Public Document Pack

High Peak Borough Council

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE AGENDA

Date: Monday, 4 February 2019

Time: 1.30 pm

Venue: Main Hall - Town Hall, Market Street, Chapel-en-le-Frith

25 January 2019

PART 1 1. Apologies for Absence

2. To receive Disclosures of Interest on any matters before the Committee 1. Disclosable Pecuniary Interests 2. Other Interests

3. Minutes of the previous meeting (Pages 3 - 8)

4. Update Sheet

5. Planning Applications (Pages 9 - 10)

6. HPK/2017/0590 Foxlow Farm, Harpur Hill Road, Buxton - Submission of reserved matters relating to the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the whole of the residential phase of the development (395 dwellings) pursuant to outline planning permission HPK/2013/0603. (Pages 11 - 80)

7. HPK/2018/0315 Land off Trenchard Drive, Buxton - full planning application for the erection of 153 dwellings with associated access, public open space and landscaping (Pages 81 - 122)

8. HPK/2018/0597 Unit 4, Hague Bar Works, Hague Bar, New Mills - application for variation of condition 2 in relation to HPK/2017/0162 (Pages 123 - 138)

9. Proposed Section 106 Deed of Variation in relation to planning permission ref. HPK/2016/0063 for outline planning permission with some matters reserved (except access and layourt) for the erection of 9 dwelling houses and new access at land at Chapel Lane, Hadfield (Pages 139 - 150)

10. Performance on Planning Appeals (Pages 151 - 152)

SIMON BAKER CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Membership of Development Control Committee Councillor D Lomax (Chair) Councillor E Thrane (Vice-Chair) Councillor A Barrow Councillor L Dowson Councillor C Howe Councillor J Kappes Councillor R McKeown Councillor G Oakley Councillor J Perkins Councillor P N Roberts Councillor J Todd Councillor S Young Agenda Item 3 High Peak Borough Council

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Meeting: Monday, 14 January 2019 at 1.30 pm in Main Hall - Town Hall, Market Street, Chapel-en-le-Frith

Present: Councillor D Lomax (Chair)

Councillors A Barrow, L Dowson, J Kappes, A McKeown (substitute for G Oakley), R McKeown, P N Roberts, K Sizeland (substitute for C Howe), E Thrane, J Todd and S Young

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors C Howe, G Oakley and J Perkins

Councillor Pritchard was also in attendance.

19/90 TO RECEIVE DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST ON ANY MATTERS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE (Agenda Item 2)

Councillor Kappes declared an ‘other’ interest in agenda item 7, “”HPK/2018/0571 Millstone Willows, Beet Lane, New Smithy, Chinley” (reason: ward councillor ‘ calling in’ application and has discussed the application with the applicant and objector) and withdrew from the meeting during the consideration and voting thereon

Councillors A McKeown and R McKeown declared an ‘other’ interest in agenda item 6 “HPK/2018/0428 Land rear of 20 Sunlaws Street, Glossop” (reason: know one of the objectors (Chair of local Labour Party branch)) and withdrew from the meeting during the consideration and voting thereon

Councillor Roberts declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in agenda item 8 “HPK/2018/0352 Broadlow Farm, Longridge Lane, Peak Dale (reason: neighbour across the field direct line of sight) and withdrew from the meeting during the consideration and voting thereon

Councillor Thrane declared an ‘other’ interest in agenda item 11 “HPK/2018/0465 Amenity space (former public conveniences to community amenity space) Water Street, Buxton (reason: member of Buxton Civic Association)

19/91 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3)

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2018 be approved as a correct record. Page 3 1 Development Control Committee Monday, 14 January 2019  19/92 UPDATE SHEET (Agenda Item 4)

RESOLVED:

That the update sheet be noted.

19/93 PLANNING APPLICATIONS (Agenda Item 5)

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

(Having declared an interest in the following application, Councillors A McKeown and R McKeown withdrew from the meeting during the consideration and voting thereon)

19/94 HPK/2018/0428 LAND REAR OF 20 SUNLAWS STREET, GLOSSOP, DERBYSHIRE (Agenda Item 6)

Detached 4 bedroom stone house with natural slate roof with associated external works and landscaping using existing vehicular access from Sunlaws Street

Applicant: Mrs E Garrett

The Committee had undertaken a site visit

The Committee were addressed by Mick Cook in objection to the application and by Mr Garrett in support of the application.

The Chair permitted Mr Cook to circulate a written summary of his objections and photographs to the committee and the applicant prior to the meeting.

RESOLVED:

1. That the decision made at the last meeting to approve planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report be confirmed having now taken into account all the detailed and additional information before the Committee;

2. That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary of add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

(Councillors A McKeown andPage R McKeown 4 returned to the meeting) Development Control Committee Monday, 14 January 2019  (Having declared an interest in the following application, Councillor Kappes withdrew from the meeting during the consideration and voting thereon)

19/95 HPK/2018/0571 MILLSTONE WILLOWS, BEET LANE, NEW SMITHY, CHINLEY (Agenda Item 7)

Retrospective application for a proposed stables building, access trackway and hardstanding area (resubmission of HPK/2017/0695)

Applicant: Mr Jeremy Thorpe

The Committee had undertaken a site visit.

The Committee were addressed by Phil Speakman in objection to the application and Jeremy Thorpe (applicant).

RESOLVED:

1. That the application be approved as set out in the report;

2. That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issues, the Operations Manager – Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

(Councillor Kappes returned to the meeting)

(Having declared an interest in the following application, Councillor Roberts withdrew from the meeting during the consideration and voting thereon)

19/96 HPK/2018/0352 BROADLOW FARM, LONGRIDGE LANE, PEAK DALE (Agenda Item 8)

Retrospective permission for erection of precast concrete sectional garden tool shed and timber stable / animal field shelter

Applicant: Mr Bentley

The Committee were addressed by Steven Wardle in objection to the application and David Sutherland in support of the application.

In consideration the application, the Committee requested that the Enforcement Team check that the conditions attached to the approval had been complied with within a suitable timescale.

RESOLVED: Page 5 Development Control Committee Monday, 14 January 2019  1. That the application be approved as set out in the report;

2. That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

(Councillor Roberts returned to the meeting)

19/97 HPK/2018/0501 LIME TREE PARK, DUKES DRIVE, BUXTON (Agenda Item 9)

Change of use of land for extension to existing camp site to include the siting of 21 static caravans

Applicant: Mr R Hidderley

RESOLVED:

1. That the application be approved as set out in the report;

2. That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

19/98 HPK/2018/0492 COMMUNITY FIELD, PARK AVENUE, FURNESS VALE (Agenda Item 10)

New changing rooms and associated facilities

Applicant: Mr Phillip Lomas

The Committee had undertaken a site visit.

The Committee were addressed by Councillor Pritchard (ward councillor) in support of the application.

RESOLVED:

1. That planning permission be approved as set out in the report;

2. That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision beingPage issued, 6 the Operations Manager – Development Control Committee Monday, 14 January 2019  Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

19/99 HPK/2018/0465 AMENITY SPACE (FORMER PUBLIC CONVENIENCES) WATER STREET, BUXTON (Agenda Item 11)

Change of use from site of former public conveniences to community amenity space

Applicant: Buxton Civic Association

The Committee were addressed by Diane White on behalf of Buxton Civic Association in support of the application.

RESOVLED:

1. That planning permission be approved as set out in the report;

2. That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

19/100 PERFORMANCE ON PLANNING APPEALS (Agenda Item 12)

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

The meeting concluded at 3.00 pm

CHAIRMAN

Page 7 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to Development Control Committee

4 February 2019

TITLE: PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION BY COMMITTEE

EXECUTIVE COUNCILLOR: Councillor Tony Ashton

CONTACT OFFICER: Ben Haywood – Operations Manager – Development Services

WARDS INVOLVED: All

Appendices Attached - None

1. Reason for the Report: To outline the Committee’s determination of planning applications

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the report be noted.

3. Executive Summary

3.1 Unless the Committee decide to waive their delegated power in respect of any application, the Committee’s determination of any application will operate as a final decision, unless:-

a. it is a major departure from Council Policy;

b. There are resource implications for the Borough Council which need to be considered by the Executive

3.2 The environmental, legal, financial and equal opportunities raised by each application are dealt with within each report. There are no known Community Safety issues unless specified in the report.

Web Links and Location Contact details Background Papers Background papers for all planning Town Hall, Buxton applications

Page 9 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date: 4th February 2019

Application HPK/2017/0590 No: Location Foxlow Farm, Harpur Hill Road, Buxton Proposal Submission of reserved matters relating to the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the whole of the residential phase of the development (395 dwellings) pursuant to outline planning permission HPK/2013/0603. Applicant Keepmoat Homes and Hallam Land Management Ltd Agent Smith & Love Planning Consultants Parish/ward Cote Heath Date registered 25th November 2017

If you have a question about this report please contact: Rachael Simpkin [email protected] Tel: 01298 28400 ext. 4122

1. REFERRAL

1.1 This application has been brought back before the Development Control Committee as it is categorised as a large scale major residential development and follows the earlier deferral as is detailed below.

2. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

DELEGATE APPROVAL in respect of outstanding highway matters and subject to a Deed of Variation to the S106 and recommended planning conditions.

3. ADDENDUM

3.1 At the 5th November 2018 Development Control Committee Meeting, Members resolved to defer the scheme pending receipt of outstanding consultation responses and further consideration to be given to the following areas of concern as confirmed in the committee minutes as detailed below:-

1. Management of the emergency access, in particular so as to prevent it becoming a rat run;

2. Design concerns regarding the use of a concrete grey roofing tile;

3. Design concerns regarding the proposed split-level 2 and 3 storey height dwellings and retaining walls;

Page 11

4. Significant shortfalls in local plan privacy distances as set out in the update sheet and consequently consideration be given to the removal of plot 1 in its entirety;

5. The proposed use of bungalows;

6. Detailed proposals concerning the arrangements for the allotments, and,

7. Other issues of concern as set out in the committee report.

3.2 The scheme changes will be addressed under these relevant sub headings below, with Officer recommendations highlighted in italics where applicable.

3.3 The application and details attached to it, including the plans, supporting documents, revisions, any representations made by residents and the responses from consultees can be found on the Council’s website at:-

http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=2197 48

1. Management of the emergency access, in particular so as to prevent it becoming a rat run;

3.4 Officers have previously advised the applicant to submit a scheme for consideration as a pre-determination matter in consultation with DCC Highways regarding the omission of the Harpur Hill Road emergency road access to the site, which would be replaced by a pedestrian footway.

3.5 In response to this request, the applicant has stated that the details / specification for the pedestrian entrance and anti-motorbike barrier can be secured by planning condition subject to the approval of DCC Highways. Officers are supportive of this approach subject to receiving the favourable comments of DCC.

3.6 The applicant has also provided evidence from the Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service, which sets out that the vehicular access is not a requirement of the Fire Service in terms of access under B5 of the Building Regulations. However, it would still be recommended by them as it provides an alternative route onto the site should it be necessary.

3.7 As discussed in the relevant section below, DCC highway comments are outstanding in respect of the revised scheme and Members will be updated at the meeting.

2. Design concerns regarding the use of a concrete grey roofing tile;

3.8 The applicant has re-issued previous facing material drawings retaining a 70% to 30% split between a Russell Moray concrete plain tile (70%) and Marley Rivendale

Page 12 artificial slate tile (30%) for the revised site layout. This is despite the recent offer of the artificial slate tile for all scheme dwellings, which appears to have been withdrawn owing to scheme cost issues. In the absence of a viability appraisal matters of cost attract little weight in the planning balance and matters of character and appearance need to be judged on their own merits.

3.9 The Foxlow Farm scheme is set within the context of a prominently viewed and sensitive edge of settlement setting and in close proximity to the Peak District National Park at this gateway location into Buxton. Members will recall OPUNs clear design review recommendations as detailed in the original committee report for the scheme to utilise an appropriate roof tile for it to be in keeping with its surroundings. This has been reflected by the Officers request for the artificial slate tile to be utlised across the entire site rather than limited to the main thoroughfare and selected street scenes.

3.10 The artificial slate tile measures 600mm x 300mm x 4mm with a riven surface and dressed edge to emulate the form of a natural roofing slate tile. In comparison, the concrete tile measures 418mm x 330mm x 16mm, and whilst of a better quality than a standard “Marley Modern” type concrete tile (418mm x 330mm x 30mm), will inevitably result in a heavier and therefore less traditional roof profile despite its riven finish. Both tiles would be of a slate grey appearance. The developer has offered to provide samples of both tiles for consideration by Members prior to their meeting.

3.11 Clearly, the site-wide use of an artificial tile would assist in providing a contextual and high quality development as strived for by relevant Local Plan Policy and the NPPF (as revised). Whilst it is disappointing that the better quality artificial slate tile for all scheme dwellings has not been offered, as before, the majority use of the concrete tile, with the artificial tile employed on selected street scenes is on balance acceptable for the scheme to accord with Adopted Local Plan Policies: S 7 ‘Buxton Sub Area Strategy’, EQ2’ Landscape Character’, EQ6 ‘Design and Place Making’ and DS 20 ‘Land off Asbourne Road and Foxlow Farm, Buxton’ in particular and the relevant sections of the NPPF.

3. Design concerns regarding the proposed split-level 2 and 3 storey height dwellings and retaining walls;

3(a) Remove Plot 1 and 2 from the scheme to form incidental open space with stone wall boundary to emergency access.

3(b) Remove 3-storey split-level house type from scheme and replace with 2- storey split-level (single storey ‘rear’) rural type dwelling.

3.12 These aspects of the scheme have been satisfactorily addressed as a result of revised layout changes for those affected areas of the site, which are now shown as being free from built development i.e. dwellings.

3.13 In further detail, former plots 1 and 2 now form a generous garden area to former plot 3, renamed plot 1. Despite the higher retaining wall, an acceptable amenity relationship would be maintained to neighbouring Peak View and

Page 13 Greenside, which adjoin the northwest site boundary. The southeast site periphery has been further relieved from built development with development offset from the site boundary. Instead a linear POS (Public Open Space) and green buffer would extend along this sensitive countryside edge. The previously objected to split-level 3-storey dwelling has been omitted from the scheme. Such changes are viewed as positive amendments to the scheme and are welcomed by Officers.

3(c) Use of retaining walls to be limited and no greater than a maximum of 1.5m in height site wide excepting the public face of the scheme which should not exceed 0.5m.

3.14 Following the committee’s deferral and in particular their concerns regarding retaining wall heights; Officers have set out the above retaining wall height parameter limits for the entire scheme to adhere to.

3.15 With these in mind, the applicant reports that there are just 17 plots with publically visible ‘side’ retaining walls, which exceed ground level as is illustrated on the recently submitted ‘public front’ retaining walls drawing. Out of these and as an isolated occurence; the retaining, side boundary wall at Plot 137 (adjacent to the pedestrian link) would be 1.68 metres in height. The remaining 16 affected plots propose publically visible ‘side’ retaining walls ranging from ground level to 1.0 metre in height. The applicant has further provided an illustrative example of how an outward-facing retaining wall can be greened / landscaped to mitigate against its overall impact within the street scene. In more detail, this approach could comprise of either a part / full concealment of the structure by earth batters and then further softened by landscaping. This aspect of the scheme is considered to be acceptable, subject to a planning condition agreeing such boundary details if Members are minded to grant approval.

3.16 Officers further advised the applicant to limit the use of retaining walls to be no greater than a maximum of 1.5m elsewhere. The applicant sets out that there are 25 plots with rear gardens enclosed by retaining walls on either the rear and / or side boundaries varying between 2.0 metres and 2.5 metres. As well, there are a limited number of plots, which have rear gardens abutting retaining walls, which exceed 2.5 metres. These are illustrated on the ‘inplot’ retaining walls drawing recently provided by the applicant.

3.17 The applicant acknowledges that there are a number of retaining walls which would still exceed 1.5 metres. In these regards, the applicant has explained that there is a commercial preference to maximise the length of flat / shallow sloping rear gardens with a single, taller retaining structure where required instead of gardens with a series of shorter, stepped terraces and this is to provide for functional, usable family gardens. It is also set out how potential purchasers are made aware of the walls between the rear and sides of their gardens with adjacent properties. The latter is clearly a matter for the applicant to contend with; however, the former requirement to achieve useable family garden areas is a relevant planning issue to be considered in the overall planning balance. Although, no counter information has been provided by the applicant to show where an additional wall / step could occur to reduce wall height to mitigate against such engineered and amenity impacts for applicable examples.

Page 14

3.18 Members will appreciate that the common boundary treatment typically consists of a 1.8 metre close boarded fence, which in turn would significantly add to the overall height of any proposed retaining wall structure. This issue is of less concern for those retaining wall structures occuring within long gardens or forming site boundaries, which are ‘cut in’, as there would be no requirement for such a privacy fence.

3.19 All retaining walls are shown on the more detailed engineering drawings, which have been recently revised and resubmitted. A more detailed analysis of these will be provided on the Update Sheet prior to the meeting.

4. Significant shortfalls in local plan privacy distances as set out in the update sheet and consequently consideration be given to the removal of plot 1 in its entirety;

4a) Remove Plot 1 and 2 from the scheme to form incidental open space with stone wall boundary to emergency access.

3.20 As set out above, these aspects of the scheme have been satisfactorily addressed as a result of revised layout changes.

4b) Plot 73 to 75 (now 71 to 73) backing onto Plot 99 to 94 (now 97 to 92) shall achieve acceptable amenity standards.

3.21 See above.

5. The proposed use of bungalows

Remove Plot 392 to 395 from the scheme to form incidental open space with stone wall boundary to emergency and allotment access.

3.22 The applicant has retained 3 no. two bedroom bungalows on Plots 393 to 395, but, has omitted one unit to provide for a more spacious layout, with setback units to achieve a good landscaped frontage and follows on from Officer disussions. This small grouping of bungalows would be read separately to the prevailing two-storey scale of development. As a consequence, it would now provide for an appropriate gateway setting into the site from Harpur Hill Road and is welcomed by Officers as a further, positive improvement to the scheme to comply with the above referenced planning policy.

6. Detailed proposals concerning the arrangements for the allotments

3.23 The relevant section 106 agreement dated 3rd November 2013 outlined that a minimum of 23 allotments (with a maximum size 200 sqm each) would be provided on the site on an area of land to be a minimum of 4,600 square meters. Allotments are to be provided in accordance with a scheme to be submitted with reserved

Page 15 matters and setting out the precise location, layout, specification and timing of delivery and which must provide for completion of the allotments by the 300th unit. Once the allotments have been completed in accordance with the scheme the landowner serves notice of completion on the Council and can then either: (1) manage and maintain the allotments itself, (2) transfer the land to a management company to manage and maintain them or (3) invite the Council to take the land with a sum of money to cover Council costs. There is no obligation for the Council to take the land if it is offered and if the Council decide not to take it on then the landowner will have to choose whether they wish to manage it themselves or transfer it to a maintenance company.

