, (whether or not a main residence) Permitted change to C4 by: a) a single person or by people to be regarded as forming a single household; b) Not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents; or c) Not more than six residents living together as a single household where no care is provided to residents (other than use with Class C4) C4 Houses in Multiple Use of a dwelling house by 3-6 residents as a “house in Permitted change to C3 Occupation multiple occupation” (HMO). NB: Large HMO’s (more than 6 people are unclassified therefore sui generis)
D1 Non Residential Clinics, health centres, crèches, day nurseries, Temporary permitted change (2 years) for up to 150 sq m to A1, A2, Institutions non-residential education and training centres, museums, A3, B1 (interchangeable with notification) public libraries, public halls, exhibition halls, places of worship, law courts D2 Assembly & Leisure Cinemas, concert halls, bingo halls, dance halls, swimming To state funded school (and back to previous lawful use). Temporary baths, skating rinks, gymnasiums, other areas for indoor or permitted change (2 years) for up to 150 sq m to A1, A2, A3, B1 outdoor sports and recreation not those involving motorised (interchangeable with notification) vehicles or firearms Sui-generis Includes: theatres, large HMO’s, hostels, petrol filling stations, No permitted change except casino to D2 shops selling and/or displaying motor vehicles, scrap yards, retail warehouse clubs, nightclubs, launderettes, taxi or vehicle hire businesses, amusement centres, casinos, funfairs, waste disposal installations. Other Changes of use Agricultural buildings See 2013 GPDO amendment for flexible changes to A1, A2, A3, B1, B8, C1, D2 (subject to limitations and conditions including some prior approval requirements) See 2014 GPDO amendment for permitted change to C3, together with building operations ‘reasonably necessary’ for conversion (subject to prior approval process) See 2014 GPDO amendment for permitted change to state-funded school or registered nursery
Planning Applications Committee Agenda 28.10.14 140