3.24 The s106 provisions for the allotments run closely with the provisions relating to the POS (Public Open Space), NEAP (Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play), MUGA (Multi-Use Games Area) and the ‘blue land’ landscaping. They all require schemes to have been submitted with the reserved matters submission.

3.25 Members are advised that a draft outline of the Allotment Scheme and further revised layout of this aspect of the site was submitted by the applicant on the 23rd January 2019, which they offer to discuss and develop with Officers following the committee meeting. There are no in-principle objections to this approach subject to the agreement of the Allotment Scheme before any reserved matters planning permission could be granted should Members determine to approve the scheme. The schemes in relation to the POS and NEAP have not yet been approved. However, these appear to have been largely resolved subject to clarifications, including matters in relation to safety inspections and litter collection.

3.26 It is also confirmed that an updated Affordable Housing Scheme will be submitted ahead of the meeting and similarly would be subject to the Council’s prior agreement. Members will be updated in these regards.

3.27 The applicant has also recently submitted a draft Deed of Variation to the S106 to the Council (23rd January 2019). As before, the applicant has offered an off-site sports financial contribution of £50,000 towards the development, maintenance and / or refurbishment of the Cote Heath Skate Park. This would be instead of the agreed delivery of the onsite MUGA. The applicant also seeks the retention of the title of the NEAP to be transferred to a Management Company along with the Public Open Space and Allotments. This would be instead of the agreed transfer of the NEAP title and the payment of a commuted sum to the Council. Again, there are no in- principle objections to this approach subject to a deed of variation to the original s106 planning agreement before any reserved matters planning permission could be granted should Members determine to approve the scheme.

3.28 The applicant has been asked to clarify proposals to omit the ‘blue land’ landscaping scheme as per the submitted deed of variation. Members will be updated at the meeting.

7. Other issues of concern as set out in the committee report

3.29 Officers have summarised these aspects of concern under headings a) to i) as follows:

Page 16

7(a) Increasing the buffer of green / open space between the built form of the development and the monument with key views channelled towards the hilltop. Delete Plot 371 to 380 to be incorporated into the adjoining public open space;

7(b) Omission of the proposed housing higher up the slope would lessen the ‘crowding’ effect to the SAM. See a) above;

3.30 DCC Archaeology has been consulted in respect of the revised scheme and has commented as follows:

“The revisions deliver some marginal improvement over the previous layout, though I would characterise this more as tinkering with the layout rather than seriously engagement with previous comments and advice (e.g. my comments of 23/07/2018, drawing on similar advice from OPUN). These related to 1) the green space buffer between the development and Scheduled Monument and blending of the built edge to allow the topographic form of the hill to be appreciated and experienced; 2) making the layout work with the topography and channel views towards the hilltop and 3) using recessive layout and materials to make the development less visually intrusive as a block.

In relation to point 1, while some plots have been ‘deleted’ the retention of overall unit numbers within the development means that the built edge is partly pushed back into the space vacated, with a new access road now appearing to the rear of the plots formerly number 371-379. The gain of green space here is half a back garden, or a few metres, and the edge of the development is still the hard form of an access road. Former plots 364-370 deliver slightly more gain – roughly the length of the former back gardens, although again there is a hard edge introduced by the new road proposal. A marginal improvement against point 1, therefore, although to deliver a meaningful improvement here it will be necessary to reduce numbers of units. Point 2 does not seem to have been addressed at all – the layout of the scheme is essentially unchanged. Consideration of point 3 would need details of levels and materials which are not provided here.

Overall therefore, I don’t feel that these proposals (insofar as it is possible to judge without full details of landscaping, materials, changes of level etc) meaningfully reduce the harmful effects to the SM through its setting previously identified”.

3.31 DCC Archaeology have acknowledged that the newly created green space buffer between the scheme and Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) represents a marginal scheme improvement in these regards. The scheme will be engineered where more significant retaining wall structures are to be employed; however, these have mostly been omitted from the sensitve countryside edge and public face of the scheme. The use of an artificial tile site wide would clearly be beneficial to the setting of the SAM and assist in reducing levels of harm as has been encouraged by Officers. The revised aspect of the scheme would modestly reduce the level of “less than substantial harm” to the SAM, which is to be weighed against the public benefits

Page 17 of the scheme i.e. housing delivery, including affordable provision. This harm is nonetheless attributed significant weight in view of the significance of the SAM and its setting. This matter will be returned to in the relevant section below.

7(c) The proposed boundary treatments (changes of level and boarded fencing) further harden the edge of development results in a recessive effect. Retaining / boundary walls / fences adjacent to the countryside edge should be constructed from the existing stone wall materials onsite with knee rail above if required;

3.32 See above.

7(d) A higher density of housing development should be achieved towards the existing properties on Harpur Hill Road and a lower density of development ‘feathering / bleeding out’ towards the open countryside edge. The larger ‘executive’ dwellings located within the more sensitive southeast ‘countryside’ edge of the application site should be replaced with a more appropriate rural house type in respect of Plots 344 to 345 and 354 to 370;

3.33 In the context of DCC Archaeology comments above and OPUNs Design Review Panel recommendations as contained within the 5th November committee report; the scheme still fails to deliver a lower density of development, which achieves a ‘feathering / bleeding out’ towards the open countryside edge, including more appropriate rural house types. Instead, the newly formed development envelope would retain an urban and uniform grain throughout. Furthermore, the exposed access road to the countryside edge should be low key and as simple as possible to appear as more of a track rather than hard development edge as proposed. These aspects of the proposal remain as key scheme criticisms overall. This matter will be returned to in the planning balance section below.

7(e) Site sections C, D and E shows a cut operation of up to 5.0 metres within this aspect of the site. Plots 364 to 370 should be free of development to form public open space if acceptable levels cannot be achieved;

3.34 As set above, the southeast site periphery has been further relieved from built development whereby a linear POS creates a green buffer to this sensitive countryside edge. The previously objected to split level 3-storey dwelling has been omitted from the scheme. Such changes are viewed as positive amendments to the scheme and are welcomed by Officers.

7(f) Plot 14 and 15 adjacent to the footpath to Clifton Drive. Proposed levels should be significantly reduced to better respect the existing landform;

3.35 A more detailed analysis of levels will be provided on the Update Sheet prior to the meeting.

7(f) Eliminate steps within private driveways and pedestrian link;

3.36 These have been eliminated in favour ramps..

Page 18 7(g) Remove porch canopies; address squat windows and provide lintels to first floor windows where applicable;

3.37 Updated drawings are provided showing removed porches / canopies for some house types. Chimney locations are shown on the materials plans, however, overall provision is low and detracts from the quality of the scheme. Further chimneys are recommended to be secured via a suitably worded planning condition should Members be minded to approve the scheme.

7(h) Landscaping details to be addressed as per the Aboricultural Consultation response contained within the committee report;

3.38 The Landscaping Plans: Section A Rev Q; Section B Rev Q; Section C Rev Q; Section D Rev Q; Section E Rev Q; Section F Rev Q and Landscape and Habitat Enhancement and Maintenance Plan were resubmitted on the 19th January. Although HPBC Aboricultural Officer comments are awaited on the latest scheme revisions, previously raised matters have been resolved in respect of the earlier submission. The latest plans are understood to have been updated in respect of modest boundary wall changes only. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (DWT) raise no overall objections to the above latest scheme proposals.

7(i) DCC Highways revised consultation response.

3.39 At the 5th November 2018 DC Committee Meeting, Members resolved to defer the scheme pending receipt of outstanding consultation responses. Highway consultation comments were subsequently received on the 9th and 11th of November following the committee meeting as set out below. Members should be aware that such matters as raised by DCC Highways are pre-determination matters. These should therefore be addressed prior to the grant of planning permission should Members be minded to approve the scheme. Furthermore, the Highways Officer will need to assess the latest layout revisions given the material changes within the scheme since comments were last made. The applicant has been aware of previous highway comments raising visibility and insufficient car parking matters, which would have lead to a refusal of the scheme on highway safety grounds. These are expected to have been addressed as part of the revised layout submitted, however, are yet to be confirmed by the Highways Officer before the scheme layout can be confirmed to comply with LP Policy CF 6 ‘Accessibility and Transport’ and the NPPF (as revised). Members will be updated at the meeting.

3.40 DCC Highway Officer comments are awaited on the latest scheme revisions drawing reference ‘Proposed Site Plan Rev AAO’ as received on the 20th January 2019. Comments are also awaited concerning earlier drawing reference ‘Proposed Site Plan Rev AAN’ as received on the 3rd January 2019, however, this plan has now been superseded.

DCC Highways (14th November 2018)

3.41 These are summarised as follows:

Page 19 • Demonstration of forward visibility in the vicinity of plots 189 to 193 although there appears to be sufficient property frontage available to address this without affecting dwelling plot position; • In relation to the above, parking arrangements will need to be reviewed in view of limited visibility; • The Adopted Local Plan contains guidance on the level of parking that should be achieved for new developments, however, it is highlighted that each development will be considered in the context of its need for parking and its impact on the local road network; • The criteria relating to parking for residential dwellings quotes that 3 onsite car parking spaces should be provided for 4+ bedroomed properties, 2 spaces for 3 bedroom properties and 1.5 spaces for 1 or 2 bedroom properties; • Drawing No D01 Rev AAJ indicates 200% parking will be available across the entire site i.e. 790 spaces for 395 dwellings; • County technical criteria, however, in relation to garages (and garage set- back distances) means that the revised drawing and house types would have garage dimensions which do not meet the minimum criteria and in these circumstances the garages would not normally count towards on-plot parking provision; • This could leave some of the larger properties with only a single car parking space available for future residents (house types 1151, 1178 and 1253); • Some of the other larger dwellings are shown to have two open parking spaces associated with them and would fall below Local Plan parking requirements; • Deficiencies in onplot parking could lead to more permanent on street parking arrangements, which is likely to be a highway safety concern if this takes place at undesirable locations; • It is likely that additional frontage parking could be provided within some of the identified plots, to create additional provision, if deemed necessary, and, • Particular consideration should be given to onplot parking provision for: 11, 13, 37, 80/81, 183, 186 and 329 to 329, given these properties are located close to proposed junctions or bends.

DCC Highways 09.11.18

3.42 These are summarised as follows:

• ‘Steps between drives and other areas of the site’ whilst steps would potentially be a barrier for some residents / users alternative, albeit less commodious routes via the main estate streets would be available for less ambulant users; • ‘Link path to Clifton Drive’ the gradient of the path is quite considerable, given its direct alignment; • ‘Emergency links’ the link to Burlow Road (to be clarified) has been designed to allow use by emergency vehicles, but will have bollards in place to prevent general vehicular use. This route is being put forward for adoption along with the new streets;

Page 20 • In terms of the proposed link to Harpur Hill Road, it is presumed this is to remain private as the Highway Authority has not been provided with any details or designs relating to this route; • Current County Council residential design guidance contains a section relating to Emergency Vehicle Access within new developments. This states that new residential developments usually need to provide at least two access points to the existing street network. In some circumstances, this may be particularly important to help emergency services respond to response time requirements. However, it also points out some of the issues associated with emergency only accesses i.e. enforcement problems arising from their misuse, difficulties encountered by the emergency services, maintenance issues and vandalism of access-control equipment, general crime and anti- social behaviour problems; • The Manual for Streets documents suggests that fire services often have a less numbers-driven approach for the provision of emergency vehicle links and work on a risk based approach and response time requirements (rather than a specific number of dwellings or length of cul-de-sac). Given the fire stations is directly opposite the site response times may not be a particular issue. However, it is recommended that the applicant consult with the fire service direct to ascertain if they would require any specific infrastructure to be provided.

4. PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 The principle of the development at the application site has been accepted by the granting of the outline planning permission in November 2014 and has been established by the relevant Local Plan site allocation DS20. The overall number of houses proposed by the scheme falls within the scope of development as approved by the outline consent, including associated public open space, play space and allotment provision. Appropriate land provision has been made available for the local centre, which would be subject to a future reserved matters application.

4.2 It is clear that the confirmed need for additional housing to boost housing delivery remains a matter of significant weight in support of the application proposal for a total of 395 dwellings. The proposed contribution of 30% affordable housing would deliver a significant number of affordable units. Although this proportion would be no greater than that required by LP policy, the provision would add further weight in support of the application proposal. A total housing delivery of 395 units represents a significant public benefit, on the basis of delivery alone. As well, there would be related benefits to the local economy and community associated with the benefits of housing delivery.

4.3 Despite the alterations to existing grounds levels across the site, there would be no adverse impact on the residential amenities to existing neighbouring residents in respect of the final scheme. Within the scheme itself, although detailed checks of the final set of revised plans are still being carried out, overall the position in much improved with retaining wall heights reduced across the site and, according to the applicant, only 17 plots with publically visible ‘side’ retaining walls, which exceed ground level, only one of which would be over 1m. There are now only 25 plots with

Page 21 rear gardens enclosed by retaining walls of between 2.0 metres and 2.5 metres. There are no adverse impacts in terms of onsite underground archaeology, ecology / biodiversity. subject to no objection being raised by the Highway Authority it is considered that the scheme will comply with relevant policies of the Local Plan in respect of highway safety.

4.4 The layout, design and appearance has also been much improved as a result of omission of plot 1 and 2 and the replacement of plots on the countryside edge with a strip of landscape / open space. In particular, the omission of the 3 storey units with heavily engineer rear gardens is a significant improvement. However, in order to maintain the same number of dwellings across the scheme this has resulted in an increase in density on other parts which fails to respect the countryside edge / SAM setting. A looser knit, lower density form of development along these frontages would have been preferable. As a result these areas would not deliver a high quality development which responds positively to its environment and contribute towards local distinctiveness. In terms of heritage harm, the Framework requires the public benefits of the scheme to be weighed against any resultant harm, which in this case would be less than substantial. Furthermore, the Council is mindful that the scheme broadly accords with the outline approval in terms of quantum of development and this is a matter of significant material weight in the planning judgment.

4.5 With this in mind, (noting the significant benefits of the scheme in terms of housing delivery, and significant improvements over the previous layout presented to committee), whilst it is considered to be a finely balanced matter in respect of layout, design and appearance, the application, nevertheless represents sustainable development under the terms of the Adopted Local Plan and Framework.

4.6 The scheme therefore benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development and accordingly is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. That reserved matters, including layout, scale, landscaping and appearance be approved subject to a Deed of Variation to omit the onsite MUGA in favour of an offsite contribution of £50,000 towards Cote Heath Skate Park, the retention of the title of the NEAP to be transferred to a Management Company along with the Public Open Space and Allotments and conditions as follows:

1. Approved plans. 2. Facing Materials. 3. Chimneys 4. Removal of permitted development (selected plots). 5. Boundary Treatments. 6. Boundary treatment retention, including to farm buildings. 7. Demolition of all other farm buildings. 8. All landscaping works in accordance with the approved details. 9. Landscaping Implementary and Maintenance. 10. Details of earth works. 11. Tree retention in accordance with the submitted plans

Page 22 12. Highway conditions (AWAITED).

B. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/ informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager - Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

Page 23 This page is intentionally left blank HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date: 5th November 2018

Application HPK/2017/0590 No: Location Foxlow Farm, Harpur Hill Road, Buxton Proposal Submission of reserved matters relating to the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the whole of the residential phase of the development (395 dwellings) pursuant to outline planning permission HPK/2013/0603. Applicant Keepmoat Homes and Hallam Land Management Ltd Agent Smith & Love Planning Consultants Parish/ward Cote Heath Date registered 25th November 2017 If you have a question about this report please contact: Rachael Simpkin [email protected] Tel: 01298 28400 ext. 4122

REFERRAL

This application has been brought before the Development Control Committee as it is categorised as a large scale major residential development.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

DELEGATE APPROVE, subject to: submission of amended landscape and boundary details, Deed of Variation to S106 and conditions.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The 17.75ha broadly greenfield application site is located on open farmland. The existing farmstead (and its range of outbuildings) would consitute the brownfield element of the site. The developed part of the site lies on a plateau of fairly level ground towards the northwest ‘rear’ of the application site.

2.2 The local landform known as ‘Fox Low Bowl Barrow’, a SAM (Scheduled Ancient Monument) lies c.80.0m to the south, southeast application site boundary within open countryside designated as a Landscape Character Area and categorised as ‘Plateau Pastures’.

Page 25 2.3 Land levels rise gently from the Ashbourne Road frontage (northeast), however, fall more steeply from the Harpur Hill Road direction (northwest, west, southwest) and farmland / SAM (south, south southeast) towards this plateau area of farm related buildings.

2.4 The northeast ‘site frontage’ is bound by the main Ashbourne Road (A515). The Buxton Community Fire Station and Staden Lane Industrial Estate lie directly opposite. The application site adjoins existing housing to the northwest, which extends over the ridge to adjoin housing on Harpur Hill Road to the west and at the south to adjoin housing on St. James Court and Harris Road to its southeast boundary. The Public Right of Way ‘Footpath 51 (Buxton)’ passes through the site to connect the A515 Ashbourne Road to the Harpur Hill Road.

2.5 The site is situated within the Built-Up-Area Boundary to the south east of Buxton Town Centre and forms housing allocation Policy DS20 ‘Land off Ashbourne Road and Foxlow Farm, Buxton’ as defined by the Adopted High Peak Local Plan (2016). It also falls within the Buxton Mineral Water Catchment and Radon Potential Areas.

3. APPLICATION PROPOSAL

3.1 Planning permission is sought for the reserved matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale pursuant to a single residential phase of development totalling 395 dwelling units overall as follows:-

Property Types:

• Semi-detached 206 units • Detached 172 units • Terraced 13 units

Property Mix:

• Two bedroom 130 units • Three bedroom 194 units • Four plus bedroom 71 units

3.2 The ‘further’ revised’ scheme follows the outline planning permission ref. HPK/2013/0603 dated 4th November 2014, which secured the principle of development and a means of access to the site. A single point of access was approved mid-way along the Ashbourne Road frontage together with an emergency vehicular access located c.280m further to the southeast. It comprises of the following constituent elements: up to 375 dwellings and a residential care and/or retirement facility of up to 70 units; onsite affordable housing provision; a local centre ‘up to’ 2500sqm; children’s play space; Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) and allotments.

Page 26

3.3 Separate planning obligations under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 were formed with both High Peak Borough Council and Derbyshire County Council (as the Local Highway Authority). The agreed terms for both agreements are as follows: the Council:

. Phased provision of 30% Affordable Housing for occupation by eligible households comprising of 30% of the total number of dwellings to be developed on the site, in a combination of 60% Affordable Rented Housing units and 40% Low Cost Home Ownership units.

. Phased provision of on-site Public Open Space (including Allotments) to serve the proposed development and arrangements for its future maintenance, including (if applicable) arrangements for its transfer to the Council with the payment of a sum (to be agreed) for its future maintenance.

. The inclusion of onsite formal outdoor sports provision (MUGA: Multi Use Games Area) and equipped children’s play space (NEAP: Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play) in-lieu of off site payments. the County:

. Provision of a sum not exceeding £175,000 to be made available to the Local Highway Authority for undertaking off-site highway improvement works at the junction of High Street, London Road, Dale Road, West Road and Green Lane, Buxton in connection with the proposed development.

. Submission of an agreed Travel Plan for the proposed development and payment of a contribution (for a sum to be agreed) towards the cost of its approval and future monitoring (if necessary) by the County Council.

. Primary School education of £900,521 for the Harpur Hill Primary School. | 3.4 The original application envisaged that the scheme could deliver residential care and/or a retirement facility of up to 70 units. However, for this scheme as revised, the applicant is seeking all residential development as a single phase omitting this element. This approach is considered to be acceptable within the scope of the outline planning permission. Land outside of the application site is shown as reserved for the local centre as per the outline scheme and precise details would be the subject of a future reserved matters submission.

Page 27 3.5 Notwithstanding the omission of the residential care and/or a retirement facility, the residential reserved matters submission broadly follows the illustrative masterplan details submitted at the outline planning application stage. The latest scheme revisions show the retention of the two farmsteads and their curtilage in accordance with the red edge location plan of the outline planning permission. All other related farm buildings are to be demolished other than the proposed retention of the two traditional barn structures sited adjacent to the two retained farmsteads.

3.6 The wider site maintains the residential main spine road running through the centre of the site in a northeast / southwest direction from the Ashbourne Road access vehicular point up to the farmsteads and central public open space. Similarly, a network of roads would branch off to each side, lined by a mix of predominantly semi-detached and detached dwellings, with a limited number of terraced properties.

3.7 The scale of development proposed for the most part is two-storey in scale. In an attempt to address site levels concerns as a result of the layout proposed, applicant scheme revisions have introduced a 3-storey ‘frontage’ split-level dwelling to plots 364 to 369 within the southeastern corner of the site, which adjoins open countryside and the SAM setting. The applicant further proposes a single-storey frontage split-level dwelling to plots 1 and 2 to the rear of Ferney Crest, Peakview and Greenside, Harpur Hill Road and a single-storey bungalow type dwelling to plots 392, 393, 394 and 395 fronting the emergency access from Harpur Hill Road.

3.8 A package of levels information accompanies the revised application submission. Garden retaining walls and steps are also indicated on the site plan to the following peripheral plots: 1; 4 to 14 (west, rear of Harpur Hill Road); 15 to 19 (north, rear of Clifton Drive); 20 to 26 (west, rear of Clifton Drive); 27 to 28 (north, rear of Clifton Drive / Hastings Road); 64 to 65 and 92 to 101 (northeast, Ashbourne Road frontage setback / woodland copse); 364 to 369 (southwest, open countryside / SAM setting); 371 to 379 (southeast, open countryside / SAM setting) and 380 to 388 (south, rear of Harris Road). Such structures are also shown at plots 69 to 78 which broadly lie to the rear, southwest of the Ashbourne Road frontage dwellings.

3.9 A revised materials plan retains the two artificial stone types to dwelling walls. However, an artificial slate tile has been introduced to key street scenes with a concrete grey roofing tile to remaining dwellings.

3.10 Existing trees and hedges are shown as being mostly retained throughout the site and are supplemented by additional landscaping as per the reserved matters landscaping submission. Boundary details show the retention of existing drystone walls to site boundaries where these occur. Either hedgerow planting or artificial stone walling is

Page 28 proposed to property frontages with close boarded fencing to ‘common’ rear garden boundaries.

3.11 The central POS (public open space) is shown on higher ground contained within the south-western corner of the site and incorporates the equipped children’s play space (as indicated on the landscaping submission), the retained farmsteads and two traditional farm buildings. It thereafter bleeds out to a further structural POS adjoining the southeast site boundary with open countryside beyond in the direction of the SAM ‘Fox Low Bowl Barrow’. Individual vehicular access points are shown to the two retained farmstead dwellings and would traverse the POS. Other elements of structural landscaping would include the green buffer and SuDs pond to the Ashbourne Road frontage and a further, small pocket of POS to the southeast site countryside boundary. A gas governor and electricity substation are indicated on the submitted layout plan sited in the area of the central POS and Ashbourne Road frontage respectively.

3.12 Other aspects of the outline masterplan followed through include allotments and an orchard within the broadly rectangular area of land to the southwestern part of the site. The PROW (Public Right of Way) would broadly follow its existing route linking Ashbourne Road with Harpur Hill Road.

3.13 Informed by discussions with the Council, the applicant proposes the following changes to the approved scheme as follows:

• Off-site sports contribution of £50,000 in lieu of the onsite MUGA (Multi Use Games Area) towards the development, maintenance and/or refurbishment of the Cote Heath Skate Park, and,

• The title of the NEAP to remain with the developer and be transferred to a Management Company along with the Public Open Space and Allotments in lieu of transfer of the title and the payment of a commuted sum to the Council.

3.14 These proposals would require a deed of variation to the original s106 planning agreement before any reserved matters planning permission could be granted should Members be minded to approve the scheme.

3.15 Since the deferral of the application from the 16th July 2018 Development Control Committee meeting and for the avoidance of doubt the applicant has submitted revised plans:-

Location Plan

Layout

• D01 Site Plan Rev AAJ (received 19.10.18)

Page 29

House Types

• D126 House Type 621 (rec. 10.09.18) Bungalow Detached • D126 House Type 622 (rec. 10.09.18) Bungalow Semi-Detached • D127 House Type 1151 Rev B (rec. 19.10.18) Split Level 1 storey frontage • D128 House Type 1088 Rev A (rec. 19.10.18) Split Level 3– storey frontage

Materials

• D02 Materials Schedule Sheet 1 Rev I (rec. 19.10.18) • D03 Materials Schedule Sheet 2 Rev I (rec. 19.10.18)

Street scenes

• D200 Street Scenes A-D Rev K (rec. 19.10.18) • D201 Street Scenes E-H Rev I (rec. 19.10.18) • D202 Street Scenes J-K Rev G (rec. 19.10.18) • D203 Street Scenes L-N Rev I (rec. 19.10.18) • D204 Street Scenes P-Q Rev K (rec. 19.10.18) • D205 Street Scenes R-S Rev J (rec. 19.10.18) • D206 Street Scenes T-U Rev K (rec. 19.10.18)

Landscape

• D900 Landscape Plan Section A Rev N (rec. 19.10.18) • D901 Landscape Plan Section B Rev N (rec. 19.10.18) • D902 Landscape Plan Section C Rev N (rec. 19.10.18) • D903 Landscape Plan Section D Rev N (rec. 19.10.18) • D904 Landscape Plan Section E Rev N (rec. 19.10.18) • D905 Landscape Plan Section F Rev N (rec. 19.10.18) • D910 Maintenance & Management Responsibility Plan Rev C (rec. 19.10.18) • Landscape and Habitat Enhancement and Maintenance Report (Updated) (rec. 19.10.18)

Sections

• D300 Site Sections Rev L (rec. 19.10.18) • D301 Site Sections Rev K (rec. 19.10.18) • D302 Site Sections Rev D (rec. 19.10.18) • D303 Site Sections Rev D (rec. 19.10.18) • D304 Site Sections Rev D (rec. 19.10.18) • D305 Site Sections XX YY ZZ Rev B (rec. 19.10.18)

Engineering

Page 30

• Topographical Surveys Sheets 1 -4

• 10462-900-001 On plot Engineering Sheet 1 Rev B (rec. 19.10.18) • 10462-900-002 On plot Engineering Sheet 2 Rev B (rec. 19.10.18) • 10462-900-003 On plot Engineering Sheet 3 Rev B (rec. 19.10.18) • 10462-900-004 On plot Engineering Sheet 4 Rev B (rec. 19.10.18) • 10462-900-005 On plot Engineering Sheet 5 Rev B (rec. 19.10.18) • 10462-900-006 On plot Engineering Sheet 6 Rev C (rec. 19.10.18) • 10462-900-007 On plot Engineering Sheet 7 Rev B (rec. 19.10.18) • 10462-900-008 On plot Engineering Sheet 8 Rev C (rec. 19.10.18) • 10462-900-009 On plot Engineering Sheet 9 Rev C (rec. 19.10.18) • 10462-900-010 On plot Engineering Sheet 10 Rev C (rec. 19.10.18) • 10462-900-011 On plot Engineering Sheet 11 Rev B (rec. 19.10.18) • 10462-900-012 On plot Engineering Sheet 12 Rev D (rec. 19.10.18) • 10462-900-013 On plot Engineering Sheet 13 Rev D (rec. 19.10.18) • 10462-900-014 On plot Engineering Sheet 14 Rev E (rec. 19.10.18) • 10462-900-015 On plot Engineering Sheet 15 Rev C (rec. 19.10.18) • 10462-900-016 On plot Engineering Sheet 16 Rev B (rec. 19.10.18) • 10462-SK-007 Heat Plan Rev C (rec. 19.10.18)

3.16 The previously submitted plans are to be assessed as part of the revised scheme submission and are detailed as follows:-

House Types:

• D100E House Type 651 Semi-Detached • House Type 740 Semi-Detached • D101F House type 752 Terrace • D103D House Type 832 Semi-Detached • D104D House Type 842 Semi-Detached • D105E House Type 857 Detached • D106E House Type 867 Detached

Page 31 • D124A House Type 882 Semi-Detached • D107D House Type 891 Terrace • D108F House Type 955 Detached • D122B House Type 953 Semi-Detached • D109E House Type 1028 Semi-Detached • D110F House type 1178 Detached • D111D House Type 1244 Detached • D113E House Type 1297 Detached • D114E House Type 1393 Detached • D112F House Type 1253 Detached • D115F House Type 1648 Detached • D116A Typical Garage Layout Detached (single)

3.17 The application and details attached to it - including the plans, supporting documents, representations and responses from consultees can be found on the Council’s website via the following link:- http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet ?PKID=219748

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The following is a summary of the relevant planning applications relating to the site.

HPK/2013/0603:

Mixed use development comprising residential development comprising up to 375 dwellings; a residential care and/or retirement facility comprising up to 70 units and ancillary facilities to be occupied for any use or combination of uses within classes C2 and C3 of the town and country planning (use classes) order 2010, and a local centre comprising up to 2,500sqm of retail, food and drink and business uses to be occupied for any use or combination of uses within classes a1 to A4 and class B1 of the town and country planning (use classes) order 2010, with no individual class A1 convenience retail unit (foodstore) exceeding 500sqm and no more than 600sqm of class A1, A2 and/or A3 floorspace, 580sqm of class A4 floorspace and 1,000sqm of class b1 floorspace being developed in total, and up to 1,000sqm of community uses to be occupied for any use or combination of uses within class D1 of the town and country planning (use classes) order 2010, excluding art galleries, museums and leisure and cultural uses (and any other use constituting a main town centre use as defined by annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012, together with associated access, car parking, open space and landscaping (outline - large-scale major apps).

Page 32 Approved with conditions and s106 legal agreements (x2) dated 4th November 2014 as set out above.

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

Adopted High Peak Local Plan 2016

Policy S1 Sustainable Development Principles Policy S1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy S2 Settlement Hierarchy Policy S3 Strategic Housing Development Policy S7 Buxton Sub-area Strategy Policy EQ1 Climate Change Policy EQ5 Biodiversity Policy EQ6 Design and Place Making Policy EQ7 Built and Historic Environment Policy EQ8 Green Infrastructure Policy EQ9 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy EQ10 Pollution Control and Unstable Land Policy EQ11 Flood Risk Management Policy H1 Location of Housing Development Policy H2 Housing Allocations Policy H3 New Housing Development Policy H4 Affordable Housing Policy CF3 Local Infrastructure Provision Policy CF4 Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities Policy CF6 Accessibility and Transport Policy CF7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy Policy DS20 Land off Ashbourne Road and Foxlow Farm, Buxton

Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

Residential Design Guide SPD 2005 Landscape Character SPD 2006 Highpeak Design Guide SPD 2018

National Planning Policy Framework revised July 2018

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Representations / Neighbours

Neighbours (Revised) 1st November 2018 (expiry)

Page 33 None – the expiry for the 10-day neighbour consultation is the 1st November 2018.

Any representations received will be contained within the Development Control Committee Update Sheet.

Neighbours (Revised) 2nd September 2018 (expiry)

Objections:

A total of 10 representations of objection have been received and refer to some or all of the following points:-

Principle / Infrastructure

• Object to building on a greenfield site when two other sites in the location have been earmarked for development; • There has currently been planning applications passed for 275 new build houses at Harpur Hill, 133 houses on High Peak Meadow and another 142 houses on Heathfield Nook; • It is queried how the infrastructure / amenities of Harpur Hill and the town of Buxton will cope with an application for another 395 new build houses? • Such a scheme should not be given approval without significant consideration for schools, GP services, recreational areas, policing services that are needed in an area that already has little provision for the existing residents; • Removal of residential accommodation for elderly people would have fulfilled a downsizing demand in a secure and safe village community and enable the release of larger properties more suitable to growing families; • Scheme on an attractive greenfield site should complement the area by reducing the development by half and maintaining more areas of open spaces for recreation and wildlife, which will be detrimentally affected by the proposal;

Highway Safety / Access

• Increase in traffic with significant onstreet car parking within Harpur Hill making rush hour journeys difficult; • Dangerous access onto the busy A515 will lead to traffic disruption and delays into and out of Buxton; • Concerns about any vehicular access onto Harpur Hill Road, which is on a dangerous bend;

Surface Water Drainage

• Disruption of surface water drainage on the steep gradient behind Harpur Hill Road with possible flooding to adjoining property;

Page 34

Design and Amenity

• It is clear from the plan that our property and many others will be detrimentally affected by the loss of light and an increase in noise; • A path entering directly onto Clifton Drive is not acceptable; • In contrast to the Foxlow Farm retained farm buildings being free from development, the new housing would be crammed up against the steeply sloping boundaries of Clifton Drive and Hastings Road to the significant detriment of existing residents; • The Independent Design Review (dated 7/7/17) stated the exclusion of Foxlow Farm results in a lay-out driven by constraints to compromise the scheme as whole • Possible loss of protected trees;

Other

• Not complying with housing standards does not attract support for the scheme, which is urban and suitable for the applicant’s low cost business model; • Everyone else agrees that the site is rural and the development should be landscape led; • Failure to provide sufficient information or engage in meaningful consultation; • Object to the close proximity of the allotment area to existing properties, which cannot be controlled and will be an eyesore in the future impacting on current views and devaluing surrounding properties; • Funds which have been offered for improvements to roads/skate park/schools do not benefit the village as they are all indirect; • It is questioned whether the funds are sufficient in respect of school and road infrastructure provision, and, • Overall, the scheme does not appear to well considered or informed by knowledge of the area.

Since the publication of the Foxlow Farm committee report on the 21st May 2018 (as deferred by the Council’s Development Control Committee), an additional neighbour representation, as well as a response from High Peak Access have been received as are detailed below:

• Concerns are raised in respect of a loss of light / privacy with reference to scheme plots 25, 26 and 27 given the nature of the steeply sloping land which falls in level to housing on Clifton Drive; • Welcomes the recommendation to refuse the application and raises the following additional concerns: many houses fail to meet modern day space requirements i.e. too small; insufficient

Page 35 affordable homes to accommodate 4 people, exacerbates current housing stock imbalance, no integrated approach to the local centre and too urban and not in keeping with the rural setting; • The fundamental flaw of the scheme is the applicant’s contention that the site is urban and the application of his affordable sales value rather than increased development cost business model; • In contrast, the site is green belt land and there is recognition by all other parties that the development needs to be in keeping with its rural setting; • The business model and the site requirements are simply incompatible, and, • There appears to be several outstanding documents yet to be presented and it is hoped that their eventual presentation should not cloud this fundamental incompatibility nor that the meeting will be swayed by any apparent last minute concessions.

High Peak Access

I have now had the opportunity to look at the proposed house plans and layouts to see to what extent they meet minimum standards for accessible housing.

The proposed floor plans for most of the properties do not provide minimum standards for access as recommended in the Building Regulations 2015 part M.

High Peak Borough Council adopted Local Plan 2016, also states in Section 5.147 that developers should provide accessible, flexible accommodation that is capable of future adaptation and complying with National Described Space Standards and delivered to meet accessibility standards set out in Optional requirement M4(2) of part M of the Building Regulations.

These space standards provide a range of minimum standards for 2, 3 and 4 bed homes as set out below and I have shown by contrast the sizes, where available on plan of the Foxlow Farm properties.

All house types proposed for Foxlow farm are below the National Described Space Standards, apart from type 1178 and 1244 and I think that is because they have included the integral garage space.

This has an adverse effect on the circulation space available in all dwellings on the ground floor, particularly in the entrance hall and the ground floor Cloakroom/WC.

The Building Regulations part M standards for accessible homes state that the Cloakroom/WC minimum size should be 2.52m2 and for wheelchair accessible, should be 3.63m2.

Page 36 None of the house types seem to offer the minimum cloakroom size required and hall sizes do not seem to offer sufficient circulation space to allow a wheelchair space to enter and turn into any cloakroom.

Some of the larger house types do appear to offer the possibility of installing a platform lift from ground to first floor.

However, the Design and Access Statement included in the application does make reference to the principles of inclusive design and refers to some issues identified in design principles, but does not address any of the concerns expressed above in relation to space standards and size of circulation space and cloakrooms.

I do not consider that the floor plans as proposed, offer a satisfactory level of access to the ground floor circulation space and cloakroom facilities in particular and fall short of the policy statements in the adopted Local Plan. In view of the size and location of the proposed development, the lack of accessible house types will, I believe have a detrimental effect on the future housing stock in the area.

Original Publicity:

Site notice Expired Press notice 7th December 2017 (expired) Neighbours 7th December 2017 (expired)

Representations / Neighbours

Supports:

A single letter of support has been received and refers to the following summarised points:-

• Younger generation are desperate to get on the property ladder; • Building houses is a side effect of over crowding; • Children / grandchildren need somewhere to live, and, • I am a young working person who lives in shared bed sit type accommodation along with hundreds of others because there are not enough affordable houses within the town of Buxton.

Objections:

A total of 13 letters of objection have been received and refer to some or all of the following points:-

Principle

• Generally supportive of building new houses with potential regeneration benefits to the area, however, a number of concerns are raised in respect of layout, design, amenity and crime issues;

Page 37 • In view of government policy prioritising brownfield redevelopment it is queried why this greenfield, attractive countryside site has been approved instead of the old college site; • Lack of local school capacity and increased demand for GP services etc; • It is questioned how the town would support education and health infrastructure for so many additional families? • Plans are significantly different to the original plans in respect of the communal green space; • Existing houses in and around Buxton are in a poor state of repair such as the Market Street, The Serpentine; • The applicant Keepmoat is from outside of the area and it is queried whether the site would become an oversupply for the Derby, Manchester and Nottingham areas? • The adopted Local Plan specifies this site for mixed use development and requires the preparation of a comprehensive masterplan, including the local centre; • A masterplan is required before the overall development and its impact can be adequately assessed; • Quick‐fix to population growth, however, a large development would do nothing to the general improvement of the town nor to the facilities offered to its visitors (on whom much of the wealth of the town depends); • Construction of this large-scale site is unlikely to benefit tradesmen in the town, as the developer would normally bring their own sub‐contractors; • The proposed development would provide the town with no obvious benefits and would instead cause issues, which would need to be resolved; • Harpur Hill is already a 'split' community with old and new aspects; • Instead of helping to integrate the communities, the existing plans further isolate them by placing a barrier between the top and bottom of Harpur Hill; • Community facilities would be much better placed on the old college site to provide a natural centre for the village as a whole; • This would allow the applicant to provide space for additional housing as well as providing additional future expansion space in the centre of the village; • When considering both applications for Harpur Hill, the Council should recognise that with Heathfield Nook and Fox Low gaining approval and being built, Harpur Hill's population would increase to Fairfield levels where suitable facilities are already provided;

Design / Amenity

Page 38 • Scheme for 395 dwellings includes an additional 20 properties and seems to have been achieved by the developer cramming houses into a small, steep sloping, site boundary pocket of land; • This would allow overlooking of existing houses on Clifton Drive; • No 'right to light' study submitted to demonstrate that there would be no impact to existing properties; • Proposed pedestrian path to Clifton Drive could impact on privacy and use of amenities to neighbour properties; • Responsibility to address Police Architectural Liaison concerns at this stage; • Steep gradient of the site allowing overlooking to the properties on Harpur Hill Road; • Wall or a wooded buffer zone is requested to prevent overlooking; • Layout / design should consider the elevated site with distant views; • There would be an adverse impact on the surrounding landscape on a major approach road into the town; • Development on this site has previously been rejected for this reason; • The visual impact of the new development would affect the skyline and landscape; • The ‘Independent Design Review’ of the proposed development raises several concerns, which the Planning Statement does not address. Among the Independent Report’s concerns were: • Too Urban – ‘the proposed scheme is too urban and not in keeping with the rural setting’; • The planning statement dismisses this by saying that the adoption of the Local Plan means the site is no longer in the countryside but within the urban boundary’; • Foxlow Farm Exclusion –‘the exclusion of this ‘Foxlow Farm’ not forming part of the development is a cause of concern, serving to compromise the whole scheme and results in a lay-out been driven by constraints rather than maximising the opportunities the site presents’; • It would appear that the proposed development enables the landowner(s) to benefit from land sales proceeds whilst not building on an area around the farm; • Average house types; • Lack of information on boundary treatments particularly to neighbouring land; • It is queried whether the mature conifers lining the boundary of no. 29 Dorset Close would be altered; • Prolonged excess noise due to necessary rock excavation during construction;

Highway Safety / Access

Page 39 • Dangerous access onto the A515 with traffic disruption and delays into and out of Buxton; • Loss of a public right of way; • Management of the emergency access from Harpur Hill Road, which would be used as a rat run; • Arrangements for contractor vehicles parking on the site up to completion of the development to avoid exacerbating any existing parking issues on Harpur Hill Road have been queried; • Parking in the town is already critical and can only deteriorate further with additional cars and no long-term parking facilities within this tourist town; • The existing road infrastructure cannot cope with the volume of traffic in and out of the town and the situation would be exacerbated with an increase in new homes; • Significant increase in the traffic on Buxton’ roads resulting in London Road becoming the new Fairfield Road; • In morning/evening rush hours, traffic can already back up to the bottom of Harpur Hill Road; • Cramming in houses to maximise profits would result in insufficient off-road parking and therefore roads would be too narrow as a result of such onstreet parking; • This would result in on-footpath parking creating hazards for pushchairs/wheelchairs and obstructions for service vehicles - a sight all too familiar with any new housing development; • Not enough parking would be provided for users of the allotments and this would encourage parking on Harpur Hill Road;

Nature Conservation/Trees

• Wildlife adjacent to farmland requires layout considerations; • Possible loss of protected trees;

Surface Water Drainage

• Potential surface water flooding during construction as a result of the steep gradient;

Other

• Planning Statement uploaded on the Council’s website on 11/1/18 after the end of the consultation period despite it being dated October 2017; • It is queried that given the importance and size of the development whether there has been proper or sufficient consultation, including website access; • It is also questioned whether the scheme has been reported in the local press, and, • The developer has made no attempt to engage with the community.

Page 40

Buxton Civic Association

Given the site has received outline planning permission for the development our response covers matters relating to protecting our historical archaeology, improving opportunities for nature conservation and biodiversity, minimising impact on climate change through energy conservation, sustainable transport and building design.

Archaeology - The conclusions of the Heritage Assessment (included with the Planning Application) stated that it remains to be confirmed whether the Roman Road runs through the development. In view of this BCA would like this to be confirmed prior to the development taking place and that no construction works are undertaken beforehand and for this to be a planning condition of any planning approval. Although the Heritage Assessment suggests that the site is considered to have low potential of other yet undiscovered archaeological assets a planning condition should be included in the planning approval for any discoveries to be reported to the Authorities and for an assessment to be made of any potential impact should any historical artefact be uncovered. The Planning Application does not include any supporting documentation from Historic England. They should be consulted regarding the Foxlow Bowl Barrow to confirm that the development does not adversely impact this ancient monument.

Nature Conservation & Biodiversity - Given the size of the proposed development BCA considers that it is important that this is sympathetic to the local environment and enhances opportunities for improving the biodiversity of the area and that it is built with consideration for wildlife. The developer/applicant has not included a habitat enhancement and management plan. There should be a pre‐condition for the developer to produce a habitat enhancement and management plan prior to the grant of planning consent. As the site is currently open farmland it is accepted that its current land use (e.g. intensive grazing) offers very limited wildlife opportunities. Planning consent should include conditions to ensure that this application results in a wildlife friendly development and include: Well defined wildlife corridors running north/south and east west within the development are present to allow the movement of mammals, such as hedgehogs through the site; Planting for wildlife (mammals, birds and insects) with appropriate locally native shrubs, trees and wildflowers and grasses; Pools, hedges, trees and shrubs are provided for nesting and food sources; Provision of bird nesting and bat roosting locations incorporated into the building design; Sustainable urban drainage to control the flow of rainwater into the local streams and rivers to reduce the risk of flooding downstream.

It is important that prior to and during the development the applicant/developer works with organisations such as Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (DWT), RSPB, Woodland Trust, etc. to enable the biodiversity improvements and well defined wildlife corridors to be

Page 41 maximised and actually achieved. A condition of any planning consent should require the applicant/developer to utilise a recognised body to oversee the implementation of biodiversity measures.

Our specific nature conservation and biodiversity comments are summarised below. A review of the planning application shows that the design of the buildings does not specifically include for opportunities for nesting/roosting sites this should be a planning condition of any planning approval and the RSPB/DWT should be consulted. The current design for boundary walls and fences and between properties prevents the free movement of wildlife. Hedges are preferable to walls and fences as these allow free movement and provide nesting sites for birds. If the boundary walls and fences are included there is a need for the incorporation of ground level spaces in the walls and fences (at least the size of an adult hedgehog) as a condition of the planning consent to enhance the development with respect to wildlife. A review of the plans shows that there are a considerable number of non native species being proposed. Given the Buxton climate it is important that as far as possible locally native species to Buxton and the Peak District are utilised that are wildlife friendly. For example the ground cover mix (SEC E) submitted with the plans include species that are not beneficial to wildlife and others are non‐native. BCA consider that it should be a condition of the planning approval that wildlife friendly species are utilised. The RSPB and DWT or other similar bodies should be involved in finalising the species to ensure that the biodiversity of this development is enhanced and this should be a condition of any planning consent. A management plan for the open spaces has not been included as part of the application and the developers should be required to submit one. It is important to understand how the amenity areas will be managed and who will be responsible for this management to enhance the benefits to wildlife and in particular insects such as bees and butterflies. This should be a requirement of any planning approval and form part of the landscape & habitat enhancement and management plan. It is important that the allotments are included in the development as proposed in the planning application and this should be included as a specific planning condition along with the presence of numerous apple trees.

Energy Conservation - There is no supporting statement or documents with the planning application to show how the development will meet energy efficiency requirements. Given the issues around climate change and need to minimise carbon dioxide emissions it is important that the developer shows how the development has taken into account energy efficiency. A pre‐condition to the grant of planning consent the developer should be required, as a planning condition, to submit an Energy Efficiency & Sustainability Statement.

Sustainable Transport - The number of houses to be built on the site will result in a major increase in the number of vehicle movements from and to the A515. Given the size of the development there is a need to

Page 42 include features to reduce the need for travel by private car and encourage cycling. The current planning application does not provide any significant supporting statement or highlight on the plans to indicate how this will be achieved for cyclists. The plans need to clearly indicate proposed cycling routes and tie in to Sustrans Route 68 (Pennine Cycleway) on Harpur Hill Road. One of the pedestrian links into Clifton Drive (north west corner) should also include a cycling link. The developer/applicant should also be required to upgrade the footpath adjacent to the A515 from the site down towards the Harpur Hill Road junction to accommodate cycles and provide alternative transport options. As a pre‐commencement condition to the grant of planning consent the developer/applicant should be required to provide a statement and plans for cyclists, provision of cycle stands, provision of car charging points, provision of traffic calming measures.

Housing Design - The design of the houses and layout of the estate appear pedestrian and unimaginative and typical of dormitory developments without character or redeeming features that reflect on the architecture of Buxton. The development uses two types of reconstituted stone rather than using a mix of materials to reflect those present in Buxton. A mix of materials and design would help break the uniformity of the development. The roofs comprise interlocking concrete tiles rather than slate (e.g. Spanish or Welsh) which are in keeping with many Buxton properties. The window frames are UPVC which are not sustainable compared to FSC timber or Accoya. It would be preferable for the frames to be constructed in timber to improve the environmental aspects of the development. The houses do not feature any significant features that contribute to renewable energy, for example the installation of solar panels on roofs. With the issues around global warming these features should be included in the development.

Peak Cycle Links

The developer has provided no clear plans or statement regarding cyclists and there is a need for these to be provided as a pre‐condition of planning consent. Given the size of the development there is a need to include alternative transport options and encourage cycling. The National Cycle Network route 68 passes close to the site and the White Peak Loop section at Parks Inn is nearby. The A515 from the site to Harpur Hill Road (NCN 68) should include a cycle path. Within the development the pedestrian route in the NW corner linking through to Clifton Drive should also include a cycle path (this would provide a safer cycling route to the nearby school). The plans do not mention any cycle racks/stands and these need to be included.

Consultation Responses

Consultee Comments Response Sterndale, Cowdale Comments awaited. Members will be and Staden Parish updated at the

Page 43 Council meeting.

Historic England See below. Discussed within the main body of the report – Heritage. 23.10.18

On the basis of this information, we do not wish to offer any comments. We suggest that you seek the views of your specialist conservation and archaeological advisers, as relevant.

Peak District National Comments awaited. Members will be Park Authority updated at the meeting. DCC Archaeology Conditional response Discussed within the in respect of below main body of the ground archaeology. report - Heritage.

Impacts in relation to the Fox Low Bowl Barrow are discussed within the main body of the report.

16.10.18

The revisions do not seem to materially address any of the considerations I have previously outlined as ways in to addressing the setting/significance of the Scheduled Monument. I therefore advise that my previous comments (23rd July 2018) are still valid.

23.07.18

The following comments relate again to the setting of the Scheduled Monument at Fox Low bowl barrow.

In granting outline planning consent for the site the local planning authority has determined that proposed ‘less than substantial’ harms to the significance of the barrow through its setting are capable of being justified in terms of public benefits of the development (NPPF paras 132, 134). The magnitude of such harm is however greatly dependent on the design of the proposed development, and it would be entirely appropriate for the local planning authority to conclude that the outweighing effect of public benefits only tips the planning balance in the case that the development has been designed in terms of layout and materials to minimise harms to the setting of the Scheduled Monument. Moreover, the thrust of paras 7, 17 and 131 of NPPF is that ‘sustainable development’ seeks to conserve and enhance the significance of heritage assets. It is therefore necessary to consider at the reserved matters stage whether the layout and materials of the proposed

Page 44 development seek to conserve significance and minimise any harmful impacts.

In commenting previously on proposed layouts for the site, I made the following observations:

I would suggest – given the proposed layout and the photomontages previously produced – that the development as presently constituted impacts the setting of the monument in two ways. First, the built form of the proposed development magnifies a sense of crowding from modern development in views outward from the monument and its environs. Second, the spread of the development onto the lower slopes of Fox Low interferes with an appreciation of the topographic form of the hill itself in views to the hilltop and towards the monument. Each of these effects harms the significance of the monument by eroding the sense of prominence and dominance afforded by its hilltop location.

Although the monument is identified in the applicant’s design and access statement as a constraint and structuring factor, there is no subsequent discussion of how the setting/significance/experience of the monument has been incorporated into the process of planning the proposed development layout or materials. This feels like a missed opportunity. The local planning authority may wish to consider the following as ways of mitigating impact/reducing harm on the significance of the monument:

1. Increasing the buffer of green/open space between the built form of the development and the monument. Omitting some of the proposed housing higher up the slope would lessen the ‘crowding’ effect and also accentuate the exent to which the topographic form of the hill can still be appreciated in views towards. The further downslope it is possible to push the edge of development, the better. 2. Consideration of views within and through the proposed development so that the topographic form of Foxlow can still be appreciated from the surrounding area. Is the road/street planning sympathetic with the topography? Are key views channelled towards the hilltop? 3. Are the proposed materials likely to produce a recessive effect, so that the development is less visually intrusive when viewed as a block?

The current proposed layout does not seem to address any of these points. Fairly high density housing is proposed right to the edge of development, with no significant green space buffer or blending of the development into the open countryside beyond. The street layout appears generic in form and does not noticeably address the topography or help to channel key views towards the hillslope (indeed, I see no evidence that key views have been identified).The proposed boundary treatments (changes of level and boarded fencing) further

Page 45 harden the edge of development in a way which jars against the historic landscape, where drystone boundary treatments would be expected. This would not produce a recessive effect: in fact, just the opposite.

I note the comments from OPUN on the setting of the Scheduled Monument which seem to echo my own comments reproduced above: “Suggestions include a development consisting of contextually appropriate, low density residential use bleeding out into the landscape with the scheduled monument as a focal point/heritage asset i.e. forming part of the open space network as informal recreational space for the development and providing opportunities for the public to engage and be aware of the significance of this heritage asset; identifying key views of the scheduled monument (close and distant) including the provision of a layout that positively responds to the views i.e. adjusting the street pattern to allow long views beyond the site.; ensuring a robust relationship between the scheduled monument and the retained farm buildings and exploring options to access the scheduled monument from the site.”

Despite the apparent consensus of advice on the way forward in terms of the setting of the Scheduled Monument, the layout currently proposed shows no evidence of having engaged with any of these comments or suggestions. It may therefore be considered to harm the setting of the Scheduled Monument in a way that (the local planning authority may judge) is not outweighed by the public benefits of the housing development.

01.02.18

There is no objection to the layout on archaeological grounds, but there is an ongoing scheme of investigation of the series of linear features on the course of the putative ‘Roman road’ which needs to be complete before discharge of the pre-commencement condition, with provision made for post-excavation work, publication etc.

18.12.17

In granting outline consent for the site the local planning authority has determined that proposed ‘less than substantial’ harms to the significance of the barrow through its setting are justified in terms of public benefits of the development, as required at NPPF paras 132 and 134. Nonetheless, the thrust of paras 7, 17 and 131 of NPPF are that ‘sustainable development’ seeks to conserve and enhance the significance and heritage assets, and it is therefore necessary to consider at the reserved matters stage whether the layout and materials of the proposed development seek to conserve significance and minimise any harmful impacts.

There is little direct intervisibility between the Scheduled Monument itself and the proposed development site, as demonstrated by

Page 46 photomontages compiled at the time of the outline consent. This is caused by the topography of the hilltop, with a ‘false crest’ between the development site and the barrow itself, and by the screening affected by the existing tree belt between Monument and development. To a large extent, however, the ‘experience’ of the monument is tied up with the experience and perception of the hilltop as a whole. The hill, is used – today as in prehistory – is a proxy in the landscape for the barrow itself. So we need consider the impact for the development from Fox Low as a whole, rather than just the limits of the scheduled area.

In the White Peak, the contribution of the setting of prehistoric barrows to their significance is usually a combination of views to the barrow/hilltop from the surrounding area, views from the monument and surrounding hilltop, and views between the monument and other contemporary sites. This takes account of the ways in which barrows were used and experienced in their contemporary landscapes, and the ways in which they are re-experienced today. In the case of Fox Low, the proposed development does not impact any views towards other prehistoric sites, so we are left with views from and towards the monument/hilltop.

I would suggest – given the proposed layout and the photomontages previously produced – that the development as presently constituted impacts the setting of the monument in two ways. First, the built form of the proposed development magnifies a sense of crowding from modern development in views outward from the monument and its environs. Second, the spread of the development onto the lower slopes of Fox Low interferes with an appreciation of the topographic form of the hill itself in views to the hilltop and towards the monument. Each of these effects harms the significance of the monument by eroding the sense of prominence and dominance afforded by its hilltop location.

Although the monument is identified in the applicant’s design and access statement as a constraint and structuring factor, there is no subsequent discussion of how the setting/significance/experience of the monument has been incorporated into the process of planning the proposed development layout or materials. This feels like a missed opportunity. The local planning authority may wish to consider the following as ways of mitigating impact/reducing harm on the significance of the monument:

1. Increasing the buffer of green/open space between the built form of the development and the monument. Omitting some of the proposed housing higher up the slope would lessen the ‘crowding’ effect and also accentuate the exent to which the topographic form of the hill can still be appreciated in views towards. The further downslope it is possible to push the edge of development, the better.

2. Consideration of views within and through the proposed

Page 47 development so that the topographic form of Foxlow can still be appreciated from the surrounding area. Is the road/street planning sympathetic with the topography? Are key views channelled towards the hilltop?

3. Are the proposed materials likely to produce a recessive effect, so that the development is less visually intrusive when viewed as a block?

DCC Education No infrastructure and Discussed within the services obligations main body of the sought in relation to report – Planning this reserved matters Obligations. application. DCC Highways Outstanding Discussed within the comments in respect main body of the of scheme revisions. report – Highways. DCC Local Flood No comments to make Discussed within the Authority at this time, as there is main body of the no additional report – Technical information pertaining Matters. to drainage provided as part of the submitted documents.

Derbyshire Police Issues identified in Discussed within the relation to the mews main body of the link running through report – Layout and the centre of the site Design. and the proposed pedestrian link to Clifton Drive.

Outstanding comments in respect of scheme revisions.

16.11.17

For the greater part of the application all matters are acceptable with well thought out key plots maintaining street-scene continuity, a good enclosure of private space and a good mix of boundary treatments to define space hierarchy.

The only matters which I feel require comment, and further consideration are the mews link running through the centre of the site, and the proposed pedestrian link to Clifton Drive. In respect of the former, which is a feature added to previous indicative layouts, the series of mews running though the site from south east to north west introduces a set of narrow pathways between plots which connect mews to the highway. These links run very close to private space with no

Page 48 buffer, muddying the hierarchy of space around the adjacent plots and consequently weakening territoriality, which is facilitated elsewhere within the development with clearly defined back to back blocks and a strong street-scene. This type of connection is regularly associated with nuisance and damage problems. The double fronted plots placed to overlook these links is appreciated, but my advice would be to close off the narrow links between plots 118/139, 161/172, 216/228 and 249/259, retain the mews as private cul-de-sacs to improve territoriality, and rearrange the peripheral plots to marry in with the street frontage. In respect of community safety, permeability is accepted to aid safe and convenient circulation, but in this context the mews links look to offer little that is not readily available elsewhere, with no clear destination in mind.

In respect of the second point, whilst it is appreciated that the site is annexed from existing neighbouring residential housing to the north by a continuous private boundary, and that connectivity in this direction is desirable, in my view the proposed pedestrian link to the side of 28 Clifton Drive is likely to have a detrimental effect upon the amenity of residents at 28, given the apparent lack of space available and proximity to their private boundary.

Derbyshire Wildlife Issues identified in Discussed within the Trust relation to the main body of the reserved matters report – Ecology / landscaping scheme. Trees.

Outstanding comments in respect of scheme revisions.

04/07/18

Landscaping Scheme Revision G:

The Trust has now reviewed the detailed Landscape Plans (A-F) (Revision G) for the proposed scheme. We have also reviewed comments from Council’s Tree Officer Monica Gillespie on the Revision F drawings and subsequent applicant responses.

Three key points raised by the Trust previously, are as follows:

Adequate protection for the identified badger sett in the south-east.

The masterplan has been designed to provide an adequate buffer for the sett during construction through the inclusion of greenspace in this area. Additional planting must be provided to ensure protection from disturbance by the public, such as thorny shrubs (blackthorn, hawthorn, holly) around the entire edge of the copse to deter entry. The inclusion of species such a damson would also provide a food source for the badgers. This is not clear on the landscaping plans. Woodland planting is now included in this area. We would still encourage adding damson or

Page 49 plum to the planting mix in this area. Damson or plum trees have not been added.

Retention or replacement provision of the pond to the south of Foxlow Farm.

It is understood that the pond identified as Pond 1 in the 2013 Amphibian Survey Report will be retained, although this should be confirmed and marked on the landscape plan. This has been amended on the Landscape Plan. No further comments.

A balancing pond/attenuation area is proposed in the north-east of the site, although this is unlikely to hold water at all times. It appears from the landscaping plans that this will be surrounded by marginal planting and meadow grassland, which is welcomed. We also recommend that drop kerbs and offset gullies should be included in the access road immediately adjacent to the balancing pond, to maintain connectivity to the green strip to the south and wider landscape. These features should be clearly indicated on the Plan. This information is missing and should be provided. This information is still missing and should be provided.

We advise that another permanent pond would be a benefit to the biodiversity of the site and could be incorporated within the orchard or allotment area. This should be designed for wildlife, with native planting and shelved sides. This has not been included, however the existing pond is retained and a new attenuation pond is also incorporated. No further comments.

Ecologically beneficial management of the land to the south-east of the development (as per Outline Condition 14 below).

No design or management plan appears to be available at this stage for land to the south-east. When such information is produced, the Trust would be happy to review it or to be involved in earlier discussions.

Additional comments on landscaping:

The tree, hedge and shrub species chosen for the scheme appear to have a significant leaning to ornamental species and varieties. We would encourage the use of more native species on site, which are appropriate to the local area, particularly given the rural setting of the site. Species chosen should be appropriate to the local climatic conditions. This has been largely addressed. We agree with Monica Gillespie’s comments (1.3) that ornamental shrub mixes are not appropriate for boundaries with open countryside e.g. plots 354-360. We would suggest that these should be replaced with native scrub or woodland planting, as suggested by the applicant. We refer to the comments made by Monica Gillespie.

Much of the POS appears to comprise amenity grassland, which has

Page 50 little benefit to wildlife. We advise that even in areas where short grass is required for amenity purposes, strips around the edges and even within the shorter grass should be seeded with a native wildflower mix and managed appropriately to benefit invertebrates and other wildlife. Swathes of meadow grassland have been added to the POS on landscape Plan Section D. No further comments.

The landscape plans do not appear to include details of the orchard. These should be provided and include a variety of native fruit trees. This also provides a good opportunity to create wildflower grassland beneath the trees. The additional detail on the orchard trees and wildflower grassland is welcomed and largely supported. The inclusion of Phalaris arundinacea and Iris pseudacorus in the grassland mix seems out of place, unless there are known wet/damp areas in this location. We would not typically expect to see these species in this habitat. The Landscape Plan shows details of fencing at either side of the orchard boundary hedgerow. Is this a post and rail or stock fence? Close board fencing should not be installed at both sides of a hedgerow as it will shade the hedge and prevent access for wildlife.

A management plan for areas of POS should be provided to ensure that ecologically beneficial management practices are implemented. This has been produced by the applicant and is welcomed by the Trust. We have the following comments on the Plan:

An updated Management Plan has not been provided so it is not possible to assess whether our comments below have been addressed.

It is suggested that a sentence should be added to Section 3 to state that it is the responsibility of the contractor to be fully compliant with wildlife legislation, including giving full consideration to species such as nesting birds, roosting bats, sheltering hedgehogs and badgers during all maintenance works.

A sentence should be added to Section 4 stating that contractors will be aware of all ecological implications of management, such as maintaining viable wildflower meadow, wetland and woodland habitats.

A nesting bird check should be added to the Policy points in Objective 3.

We would question whether mowing meadow grassland on rotation will be sufficient to keep ruderal species in check (Policy point 1 in objective 4). Typically meadow grassland would all be mown every year in late summer i.e. August and again in early spring, if required. Whilst we support the aim of retaining habitat on site, it may risk the botanical diversity of the grassland. The ‘Prescription’ table should be updated with grassland management timings (It currently says once a year in October). Wildflower grassland doesn’t appear to be in the ‘Schedule’ section of the Plan.

Page 51 Whilst we support future monitoring of bat and bird boxes, only boxes in areas of POS and woodland can be realistically monitored. This should be specified in the Plan.

Provision for bats, birds, invertebrates and hedgehogs should be included on the Landscape Plans to ensure these features are incorporated within the development. Details should include numbers, types and locations of boxes, habitat piles and fencing gaps for hedgehogs. Details of bat, bird and insect boxes are included within the Landscape and Habitat Enhancement & Management Plan. We welcome the inclusion of a range of boxes, including swift and sparrow terraces and also the information on siting the boxes. However the Trust do not consider that the numbers suggested are sufficient for a housing scheme of almost 400 dwellings.

We typically suggest that 10% of houses have bird nesting provision and 5% of houses have bat roosting provision. Some of these could be located on trees or in woodland, as appropriate. We also suggest that there are more suitable boxes for dwellings than the Schwegler 2F. There are integral boxes that are more discreet and less vulnerable to removal. There are also external boxes that fit flush to the walls, rather than the rounded 2F model.

In Point 4 of Monica Gillespie’s comments, there is reference to acoustic fencing adjacent to the copse in the north-east. If woodland or any green space is to be bordered by fencing, appropriate gaps must be created for mammals such as badger and hedgehog to maintain connectivity for wildlife throughout the site and into the wider landscape. No information on connectivity for hedgehogs is provided. We advise that key garden blocks should be connected by small fencing holes (130 mm x 130 mm) and also gardens that back directly onto countryside.

The Trust advice that a clear plan should be provided to show the locations of all boxes, hibernacula, offset gullies, drop kerbs and hedgehog gaps. These could just be added to the Landscape Plan.

Existing planning conditions

The Trust maintain that the following conditions attached to the Outline Planning Permission HPK/2013/0603 should be discharged in full:

14. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a Landscape and Habitat Enhancement & Management Plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities, maintenance schedules for the land outside of the application site (referred to as agricultural land retained (R) and edged blue as shown on Illustrative Masterplan 5394-L-03 rev E and Location Plan 5394-L-01 rev C) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved management plan shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any development of the first

Page 52 phase and land to which the plan relates shall subsequently be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

15. No tree/shrub clearance work shall be carried out between 1st March and 31st August inclusive in any year, unless the site has been surveyed for that phase in advance for breeding birds and a scheme to protect breeding birds has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

16. Prior to the commencement of any phase of development, mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority providing for the appropriate protection of badgers. Development of each phase shall be carried out in accordance with the approved mitigation scheme for that phase.

HPBC Environmental Issues identified in Discussed within the Health relation to amenity main body of the noise impacts in from report – Amenity. Ashbourne Road.

17.05.18

Further to the additional noise monitoring undertaken by the applicant detailing façade sound levels at plots 85-90 ‘Additional Modelling’ dated 16th May 2018. This is accepted and the acoustic report is approved as appropriate for submission. The following condition is recommended should you seek to approve the application.

Prior to occupation of any individual building/plot the scheme of acoustic insulation and mitigation as outlined in Noise.co.uk, 18046C-1-R1, dated 1st May 2018, shall be completed according to its terms (for that building/plot).

15.05.18

The information provided confirms the boundary detail for plot 90 as a 2000mm stone wall, which would offer the best acoustic attenuation. There is no information, however, relating to predicted façade levels for plots 85 to 90.

08.05.18

Further to the revised acoustic report submitted 18046C-1-R1, dated 1st May 2018:

The layout is a definite improvement over the previous scheme and demonstrates elements of good acoustic design, however, Plot 90, the boundary fence detail is described in the report as a 2000mm fence, and on the boundary treatment plan (Drawing 169C) as a 1800mm

Page 53 reconstuted stone wall. A decent portion of the patio at the rear of the property is predicted >55dB so the Council would need to need ensure that it were adopting the best option. Can the developer confirm the wall/fence type and confirm that it offers the best acoustic attenuation? We may need to extend the patio north west to make best use of this garden area.

Can the developer provide details of the predicted façade levels for 85 to 90?

For plots 64 to 67. Significant areas of the gardens are predicted to be above 55dB, however, I anticipate that much of the traffic noise will be masked by wind noise in the mature copse and new woodland planting, adjacent.

In light of the demonstration of good acoustic design these exceedances above target values may be accepted for these plots.

Note to Officer: the western boundary comprises a 3000mm high acoustic fence and this could be quite imposing for plot 67 which has a small garden area.

HPBC Aboricultural Issues identified in Discussed within the Officer relation to the main body of the reserved matters report – Design / landscaping scheme. Layout

24.10.18

We have boundary treatment detail on the plans drawings and there appears to be additional ecological mitigation details e.g. bat boxes and hedgehog runs. There is a significant amount of detail on the plans and there have been several revisions since I did a detailed review. I have noted a few issues:-

I have noted errors on drawing D903 between the number of parkland trees shown on the plan (3) and the schedule (51) – this appears to be a clerical error and there may be more given the volume of information.

We have discussed the treatment of the boundary to the open countryside where the gardens are terraced and the use of post and rail and knee rails rather than close boarded fencing in these locations.

There is still no supplemental plan to the east of the acoustic fencing adjacent to the woodland copse at the front of the site near plot 64. The erection of this fence is within the RPA of the trees in the copse and will require a specific method statement. Ideally this fence should be further from the trees.

The Main Public Open Space: The amount of parkland trees which are

Page 54 Elm in the main POS has increased from 4 to 22 - this is meant to be an occasional specimen. This issue has been raised before and The Elm should except for 4-5 specimens be substituted for the other species.

There is an annotation referring to a highways infiltration system which requires excavation to 3m and this is close to an RPA of some retained protected trees. This will need to be detailed and included in the revised Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) so that any impact on the trees can be addressed.

The boundary treatment around the retained farmhouse dwellings is in part stock proof fencing, existing dry walls and hedgerow. This is acceptable as long as there is some mechanism to control changes to the boundary treatment in the future. By their nature, the proposed treatments are quite open but once the play area is in use it may be that the occupiers of these properties wish to improve their privacy. Extensive close board fencing would be undesirable in this location.

Any approval needs to consider conditions in relation to the implementation of the landscape and the provision of an AMS, which reflects the final layout. There should also be a condition requiring that tree protection is erected and kept in place for the duration of construction. I have previously recommended that we condition the developer to provide Arboricultural/ecological supervision of the site. This needs to be considered as well.

Raised garden areas by the beech copse at the frontage of the site should be in the POS area.

The southeast boundary closest to the A515 is proposed for a new hedgerow and stock proof fencing, however, this would be better if this was a drystone wall.

24.08.18

• The boundary treatments are not shown on the landscape plans as they have been previously and this makes an assessment difficult. • The boundary plan still has a thick red line around it and therefore generally there is no detail of the boundary treatments on the external boundary of the site. • I have previously stated that the acoustic fencing to the woodland copse near plot 65 should be screened by some understorey planting in the woodland. This fencing has been changed to close board fencing, however, the issue remains the same. • The boundary plans are missing sheets D164 and D167. • The boundaries around the POS area are obscured on the boundary plans. There is some native hedge planting around some of the farm buildings, but it is difficult to interpret what is around the buildings to be retained.

Page 55

04.07.18

Landscaping Scheme Revision G:

I have now commented on various amendments to the landscaping scheme 5 times previously (revisions A, B, C, E, and F). These latest revisions are G.

The following matters of concern as referred to previously have been resolved in respect of the latest submitted landscaping plans:-

A restricted parkland tree species selection within the POS (Public Open Space); the boundary treatment to the open countryside remains unclear and opposite to plots 354-360, there is still inappropriate ornamental shrub planting, which should be replaced by a native hedge and stock proof fencing.

The amended layout of plots 91-103 has included the parking running parallel to the SuDs POS. This parking area needs some landscape mitigation e.g. a native hedgerow or shrub planting to soften and improve the view into the site, which would otherwise be detracted from by a row of parked cars. A hedge has now been added.

There are no boundary treatment details for the farmstead curtilage to be retained. Although, the landscape plans indicate that there is some existing drystone walls and where this is absent the intention is to erect stock proof fencing. There are areas of parkland tree planting and some woodland planting in the POS adjacent to these areas, however, the boundary treatment would be quite porous and where this is the case a native hedgerow on the POS side of the fencing should be adequate to help mitigate this. There are now details of a native hedge but this would take some time to establish, however, this was my recommend solution.

The Arboricultural Method Statement dated October 2017 has been further amended as required.

The following matters remain unresolved:

The POS between plots 379-380 is now detailed, including removal of farm access re-instated tree planting. However, it is considered that the tree planting should be reduced and should be sighted to lead the eye towards the SAM.

There are still inconsistencies between the schedule of trees and the trees indicated to be planted on the plan. The landscaping scheme is detailed and complex. There may be minor discrepancies which should not hold up the application but need to be rectified as notes. E.g. the native hedge mix of 10% of holly in the hedge does not tally with the

Page 56 number of holly plants specified (this is closer to 40% of all the plants).

The 3.0m high acoustic fencing to be erected by the woodland copse at the northeast of the site would be prominent. The woodland would screen this to a degree, however, many of the trees have a high canopy meaning that there is clear visibility through the trees and some understorey planting within the woodland would help to soften the visual impact of this structure.

Offsite planting is shown, however, this needs to be accompanied by a location plan and a future management plan.

There are 2 substations proposed within the POS and the Council has no details of these. The landscaping should ensure that they are adequately screened and / or integrated into the POS. Although there some hedge planting is now shown around these structures and this would not reduce the prominence of these structures. It has been confirmed that the ‘gas governor’ by the entrance would be underground and tree impacts need to be confirmed in these respects.

None of the submitted schemes have given level details and there remains some concern over whether level changes on site will impact on the viability of the landscaping scheme and or retention of protected trees. Also, these will be important for assessing the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation and setting in relation to the SAM.

OPUN (East Summary comments Discussed within the Midlands are detailed below: main body of the Architecture and report – Layout and Design Centre) Design.

An assessment by the Open Design Review Panel summary comments are as follows:

“As proposed the scheme was considered to be too urban and not in keeping with the rural setting of the site or maximising opportunities to engage with the special features within and bounding the site i.e. scheduled monument. The Panel considered the landscape features of the site in conjunction with the wider landscape context of the site to provide a strong driver in providing a scheme that is landscape led; wherever you are in the development you are reminded that you are in a rural landscape.

As proposed, the main issues to be addressed are to undertake detailed analysis work to demonstrate an in‐depth understanding of the site and context including topographical survey, identification of key views, movement patterns etc.; utilising the site analysis to drive the scheme; provision of a detailed landscape strategy for the scheme ensuring the landscape is at the fore of the design process; strengthening the street hierarchy with streets that relate to the

Page 57 topography and designed in conjunction with the landscape and positively responding to the scheduled monument with both physical and visual connections to the heritage asset.

Other issues include future proofing the scheme in case the Foxlow Farm site were to come forward; undertaking an integrated approach for the Local Centre proposals, provision of a site specific material palette and studying of local precedents”.

HPBC Design Detailed comments Discussed within the Review Panel are provided below. main body of the report – Layout and Design. 04.10.18

Comments are as follows in respect of revisions received:

• Plots 356 – 369, • Bungalows at the emergency entrance from Harpur Hill Road, and, • Plots 14 and 15 adjacent to the footpath to Clifton Drive.

1. Plots 356 to 369 – In order to try and have a view of the roofs from the SAM and not just the boundary walls/fence the developers have amended the house style here to be 3 storeys at the front and 2 at the rear. At the very outset Officers established that 3-storeys would not be appropriate for the site. In addition, Officers have been consistently concerned about the house style here and the missed opportunity to provide a more rural/cottage style development that bleeds into the landscape and mitigates the impact on the setting of the SAM. The proposed 3-storey units would not address these concerns and would not accord with or address DCC Archaeology comments submitted in the July, extract …

the built form of the proposed development magnifies a sense of crowding from modern development in views outward from the monument and its environs. Second, the spread of the development onto the lower slopes of Fox Low interferes with an appreciation of the topographic form of the hill itself in views to the hilltop and towards the monument. Each of these effects harms the significance of the monument by eroding the sense of prominence and dominance afforded by its hilltop location.

Fairly high density housing is proposed right to the edge of development, with no significant green space buffer or blending of the development into the open countryside beyond. The street layout appears generic in form and does not noticeably address the topography or help to channel key views towards the hillslope.

Taking my points above and DCC Archaeology’s, it is not considered

Page 58 that 3-storeys would be appropriate for the site. However, this would be 6 houses out of a scheme for 395 units and is a very small percentage. It is for the case officer to consider these revisions and make a balanced judgement.

2. Previously, the use of bungalows at the emergency entrance was considered to be the wrong approach. Outside of the main entrance to the site, this would be a key approach from Harpur Hill Road. Development framing the entrance should accord with the rest of the site and be two storeys. Sections I and J have been submitted which shows both options for bungalows and two storey houses here. I consider that the two storey house is a better design response however, I do have strong reservations concerning the significant amount of fill and build up here to the land levels and the impact that either bungalows or houses would have especially from views from Harpur Hill Road (see screen shot below). The interface and relationship between existing and new development will be visible from here and will be overbearing and domineering.

Plots 14 and 15 adjacent to the footpath to Clifton Drive – The gradients here have been modified a little and they are better than the previous sections but the reduction in build up is minor and again this is another area where the impact of the proposed development against the backdrop of existing dwellings is readily visible and will have an overbearing effect on existing units.

I am not convinced that any of the proposed modifications have addressed our concerns as expressed to the applicant’s previously. I understand there are issues around the gradients on the site and the designers have probably gone as far as they can in addressing these.

Without a reduction in numbers of units in these problem areas I am not sure how we can move forward. It is for the case officer to consider these in the overall context of the scheme and make a balanced judgement.

06.02.18

“1. Connections – The site’s access and egress is from Ashbourne Road. In addition, there is a proposed emergency access onto Harpur Hill Road and pedestrian access onto Clifton Drive. There is, however, limited opportunity to link into the adjacent estate owing to site constraints. Fox low Cairn (Scheduled Ancient Monument) lies to the south and there is a missed opportunity to provide pedestrian linkages to this feature (a potential footpath from the application site was previously shown). There are good connections throughout the site by the creation of strong pedestrian linkages and squares from north to south. There is a change in surface material, which assumes pedestrian priority and these routes are relatively well overlooked.

Page 59 2. Facilities and Services – These matters were assessed at the outline stage and were found to be acceptable. Sufficient land has been reserved for the local centre, which is expected to form a later phase of development.

3. Public Transport – as above. A Travel Plan monitoring contribution sum of £5,000 per annum for 5 years was secured as part of the outline consent. The approved Framework Travel Plan document aims to maximise the potential for sustainable trips via public transport improvements. The application site has significant potential to take advantage of cycling infrastructure in relation to both existing and planned routes (being in close proximity to the Monsal Trail, proposed White Peak Loop and National Cycle Network along Harpur Hill Road).

4. Meeting Local Housing Needs – are discussed in the relevant section above.

5. Character – The scheme’s layout has been revised to respond more positively to the context and character of the application site. To assist the scheme’s identity, however, the following elements need to be reconsidered:

a) House types/design and density: walling materials must be a suitable artificial stone in a grey pallet to be reflective of the limestone area; roofs should be a good slim artificial slate; all heads, cills and jambs should be a good artificial gritstone (smooth finish). In these regards, scheme criticisms relate to: chimneys are featured on only 16 units, which is disproportionate considering the total number of units on the site; inappropriate use of the porch canopies on some house types, which should be removed for the more simple style of units; there are several house types e.g. 764 and 891 where the ground floor windows appear too squat; it is not clear if lintels are being provided on first floor windows as the soffit covers this; colour choices for windows and doors should be muted tones rather than a light colour; the larger house type should be used sparingly throughout the site rather than the predominant house type. Specific areas of concern relate to plots 276 to 270, 370 to 366 and 354 to 263 and relates to an area located adjacent to the open countryside where a more rural character style should be employed. b) Street Scenes - Plot 21 house type has a strong vertical emphasis and appears awkward against adjacent plots and should be exchange for similar house type at plot 10 or 11; plots 35 and 39 house types with frontage gables also appear awkward alongside adjacent development; plots 47 and 48 need to address the street frontage; the height of plot 60 house type appears too high in relation to corner plot (61); plot 103 appears too close to existing beech trees; plot 114 should be re-orientated to better address the

Page 60 street scene; the dominant gable at Plot 361 is compounded by levels and competes in height with Plot 360 and plots 363 and 370 have prominent close boarded fencing.

c) Boundary Treatments - There appears to be 4 types of boundary treatments: 300mm wall, 600mm wall, 1800mm wall and an 1800mm fence as shown on drawing D171. These are acceptable, however, the walls must not be constructed as ‘snecked’ and these details should be amended to coursing, coping stones and pointing. It is imperative that the scheme incorporates limestone walls within the street scenes to add to the distinctiveness and identity of the scheme. 600mm and 300mm walls have been added throughout the scheme but are limited to junctions and the pedestrian links. A 300mm or 600mm boundary is considered to be too low and should be 900mm instead. If there is a visibility splays issue then a higher wall should be employed but relocated to allow visibility. The stone wall could be used more widely at street frontages (with or without landscaping) and therefore the more extensive use of stone walls at frontages should be explored. The materials for the walls must be conditioned. The boundary provision between the edge of the development and countryside/monument is not shown but should be a dry stone wall to match the existing at the front of the site. In several instances there are situations with a stone wall at the back of the footpath and then another wall or close boarded fence behind defining private garden e.g. plots 270 and 271. There are no requirements for two boundary treatments and these should be omitted from the scheme. There are also instances where the stone boundary wall appears to finish at an arbitrary point without any physical reference to a ground reference.

d) Landscaping proposals – refer to detailed comments below.

6. Site and Context – Primarily the site slopes from east to west with Foxlow Farm occupying the highest point. From here on, the land slopes down again to meet Harpur Hill Road. Whilst a few streets follow the contours of the land others do not (as referred to by OPUN in their initial assessment). The proposed scheme assumes the retention of Foxlow Farm and the scheme has been amended to achieve a better relationship and interface between the two elements. The extensive and mature tree cover to the west of the farm has been retained, which is positive. The provision of public open space and looser density of plots 371 to 379 allows for views to the open countryside and the Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) setting.

7. Streets and spaces – The site has been laid out to create relatively strong perimeter blocks. Houses are generally orientated to address the street, using dual frontages at corner plots. There are, however, some areas where the corner plot appears weak in terms of either house type or parking provision. As an example, the gateway entrance plot appears weak in scale in comparison to adjacent properties. As well,

Page 61 the parking provision at plot 143 is extensive and dominant as the road bends at this point. There is a degree of road hierarchy to the scheme although this is not particularly evident on the layout plan. The entrance plot has been increased in size and scale and is dual frontage.

8. Legibility – Both the farm complex and the SAM offer good orientation points and legibility anchors when moving through the site. The pedestrian links across the site and change in surface materials would also assist in orientating the user. Although, it is not clear whether the scheme has created distinctive character areas.

9. Streets for all – Footpaths are provided on both sides of all streets within the development. The pedestrian linkages across the site also offer safe and overlooked access, with some larger areas that have the potential to be used more sociably. Generally, all the streets are overlooked and offer good surveillance opportunities.

10. Car parking – The submitted scheme has an improved parking layout than that initially proposed. Officers have continually expressed concern about the dominance of parking provision along the street and at/near corner plots. Whilst improved, the parking at plot 143 still dominates and sits awkwardly within the street scene.

11. Public and Private Spaces – There is the potential for the delineation between these two areas to become quite unclear and further clarification is required on their treatment, particularly the pedestrian links/squares throughout the site and at key junctions. Officers have requested detailed drawings to assess surface materials and delineation of these areas.

12. External storage and amenity space – Generally, bin storage is located at the rear/sides of plots”.

7. POLICY, MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PLANNING BALANCE

Planning Policy

7.1 The determination of a planning application should be made pursuant to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is to be read in conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

7.2 Section 38(6) requires the Local Planning Authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material considerations which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the Adopted Local planning authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the

Page 62 Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations". The Development Plan currently consists of the Adopted High Peak Local Plan April 2016.

7.3 The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was issued on the 24th July 2018 following the scheme deferral at the 16th July 2018 Development Control Committee meeting. The Framework is considered to be a mandatory material consideration in decision making. The applicable contents of the revised Framework will be referenced within the relevant sections of the officer report as detailed below.

7.4 Once again achieving sustainable development sits at the heart of the Framework as referred to within paragraphs 10 and 11. As before, achieving sustainable development requires the consideration of three overarching and mutually dependant objectives being: economic, social and environmental where they are to be applied to local circumstances of character, need and opportunity as follows:

a) an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure;

b) a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of the present and future generations; and by fostering a well designed and safe built environment, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well being; and,

c) an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making the effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.

7.5 Paragraph 11 of the Framework requires decision makers to apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision makers this means approving development proposals that accord with an up-to- date development plan without delay.

7.6 Section 5 of the Framework relates to delivering a sufficient supply of homes. Paragraph 59 identifies that to support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are

Page 63 addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.

7.7 Adopted LP (Local Plan) Policy S1a establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development as contained within the Framework.

Principle of Development

7.8 Planning permission is sought for the reserved matters submission comprising of a single phase of residential development for a total of 395 dwellings. It is pursuant to the earlier outline consent ref. HPK/2013/0603 dated 4th November 2014, which established the principle of development for a mixed use scheme comprising of: up to 375 dwellings; up to 70 residential and / or retirement facility; local centre containing A1-A4 uses and business / community use; public open space, including NEAP (Neighbourhood Equipped Play Area), MUGA (Multi-use Games Area) and allotments.

7.9 In detail, the outline consent established the principle of development and site access matters. In terms of highway considerations, it secured the proposed main site access arrangements off the Ashbourne Road, as well as the other access points as shown on the illustrative masterplan as per Condition 04 of the outline planning consent. In these regards, the highways access was found to be acceptable in terms of the proposed access points and its impact on the wider local highway network, subject to achieving offsite junction improvements as were secured.

7.10 Other strategic matters were assessed in relation to impacts of: landscape, including the Peak District National Park; heritage in relation to Fox Low Bowl Barrow Scheduled Ancient Monument; below ground archaeology; drainage / local flood risk; water quality in relation to both water extraction and discharge to the River Wye; ecology; trees; road pollution; contamination; the provision of a local centre including specified use classes; affordable housing and infrastructure provision. These matters were found to be acceptable for the quantum of development as proposed, subject to the planning conditions / obligations as secured by the outline consent. As well, there was an inherent expectation of the delivery of a landscape-led and high quality scheme at the reserved matters stage in relation to matters of layout, design and landscaping.

7.11 The approved local centre would be the subject of a future reserved matters submission(s). It is shown as a 1.42 ha rectangular area of frontage land to the southeast of the approved access point and is broadly indicative of the illustrative masterplan submitted at the outline stage. This is considered to be adequate for the future delivery of the local centre as specified in the outline planning permission.

Page 64 7.12 The applicant has offered an off-site sports financial contribution of £50,000 towards the development, maintenance and / or refurbishment of the Cote Heath Skate Park. This would be instead of the agreed delivery of the onsite MUGA. The applicant also seeks the retention of the title of the NEAP to be transferred to a Management Company along with the Public Open Space and Allotments. This would be instead of the agreed transfer of the NEAP title and the payment of a commuted sum to the Council. There are no in principle objections to this approach subject to a deed of variation to the original s106 planning agreement before any reserved matters planning permission could be granted should Members determine to approve the scheme.

Proposed Scheme

7.13 Planning permission is sought for the reserved matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale pursuant to a single residential phase of development totalling 395 dwelling units overall. The site plan shows a total of 395 dwellings through the provision of 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom properties.

7.14 LP (Local Plan) Policy S7 ‘Buxton Sub-area Strategy’ seeks to establish Buxton as England’s leading spa town and consolidate its role as the principal service centre for the Peak District. An important aspect of this aim includes the provision of housing needs for the community. The application site forms part of the wider site allocation LP Policy DS20 ‘Land off Ashbourne Road and Foxlow Farm, Buxton’. It contains an indicative housing allocation of 440 dwellings as per LP Policy H2 and is reflective of the approved outline scheme. Policy H2 considers the site to be deliverable in the early to medium term i.e. 2016 to 2026. In these regards, the scheme proposes the delivery of a single phase of development totalling 395 units, however, is subject to compliance with the other policies of the Adopted Local Plan, particularly in relation to heritage harm and any material planning considerations.

7.15 LP Policy DS20 provides the development framework for the reserved matters submission in the context of the outline planning permission. Matters of relevance include: the preparation of a comprehensive landscape masterplan, to include new planting and retention of existing planting; new open space; consideration of the setting of the National Park; mitigating of any impact on the SAM (scheduled ancient monument), the safeguarding of up to 1.9ha from development along the frontage to Ashbourne Road and a design which is reflective of the limestone peak landscape character SPD (Supplementary Planning Document).

7.16 LP Policy H3 ‘New Housing Development’ requires new residential development to provide a range of market and affordable housing types and sizes that can reasonably meet the requirements and future needs of a wide range of household types. The policy discusses that the mix should contribute positively to the promotion of a sustainable and

Page 65 inclusive community taking into account the characteristics of the existing housing stock in the surrounding locality and is reflective of paragraph 59 of the Framework in these regards.

7.17 The proposals include 30% of the total number of houses for affordable purposes in line with LP Policy H4 ‘Affordable Housing’ and this matter will be discussed in further detail below.

7.18 The Strategic Housing Market Assessment and Housing Needs Report dated April 2014 (SMHA) has examined the potential scale of future housing need and demand in High Peak based upon a range of housing, economic and demographic factors, trends and forecasts to inform the split required between housing type and size over the plan period. The intention is towards a re-balancing of the existing housing stock away from small terraces properties and three bedroom accommodation towards two bedroom dwellings and good quality accommodation designed specifically for the growing elderly population.

7.19 The table below provide a comparison of the data from the SMHA report and 2011 Cote Heath Ward Census data, with the proposed scheme housing types per bed spaces as follows:

Property Size SMHA Cote Heath Foxlow Farm Ward Census Scheme Data 1-bed 10% 8% 0 units (0%) 2-bed 45% 25% 130 units (33%) 3-bed 35% 53% 194 units (49%) 4-bed+ 10% 14% 71 units (18%) TOTAL 395 units (100%)

7.20 When comparing the existing stock as identified in the Cote Heath ward with the recommended levels from the SMHA, it would be expected that there would be a reasonable proportion of 1-bedroom properties, a higher proportion of 2-bedroom properties and a lower proportion of 3-bedroom properties than is proposed in the overall scheme as is demonstrated above. Clearly, the proposed scheme housing type (per bed space) would have no material impact to the makeup of the Cote Heath ward housing stock and fails to ‘rebalance’ the differences as advocated by the SMHA report framed by LP Policy H3 above to provide a suitable range of housing types for the area.

7.21 The large-scale major residential scheme totalling 395 units is broadly split between two-storey semi-detached and detached dwellings as is demonstrated in the table below:

Property Types SMHA Foxlow Farm Scheme Semi-detached 30% 206 units (52%) Detached 25% 172 units (44%)

Page 66 Terraced 15% 13 units (3%) Flat / maisonette 10% 0 units (0%) Bungalow / specialist 20% 4 units (1%) elderly accommodation. TOTAL 395 units (100%)

7.22 In this particular case, the proposal scheme broadly provides for a variety of two-storey semi-detached and detached housing types, which on balance are reflective of the housing types within the immediate area. This, however, is with exception to the latest scheme October revisions for the inclusion of two-storey and three-storey split level and single storey dwellings, which would result in some heritage / visual harm as is discussed in further detail below.

7.23 Evidently, the scheme fails to provide for a reasonable proportion of flats / maisonette and specialist / elderly type accommodation that can reasonably meet the requirements and future needs of a wide range of household types. This situation is exacerbated by the scheme’s failure to provide for a range of housing types to meet modern day housing space standards and which score poorly against the ‘Lifetimes Home Standards’ containing key design criteria to make homes more easily adaptable for lifetime use at a minimal cost.

7.24 As Members will be aware, such matters resulting in an unsuitable housing scheme formed Reason for Refusal no. 1 as contained in the deferred 16th July 2018 committee report. This aspect of the scheme had been challenged by the applicant in the form of a legal opinion from Counsel as was stated in this earlier deferred report. In summary, it stated that there would be no reasonable basis for the Council to legitimately require the market provision to comply with housing mix and space standards at the reserved matters stage. In response, the Council sought its own legal advice, which agreed that such matters should be determined at the outline stage secured through the use of appropriate conditions and / or legal agreement. Notwithstanding the above scheme concerns, the outline consent does not offer a mechanism to secure the tenure and space standards in respect of market dwelling provision. In these circumstances, the Council cannot control these aspects of the scheme at the reserved matters stage and therefore reason for refusal no.1 falls away.

Affordable Housing Provision

7.25 As is discussed above, a s106 planning obligation has been formed with the Council securing the phased provision of 30% Affordable Housing for occupation by eligible households comprising 30% of the total number of dwellings to be developed on the site. This is in a combination of 60% Affordable Rented Housing units and 40% Low Cost Home Ownership units. The s106 requires the agreement of the ‘Affordable Housing Scheme’ with the Council. This includes the exact numbers, type and tenure of the affordable units to be

Page 67 provided, the location of the affordable units and its phasing in relation to the occupancy of the commercial dwellings.

7.26 The affordable provision ‘house types’ are detailed in the table below and are indicated on the site layout plan:

House Capacity Size HQI Affordable Affordable % Type sqm Sqm Rented Shared 651 2b3p 60.5 57.0 32 20 44% 740 2b4p 68.7 67.0 20 16 30% 891 3b5p 82.8 82.0 6 1 6% 953 3b5p 88.5 82.0 14 10 20% TOTAL 72 47 100%

7.27 In respect of property type and occupancy, double bedrooms allow for greater occupancy and therefore are considered to be more flexible to the needs of growing / future households. The ‘Home Options Choice Based Lettings’ indicates that 491 family households with dependent children require accommodation. Of these, 225 (45.8%) have a single child, 155 (31.6%) have 2 children, 72 (14.7%) have 3 children, 31 (6.3%) have 4 children and 9 (1.8%) have 5 or more children. On this basis, 77.4% of households could be accommodated in a 2b4p unit as opposed to only 45.8% in a 2b3p unit. In these circumstances, the scheme provision of 32, 2b3p affordable units would restrict choice based lettings. Whilst 22.8% of households require the provision of a 3b5p dwelling or larger and the scheme provision of 31, 3b5p units is considered to be acceptable in these respects.

7.28 All 119 affordable housing units are considered to meet with the former HCA HQI space standards as per the requirements of the s106 agreement. The affordable housing is tenure blind in respect of house types 651, 740 and 953 (although numbers are limited in respect of market provision) and the units are suitably pepper potted throughout the scheme. Notwithstanding officer concerns regarding the provision of 2b3p affordable rented units, the affordable housing scheme is broadly acceptable as far as the reserved matters application is concerned.

7.29 Notwithstanding the issues raised in respect of the type and size of housing units as highlighted above, which in any case falls outside of the scope of the reserved matters scheme, it is clear that the confirmed need for additional housing to boost housing delivery remains a matter of significant weight in support of the application proposal for a total of 395 dwellings. The proposed contribution of 30% affordable housing would deliver a significant number of affordable units within the district. Although this proportion would be no greater than that required by LP policy, its delivery would nevertheless add support for the application scheme proposal. A total housing delivery of 395 units represents a significant public benefit in the social strand of sustainable development. As well, there would be related benefits to the local economy and community.

Page 68

Layout, Scale, Landscaping and Appearance Matters

7.30 LP Policy S1 ‘Sustainable Development Principles’ “expects that all new development makes a positive contribution towards the sustainability of communities and to protecting, and where possible enhancing, the environment; and mitigating the process of climate change, within the Plan Area”.

7.31 In further detail, LP Policy EQ6 ‘Design and Place Making’ states: “All development should be well designed and of a high quality that responds positively to both its environment and the challenge of climate change, whilst also contributing to local distinctiveness and sense of place. This will be achieved by:

• Requiring development to be well designed to respect the character, identity and context of High Peak's townscapes and landscapes • Requiring that development on the edge of settlement is of high quality design that protects, enhances and / or restores landscape character, particularly in relation to the setting and character of the Peak District National Park. • Requiring that development contributes positively to an area's character, history and identity in terms of scale, height, density, layout, appearance, materials, and the relationship to adjacent buildings and landscape feature. • Requiring that development achieves a satisfactory relationship to adjacent development and does not cause unacceptable effects by reason of visual intrusion, overlooking, shadowing, overbearing effect, noise, light pollution or other adverse impacts on local character and amenity. • Requiring that public and private spaces are well-designed, safe, attractive, complement the built form and provide for the retention of significant landscape features such as mature trees. • Requiring that developments are easy to move through and around, incorporating well integrated car parking, pedestrian routes and, where appropriate, cycle routes and facilities. • Requiring that developments are designed to minimise opportunities for anti-social or criminal behaviour and promote safe living environments • Requiring the inclusive design of development, including buildings and the surrounding spaces, to ensure development can be accessed and used by everyone, including disabled people. • Requiring new homes in residential developments meet environmental performance standards in accordance with Local Plan Policy EQ1 ‘Climate Change; • Ensuring that development takes account of national design guidance and Supplementary”.

Page 69

7.32 The adopted Residential Design SPD 2005 and the Highpeak Design Guide SPD 2018 provides more indepth guidance on the approach to new residential development and the factors which contribute towards locally distinctiveness design.

7.33 These LP policies are reflective of guidance contained within the Chapter 12 ‘Achieving well-designed places” of the Framework. Paragraph 130 states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it fucntions, taking into account any local design standards or style guides in plans or supplementary planning documents.

7.34 In view of the site’s peripheral location adjoining open countryside, LP Policy EQ2 ‘Landscape Character’ requires development to be informed by and be sympathetic to the distinctive landscape White Peak character as identified in the High Peak Landscape Character SPD. As well, LP Policy EQ9 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerow’ sets out that the Council will protect existing trees, woodlands and hedgerows.

7.35 At the outline planning application stage, it was acknowledged that the development of a greenfield site with few detracting features would have a substantial adverse effect on the character of the area, which would be completely changed as a result of built development. It was accepted, however, that an appropriately designed residential scheme, utilising key characteristics from the surrounding landscape could be made to appear acceptable in both townscape, heritage and landscape character terms. As with all developments of this type, the appropriate detail and its overall effect on landscape character would be dependant on design quality relating to matters of: layout, scale, materials and building styles and importantly the scheme’s relationship with the surrounding countryside and ‘Foxlow Bowl Barrow’ SAM (Scheduled Ancient Monument) setting.

7.36 A broad description of the scheme proposal has been provided at the beginning of the report, including latest scheme revisions and the scheme consitutents will be referred to where relevant below.

7.37 In respect of the pre-application OPUN Design (Architecture and Design Centre for the East Midlands) assessment undertaken by the applicant, the Panel considered that the existing landscaping features within the site provided for both a strong green character and sense of identity. The incorporation of these key aspects of the site was considered by OPUN to be critical in creating a landscape-led and successful development scheme. Accessible green routes / fingers leading to and connecting the landscape were recommended to aid both site legibility / identity and in visually connecting the application site with the SAM setting and open countryside beyond. It was considered that they could also form part of the informal open space onsite provision.

Page 70 Other OPUN commentary referred to maximising opportunities for rural / informal play to strengthen the rural character of the site, utlising the existing landscape to soften the newly created built edge of the scheme and creating a strong green gateway into the site from the Ashbourne Road frontage.

7.38 The latest scheme revisions now show the retention of the two farmsteads and their curtilage in accordance with the red edge location plan of the outline planning permission. All other farm related buildings are to be demolished other than the proposed retention of the two traditional barn structures sited adjacent to the two retained farmsteads. The applicant has agreed to a scheme of repair and maintenance to the two barns to be retained and any future building operations or change of use would be subject to planning control. Boundary treatment to these buildings which adjoin the POS (Public Open Space) is found to be acceptable subject to its retention. Matters relating to a scheme of repair / maintenance, demolition of other farm buildings and retention of boundary treatment to the retained farm buildings / dwellings would be secured by means of suitably worded planning conditions. The form and function of the structural public open space bleeding out to the adjoining open countryside is now acceptable for this large scale residential scheme and assists in retaining a rural character to this aspect of the site.

7.39 As before, no objections are raised to the siting of the NEAP (Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play) including matters of neighbour amenity, which is sited to the south and east of the retained farm buildings (as detailed on the landscaping reserved matters submission). The scheme follows a strategy of rural play to better assimilate with the countryside edge. The detailed play equipment scheme would be agreed via the s106 agreement as attached to the outline consent.

7.40 In respect of the reserved matters landscaping submission details, Members will note the comments of the Council’s Aboricultural Officer above requesting further scheme amendments. In the round, however, the landscaping submission is broadly acceptable subject to agreeing those highlighted revisions. These include, amongst other matters, securing an appropriate boundary treatment for those dwelling garden terraces to the sensitive countryside edge to the site’s south / southeast boundary. As well as the removal of garden plot terraces for nos. 64 and 65, which adjoin the woodland copse to the north east corner of the site which should be retained as managed space. A scheme of repair, maintenance and retention of the drystone walling will also be required, which can be secured by means of a suitably worded planning condition. Should Members be minded to approve the scheme, Officer delegated authority is sought to finalise these aspects of the scheme with the applicant before the grant of planning permission.

7.41 The scheme proposals have been previously criticised on matters of unknown existing and proposed site level information to allow officers

Page 71 to assess whether the scheme layout and scale responds well to site topography in relation to matters of landscape, heritage, character / appearance and neighbour amenity harm. A more comprehensive package of levels information has been recently submitted, which allows for an appropriate assessment to be undertaken. It is acknowledged that resultant site levels have been dictated somewhat by road gradients, building regulation standards and the quantum of development sought. The long sections through the site indicate that the scheme largely works with the existing topography. This is excepting the site edges where a degree of cut and fill is proposed to accommodate scheme development as is discussed below.

7.42 Site section information (I to U) serve to illustrate the scheme’s relationship with those rear facing properties at Clifton Drive, Dorset Close, Hastings Road and Hapur Hill Road. Sections P (Plot 18), Q (24), R (plot 28), S (plot 35), T (plot 44) and U (plot 56) show that the scheme largely works with existing contours with some modest infilling (not exceeding 2.0 metres) occuring in places to accommodate the proposed dwellings and rear gardens. Sections N (plot 13) O (plot 15 adjacent to access to Clifton Drive) and J (plot 1), K (plot 4) and L (plot 7) show a greater degree of fill to a maximum of 4.5 metres. The impact results in some scheme dwellings appearing on an engineered plateau when viewed from the rear of neighbouring properties at Harpur Hill Road and to a lesser degree Clifton Drive.

7.43 Regarding neighbour amenity matters, the revised scheme involving some plot adjustment would comply with the Council’s relevant amenity guidance, particularly in respect of ensuring that appropriate privacy and amenity distances can be achieved. Officer comments regarding the detailed On Plot Engineering Drawings showing the levels relationship between proposed scheme dwellings will be provided on the Update Sheet prior to the meeting.

7.44 In terms of other layout matters, OPUN, at the pre-application stage, suggested varying the density of the scheme throughout the site, which was considered to be too urban and uniform in nature. In these regards, a higher density of housing development was recommended towards the existing properties on Harpur Hill Road and a lower density of development ‘feathering / bleeding out’ towards the open countryside edge. Positively, the scale of development is mostly limited to two- storeys. Scheme revisions have not addressed the general uniformity and urban nature of the scheme and the larger ‘executive’ dwellings remain located within the more sensitive southeast ‘countryside’ edge of the application site. Latest revisions have introduced a 3-storey ‘frontage’ split-level dwelling to plots 364 to 369 within the southeastern corner of the site in an attempt to reduce the degree of cut to this countryside edge / SAM setting. This is illustrated by site sections C, D and E, which shows a cut operation of up to 5.0 metres within this aspect of the site. The use of this house type whilst limited in plot numbers would nevertheless serve to further excacerbate the urban

Page 72 character of this part of the site. In these regards, the scheme would better suit a split-level two-storey frontage dwelling or ideally be free of development. However, they will only be apparent from within the site where they will be viewed in the context of a suburban housing estate. and, due to the steep topography, a two-storey unit would not serve to “frame” the SAM in views from the monument itself into the site. Nevertheless, these 6 plots are a weaker aspect of the design and will be returned to in the planning balance below. Sections G (plot 375) and H (plot 383), however, show a better relationship with the countryside edge / SAM setting by limiting the degree of cut to a maximum of 2.0 metres. Matters relating to heritage harm will be discussed in the relevant section below.

7.45 The applicant further proposes a single-storey frontage split-level dwelling to plots 1 and 2 to the rear of Ferney Crest, Peakview and Greenside, Harpur Hill Road and a single-storey bungalow type dwelling to plots 392, 393, 394 and 395 fronting the emergency access from Harpur Hill Road. The Council’s DRP (Design Review Panel) has objected to the use of bungalows instead of two-storey development at the emergency entrance and gateway into the site from Harpur Hill Road, which has been the design response from the applicant to safeguard levels of neighbour amenity. DRP further state that they have strong reservations concerning the significant amount of fill and build up proposed for this area of the site to accommodate any built development, which would be prominently viewed from Harpur Hill Road as illustrated by section J (Plot 1). The interface and relationship between existing and new development would be overbearing, domineering and highly visible from Harpur Hill Road and they consider that such plots should be removed from the scheme. This aspect of the scheme is unfortunate in terms of design and will be returned to in the planning balance below.

7.46 Positively, the scheme based on perimeter block arrangements consisting of outward facing dwellings would assist in designing out crime. In these regards, Derbyshire Police is generally supportive of the overall scheme. Some concerns, however, are raised in respect of the narrow southeast to northwest mews link running through the centre of the site owing to the route’s close relationship with private dwelling space and related anti-social behaviour opportunities. In these circumstances, the closure of the narrow links and retention of the mews as private cul-de-sacs to improve territoriality is recommended. Officers, however, consider that the ‘mews link’ would help to strengthen street hierarchy through key nodal points whilst responding to site contours and channelling key views as per OPUN recommendations. Strengthened frontage boundary plot treatments would assist in creating a clear delineation between public and private space within these mews link to make this aspect of the scheme more acceptable regarding the above concerns raised. Points raised in respect of the pedestrian link to Clifton Drive are considered within the highways section below.

Page 73 7.47 On matters of appearance in relation to facing materials, the OPUN panel further recognised the impact of the development on longer range views with a need for the development scheme to be sensitive to its site context, which requires a material palette to be muted in tone and in particular employ a sensitive material for the dwelling roofs. The use of reconstituted stone as presented in sample form and the avoidance of render to the walls is acceptable. A revised materials plan proposes an artificial slate tile to key street scenes with a concrete grey roofing tile to the remaining dwelling and on balance is considered to be acceptable.

Foxlow Bowl Barrow

7.48 The designated heritage asset SAM (Scheduled Ancient Monument) Fox Low Bowl Barrow (SAM no. 1008921) is a sub-circular cairn situated in the western upland ridges of the limestone plateau of Derbyshire. It is located on rising land within the applicant's ownership due south of the development area. Layout impacts in respect of structural landscaping and associated SAM impacts have in part been discussed in the relevant section above.

7.49 At the outline planning application stage, the Council determined that the proposed ‘less than substantial’ harm to the significance of the SAM through its setting were justified in terms of the public benefits of the scheme as required by the Framework. Nonetheless, the thrust of the Framework is that ‘sustainable development’ seeks to conserve and enhance the significance and heritage assets. It is therefore necessary to consider at this reserved matters stage whether the proposed development seeks to conserve the SAMs significance and minimise any harmful impacts associated with the development. LP Policy EQ7 further seeks to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance and echoes the advice of the Framework in these respects.

7.50 DCC Archaeology acknowledge that there is little direct intervisibility between the SAM itself and the application site, however, that the experience of the monument is tied up with the experience and perception of the hilltop as a whole. In these circumstances, the impact of the development from Fox Low as a whole should be considered, rather than a restriction to the limits of the SAM area itself in respect of the views from and towards the monument / hilltop. DCC have advised that the proposed layout constitutes impacts to the setting of the monument in two ways: (1) the built form of the proposed development magnifies a sense of crowding from modern development in views outward from the monument and its environs and (2) the spread of the development onto the lower slopes of Fox Low interferes with an appreciation of the topographic form of the hill itself in views to the hilltop and towards the monument. As a result, each of these ‘effects’ would harm the significance of the monument by eroding the sense of prominence and dominance afforded by its hilltop location.

Page 74 7.51 To conserve the SAMs significance and minimise any harmful impacts associated with the development, the applicant has been advised to increase the buffer of green / open space between the built form of the development and the SAM itself as well as omitting some of the proposed housing higher up the slope to lessen the ‘crowding’ effect of development and also accentuate the extent to which the topographic form of the hill can still be appreciated in views towards it. The applicant has also been requested to consider: pushing the edge of development further downslope to enable the topographic form of Foxlow to be appreciated from the surrounding area and a road / street layout which is more sympathetic with site topography whereby key views are channelled towards the hilltop. Similarly, OPUN recommended achieving a contextually appropriate, low density residential use bleeding out into the landscape. Importantly, with the SAM appearing as a focal point and well integrated as part of the open space network for the scheme to provide opportunities for the public to engage and be aware of the significance of the SAM.

7.52 DCC Archaeology consider that the proposed layout does not seem to address any of these points as a result of fairly high density housing proposed right to the edge of the development, with no significant green space buffer or blending of the development into the open countryside beyond. As well, it is discussed that the street layout appears generic in form and does not noticeably address the topography or help to channel key views towards the hillslope. Further concern is raised in respect of changes of level and the use of boarded fencing, which would further harden the edge of development in a way which jars against the historic landscape where drystone boundary treatments would be expected to produce a dominant rather than desired recessive effect.

7.53 DCC Archaeology’s updated comments conclude that the layout currently proposed shows no evidence of having engaged with these issues raised. In these circumstances, it is stated that it may be considered to harm the setting of the Scheduled Monument. It is therefore necessary for the Council to consider whether this is outweighed by the public benefits of the housing development. This aspect of the scheme constitutes less than substantial harm in heritage terms as per the Framework and will be returned to in the planning balance below.

Ecology

7.54 LP policy EQ5 ‘Biodiversity’ outlines that the biodiversity and geological resources of the Plan Area and its surroundings will be conserved and where possible enhanced by ensuring that development proposals will not result in significant harm to biodiversity or geodiversity interests, which is relevant in respect of both layout and landscaping reserved matters. In these regards, Derbyshire Wildlife Trust comments are fully detailed within the consultation section above and appear to

Page 75 have been mostly resolved subject to minor matters to be clarified for the scheme to accord with Policy E5 and the relevant sections of the Framework. Members will be provided with any revised comments within the update sheet prior to the meeting.

Below Ground Archaeology

7.55 In relation to below-ground archaeological remains, the outline permission HPK/2013/0603 is subject to an archaeological condition (18) requiring a post-consent scheme of work to take place. The archaeological interest relates in particular to the putative alignment of the Roman road known as ‘The Street’ running through the site and to the potential for prehistoric archaeology in the immediate setting of the scheduled barrow.

7.56 Following the submission of the archaeological evaluation report and further results, DCC advise that there is consequently a further requirement for archaeological work along the line of the ‘Roman road’ feature, to establish secure chronology and sequence for the features along its length. This should be carried out before the commencement of work on either the access road or the housing development on the site, in accordance with an additional WSI to be approved in writing by the Council as per Condition 18 of the outline consent. DCC have also confirmed that no further work is required on the remainder of the site.

Highway Considerations

7.57 Matters of sustainable patterns of transport concerning site location and the means of site access were established and approved at the outline stage. The outline consent secured a single point of vehicular access into the site from the Ashbourne Road (A515) with an emergency access via the existing reservoir access route to the south and to the southeast of the site off the Harpur Hill Road as acceptable subject to further detail to be agreed at the road construction design stage. The s106 legal agreement (highways) as attached to the outline consent secured a financial sum for undertaking off-site highway improvement works at the junction of High Street, London Road, Dale Road, West Road and Green Lane, Buxton.

7.58 The revised drawings now appear to address the issues previously raised by DCC Highways, in terms of visibility splays at junctions and around bends. An adoption agreement is currently being discussed with the developer for the new estate streets and the general arrangement appears to be acceptable in these respects. DCC Highways consider that the layout maintains well connected streets suitable for a residential environment with no real barrier to pedestrian and cycle movements. A shared emergency access / pedestrian / cycle access is provided to Burlow Road and the site also has access to Ashbourne Road (A515). The scheme further provides a suitable connection point to the emergency access from the Ashbourne Road, which is required by the

Page 76 outline consent. Off-street parking levels are deemed to be acceptable in respect of Local Plan parking standards. A formal diversion Order would be required to legally alter the line and level of the public right of way and this would need to be in place prior to any works affecting it take place. Updated comments are awaited on the latest scheme revisions and Members will be updated at the meeting.

7.59 Although the proposed pedestrian connection to Clifton Drive is noted to be at an appreciable gradient, the provision of this link would significantly aid site permeability / movement to the site’s northwest constrained boundary. A planning condition would secure suitable lighting to deter anti-social behaviour activities to overcome neighbour amenity and Police concerns raised in these respects.

7.60 From a highway safety perspective, the proposals are generally acceptable to accord with relevant local and national planning policy.

Amenity

7.61 LP policy EQ10 ‘Pollution Control and Unstable Land’ is relevant in respect of any adverse impacts of road noise in relation to the proximity of the Ashbourne Road (A515) to the scheme’s frontage dwellings. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer had previously raised concerns in respect of detrimental noise impacts to those dwellings fronting the Ashbourne Road, particularly in respect of excessive levels of noise, which would be experienced in associated rear gardens. Revisions to the scheme have tightened up the Ashbourne Road built frontage development through a closer positioning of dwellings to mitigate against traffic noise to affected rear gardens. The associated 3.0m high ‘acoustic’ fencing is mostly screened by existing tree cover in respect of the woodland copse as well as the built form of the proposed dwellings. Whilst the displaced frontage car parking is to a degree screened by proposed hedgerow planting. The subsequent tightening up of the built layout to the Ashbourne Road frontage in conjunction with the acoustic fence would result in an overall acceptable scheme to accord with relevant local plan and national planning policy.

8. PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSIONS

8.1 The principle of the development at the application site has been accepted by the granting of the outline planning permission in November 2014 and has been established by the relevant Local Plan site allocation DS20. The overall number of houses proposed by the scheme falls within the scope of development as approved by the outline consent, including associated public open space, play space and allotment provision. Appropriate land provision has been made available for the local centre, which would be subject to a future reserved matters application.

Page 77 8.2 Members will note that whilst there are reservations concerning housing mix per bed space and internal space standards, these cannot be legitimately secured at the reserved matters stage. However, the grain and scale of the development broadly reflects surrounding housing stock.

8.3 It is clear that the confirmed need for additional housing to boost housing delivery remains a matter of significant weight in support of the application proposal for a total of 395 dwellings. The proposed contribution of 30% affordable housing would deliver a significant number of affordable units. Although this proportion would be no greater than that required by LP policy, the provision would add further weight in support of the application proposal. A total housing delivery of 395 units represents a significant public benefit, on the basis of delivery alone. As well, there would be related benefits to the local economy and community associated with the benefits of housing delivery.

8.4 Despite the alterations to existing grounds levels across the site, there would be no adverse impact on the residential amenities to existing neighbouring residents in respect of the final scheme. There are no adverse impacts in terms of onsite underground archaeology, ecology / biodiversity and highway safety matters.

8.5 Set against this, the layout and design of some parts of the scheme fails to respect the countryside edge / SAM setting and Harpur Hill site gateway. As a result these areas would not deliver a high quality development which responds positively to its environment and contribute towards local distinctiveness. In terms of heritage harm, the Framework requires the public benefits of the scheme to be weighed against any resultant harm, which in this case would be less than substantial. The Council is mindful that the scheme broadly accords with the outline approval in terms of quantum of development and this is a matter of significant material weight in the planning judgment.

8.6 With this in mind, and noting the significant benefits of the scheme in terms of housing delivery, the application, whilst it is considered to be a finely balanced matter in respect of layout and design, nevertheless represents sustainable development under the terms of the Adopted Local Plan and Framework.

8.7 It therefore benefits from the presumption in favour of development and accordingly is recommended for approval.

9. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. That reserved matters, including layout, scale, landscaping and appearance be approved subject to a Deed of Variation to omit the onsite MUGA in favour of an offsite contribution of £50,000 towards Cote Heath Skate Park and conditions as follows:

Page 78

1. Approved plans. 2. Facing Materials. 3. Removal of permitted development (selected plots). 4. Boundary treatment retention, including to farm buildings. 5. Scheme of Repair, Maintenance and retention of stone walls. 6. Scheme of Repair, Maintenance of Traditional Barns 7. Demolition of all other farm buildings. 8. All landscaping works in accordance with the approved details. 9. Landscaping phasing. 10. Details of earth works. 11. Tree retention in accordance with the submitted plans 12. Highway conditions.

B. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/ informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager - Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

Page 79 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date 4th February 2019

Application HPK/2018/0315 No: Location Land off Trenchard Drive, Buxton Proposal Full planning application for the erection of 153 dwellings with associated access, public open space, and landscaping Applicant Persimmon Homes Agent Persimmon Homes Parish/ward Buxton Date registered 15%/07/2018 If you have a question about this report please contact: Ben Haywood; email: [email protected] Tel: 01298 38400 Ext: 4924

REFERRAL

The application is referred to committee as it is a major development.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to S106 & conditions

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The application site extends to approximately 5.24 hectares (12.94 acres) and comprises a large previously developed site formerly the University of Derbyshire Harpur Hill Campus, which closed in 2009. All university buildings within the application site have since been demolished and the site is currently vacant.

2.2 The application site lies north of Burlow Road and north of Trenchard Drive in Harpur Hill, approximately 3km south east of the centre of Buxton. The surrounding area is predominantly residential with established residential development being located on three sides.

2.3 The main former campus site is generally flat with some slight north to south undulation towards Burlow Road, and comprises a mixture of modified neutral grassland, mixed woodland, scattered trees, hardstanding and small buildings associated with its previous use. The site bounds Burlow Road to the south, its boundary being defined by established dry stone walls with grassed verges and mature trees. The northern boundary of the application site is bound by Trenchard Drive; the site boundary being demarcated by semi natural woodland comprising hawthorn hedgerows; a University of Derbyshire sports facility and associated car parking forms the remainder of the site’s northern boundary with existing housing being located to the north west.

Page 81 2.4 The site bounds the existing residential streets of Trenchard Drive and Kirkstone Road to the west. The eastern and south eastern site boundaries comprises mature mixed woodland of predominantly horse chestnut, silver birch, elder and hazel with dense scrub to the southernmost corner of the site.

2.5 Land beyond the site’s eastern boundary has a pending Reserved Matters application for 275 dwellings (Ref: HPK/2017/0613); the principle of development of which has previously been accepted by way of its existing outline consent. Once this scheme is built, the application site will be bound on all sides by residential development.

2.6 The land to the north of Trenchard Drive slopes southwards towards Trenchard Drive and is bound by existing homes to the east and west. The southern boundary is defined by Trenchard Drive. The northern boundary comprises agricultural style fencing with open fields beyond. A number of trees are located along its southern and eastern boundary.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 This is a full planning application for the erection of 153 dwellings with associated access, public open space and landscaping. The 153 dwellings proposed will consist of a combination of 2 and 2.5 storey mews, semi-detached and detached properties; the mix is as follows:

• 81 no. 2 bed houses; • 65 no. 3 bed houses; • 7 no. 4 bed houses

It is proposed that 16% of the total homes provided on site (24 homes) will be affordable. These affordable homes will be provided as Starter Homes.

3.2 Existing green infrastructure will be retained where possible throughout the site, including retention of woodland and mature trees to the east and south eastern boundaries; and will be managed so as to secure long term amenity and biodiversity value.

3.3 Public open space comprises a network of formal and informal areas of green infrastructure and will include a 400m2 Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP), located to the east of the site to support accessibility to both new and existing residents. Additional new tree planting will be incorporated throughout the scheme to soften the development and anchor it into its surrounds.

3.4 The site will predominantly be accessed via Burlow Road to the south of the site, via a redesigned access arrangement. A limited number of plots to the east and north of the site will be served off Trenchard Drive, accessed via existing residential streets to the west of the site. The development proposes a series of pedestrian and cycle links to support integration with the surrounding residential neighbourhood and to aid permeability.

Page 82 4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The site’s planning history largely relates to its previous use as a College Campus. A planning application was submitted by Barratt Homes (Manchester) in January 2007 seeking consent for 232 new houses and apartments with associated roads and open space. (HPK/2007/0058 refers) However the application was withdrawn in July 2010.

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

High Peak Local Plan 2016

Policy S1 Sustainable Development Principles Policy S1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy S2 Settlement Hierarchy Policy S3 Strategic Housing Development Policy S5 Glossopdale Sub-area Strategy Policy EQ1 Climate Change Policy EQ2 Landscape Character Policy EQ5 Biodiversity Policy EQ6 Design and Place Making Policy EQ7 Built and Historic Environment Policy EQ9 Trees, Woodlands and hedgerows Policy EQ10 Pollution Control and Unstable Land Policy EQ11 Flood Risk Management Policy H1 Location of Housing Development Policy H3 New Housing Allocations Policy H4 Affordable Housing Policy CF3 Local Infrastructure Provision Policy CF4 Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities Policy CF5 Provision and Retention of Local Community Facilities Policy CF6 Accessibility and Transport Policy CF7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy

Supplementary Planning Guidance

• Residential Design • Landscape Character • Housing Needs Survey • Planning Obligations

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012

Achieving Sustainable Development Section 4 Promoting sustainable transport Section 6 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Section 7 Requiring good design Section 8 Promoting healthy communities

Page 83 Section 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 11 Conservation and enhancing the Natural environment Section 12 Conserving and enhancing the Historic Environment

6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

End of Consultation Period

Site Notice 27/08/2018 Press Advert 16/08/2018 Neighbours 16/08/2018

Third Party Representations

12 Objections

• Granting permission to build 155 dwellings rather than 105 would be out of line with the Local Plan. • The local schools, doctors, dentists & shops will struggle to cope with the extra demand. • The proposed dwellings will be out of character • The application proposes to remove two trees with preservation orders on them. • There will be a loss of privacy and light for the existing properties surrounding the site. • The proposed dwellings on the hill section of Trenchard Drive will significantly increase the risk of accidents during the winter months as this section is very steep with a sharp blind bend and not much wider than two cars. • The traffic from the proposed development will increase the congestion and likelihood of accidents as they are narrow, have cars parked on them and HGVs from the nearby industrial estate use them. • There will be an increase of off road parking on Trenchard Drive. • The construction of the proposed dwellings will cause disturbance to the existing residents. • The surrounding roads are not suitable and inadequate for the size of this development • Poor positioning and size of the proposed children’s play area. • Only one third of the proposed dwellings are family size houses. • The loss of mature trees will have an detrimental effect on local wildlife. • There seems to have been little consideration given to the effects of the population increases in Harpur Hill and the opportunity three developments provide if co-ordinated. • Too high a housing density in comparison to that on streets around the various parts of the campus. • If this application and the others are approved there will be increase of 430 dwellings in the area. There will be no real increase in funding either from Council tax or from Westminster to enable HPBC or DCC to pay for extra infrastructure.

Page 84 2 comments of Support

• The area is in need of new housing and more affordable homes • The proposal is in a nice calm and quiet area.

DCC Flood Risk

• It is noted from permeability testing reported in Phase II Geo-Environmental Site Assessment, Land off Harpur Hill, Buxton, SK17 9HY, E3P (July 2015) that it is likely that infiltration will be a suitable discharge for this site. As stated in Burlow Road, Buxton, Drainage Statement, ELLUC Projects (14/11/18), the applicant plans to undertake further infiltration testing to BRE365 at detailed design stage. If infiltration is demonstrated to be feasible, the drainage strategy for the site will incorporate SuDS and infiltration. If it proves not to be suitable, the discharge destination will be an existing surface water sewer at a rate of 6 l/s. • Recommended Conditions: o Submission, approval and implementation of detailed design and associated management and maintenance plan of the surface water drainage for the site o detailed assessment to be provided, to demonstrate that the proposed destination for surface water accords with the drainage hierarchy as set out in paragraph 80 of the planning practice guidance o Submission, approval and implementation of details indicating how additional surface water run-off from the site will be avoided during the construction phase

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust

Intial Comments

• An Ecological Appraisal has been produced by Urban Green, based on an extended Phase 1 habitat survey in April 2018 and subsequent nocturnal bat surveys in May 2018. No roosting bats were recorded during the surveys. Habitats on site are suitable for foraging bats, nesting birds and hedgehogs. Evidence of badger activity was confirmed on site with a suspected outlier sett identified. Additional confirmed badger setts are present in the local area, outwith the site boundary. The Trust have also received correspondence from local residents concerned about a loss of habitat for urban wildlife and anecdotal accounts of foraging bats, hedgehogs and nesting birds. We advise that sufficient information has been provided to determine the application. • We are pleased to see the retention of much of the boundary trees/woodland but note that proposals will result in the loss of some trees from the interior of the site. It is essential that the loss of existing trees is compensated for by replacement tree planting. The Trust welcome the proposed tree-lined roads and the retention of a large number of boundary trees. Given the exposed conditions in this area, it is important that appropriate tree species for the area are utilised and we anticipate that further advice will be given with regards to this by the Tree Officer. Species

Page 85 should be chosen for their robustness and affinity with limestone soils. It is advised that the species list is revised. • Existing hedgerows on site and in the local area comprise hawthorn and beech and we advise that these species should be utilised on site rather than laurel, which we consider inappropriate to the local landscape and of less benefit to wildlife. It is advised that the species list is revised • Open space should include areas of taller grassland around the peripheries and around tree/shrub groups to provide habitat for hedgehogs and invertebrates. We advise that an appropriate wildflower seed is used in areas of public open space. • The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2018 requires developments to provide a net biodiversity gain and it is advised that this could be achieved through the inclusion of meaningful habitat provision for wildlife. • Given the presence of an outlier badger sett on site, safeguarding measures will be required as part of site clearance and construction, and sensitive landscaping will be essential in this area. This can be outlined in a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). • In addition to the above points, we advise that the following conditions are attached to any approval: o Submission approval and implementation of scheme of lighting o Submission approval and implementation of scheme of Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) o Submission approval and implementation of Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy

Updated Comments

• We have reviewed the revised Landscape Layout and whether this has addressed our previous comments (15/08/18): • There is no information on the tree species proposed and therefore our previous comments on tree species still remains valid. • The Landscape Layout states “Portuguese laurel/hawthorn” hedgerows. We maintain that laurel is out of keeping and advise that all hedgerows comprise hawthorn or beech. • Areas of open space are now shown as “Grassland within POS to be reseeded”. However this does not specify with native wildflower seed mix and does not indicate taller margins at peripheries. • Our other comments would be addressed through the implementation of planning conditions.

Environment Agency

• No objection subject to conditions: • The ‘Phase II Geo-environmental Site Assessment’ (ref 10-560-r2, dated July 2015) submitted in support of this planning application provides us with confidence that it will be possible to suitably manage the risk posed to controlled waters by this development. Further detailed information will however be required before built development is undertaken (as explained

Page 86 above). It is our opinion that it would place an unreasonable burden on the developer to ask for more detailed information prior to the granting of planning permission but respect that this is a decision for the Local Planning Authority. • In light of the above, the proposed development will only be acceptable if a planning condition is included requiring the submission of a remediation strategy, carried out by a competent person in line with paragraph 121 of the National Planning Policy Framework. • Without these conditions we would object to the proposal in line with paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework because it cannot be guaranteed that the development will not be put at unacceptable risk from, or be adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution. • Recommended Conditions: o No development approved by this planning permission shall commence until a remediation strategy to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site o If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until a remediation strategy detailing how this contamination will be dealt with has been submitted o Infiltration systems should only be used where it can be demonstrated that they will not pose a risk to groundwater quality. A scheme for surface water disposal needs to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

HPBC Tree Officer

Original Comments

1. There is some inconsistencies between the landscape layout and the Arboricultural Report with regards to which trees are to be retained. Could we please ask that the applicant confirms which document is correct.

2. This is a full application including landscaping. The indicative landscaping appears Ok in principal although I am not sure that they have achieved the 2:1 replacement required by Local Plan Policy EQ9. When we have the full detail this can be assessed properly. A full landscaping scheme will need to be conditioned to be submitted prior to commencement of development.

3. A Landscape and ecological management plan will be required which sets out how the open space areas will be sustainably managed. This should include the management of tree groups G29 to G40

4. There will be tree loss to accommodate the proposals. As set out above we would expect there to be a 2:1 replacement accommodated for in the landscape proposals.

5. I have a couple of areas of concern. There are only 2 protected trees on site and both area identified to be removed in the Arboricultural Report to

Page 87 accommodate plots 62 -63. I would like to see the layout amended to accommodate these trees.

6. There is a significant group of trees (G74) adjacent to Trenchard Avenue which are partial retained where the road turns a corner. This group comprises semi mature trees and contains some trees with good retention potential, i.e. they good established specimens that would be create an mature landscape feature. The majority of the group is shown to be removed in the Arboricultural report , but the occasional tree is shown to be retained in the landscape proposals. I consider that there may be opportunities to retain some of the established trees in this group in the front gardens of the proposed properties. I accept however it may be difficult at this stage to accurately indicate which trees are to be retained given that the survey does not identify individual trees . but I would favour an approach with the developer that a final decision is made whether additional trees can retained on site probably once the plots are laid out.

7. Any consent will ned to require that an Arboricultural method statement is provided. I note that details have been provide in the Arboricultural Report but given that there are inconsistencies with regards to which trees are to be retained to be resolved the tree protection proposals cannot be agreed at this stage.

Updated Comments

This numbering relates to previous comments 1. The landscape and Arboricultural plans appear to be consistent 2. Comments still as above I haven’t seen a schedule of planting the species mix as well as the amount of tree replacement planting will be important 3. I haven’t seen a Landscape and ecological management plan 4. I still don’t have the detail to assess this 5. One of the 2 TPO trees is shown to be retained but it has not been given adequate space to ensure its sustainable retention I consider plot 62-63 need to be removed and to give this mature trees adequate space 6. The arboricultural consultant has confirmed in their report that we can liaise over the potential retention of some additional tree on Trenchard Avenue when the site is laid out. 7. We will require a method statement, including a tree protection plan and provision for arboricultural supervision as a condition of approval

DCC Highways

• The submitted details propose a development of 155no dwellings mainly served by new estate streets emanating from a new junction with Burlow Road. A limited number of proposed dwellings would be served by private driveways directly from Trenchard Drive.

• The Transportation Assessment indicates that Outline Planning permission was granted in 2007 for development of 232no. dwellings on the site although the Planning History states that the application concerned was withdrawn prior

Page 88 to determination, this confirmed by details available on your own Authority's website. Reference is also made to the proposed Burlow Road junction layout being identical to that approved in 2014 although this Authority has no record of any such Consent. Therefore, it would be useful if a copy of approval and any linked access layout arrangements can be forwarded as the Highway Authority has no evidence of any extant Consented details.

• The Transportation Assessment predicts that satisfactory levels of capacity will be available at the new junction with Burlow Road and no further capacity assessments have been carried out away from the site, the latter as previously agreed. The agreement was made with knowledge of the findings of Transportation Assessments undertaken in association with other development sites within close proximity of the application site which identified the need for mitigation measures on the existing highway network without making any allowance for traffic generated by the Former College site. As a consequence, it was stated that the current development proposals would be expected to make a similar proportional financial contribution towards any requisite highway mitigation. Whilst reference is made to assessment made at the time of the previous application for a larger scale development predicting no off-site capacity issues, it's unclear what other development was committed and taken into account at the time.

• As you are aware, both High Peak Borough and the County Council jointly commissioned a Transport Study to support the emerging, now adopted, High Peak Local Plan. The Transport Study included consideration of the cumulative impacts of a number of developments upon the A515 High Street A515 London Rd/ B5059 Dale Road/ B5059 West Road/ Green Lane junction with a scheme of mitigation works identified by the Highway Authority to ease traffic movements, particularly wider vehicles, through the junction including the closure of the Green Lane entry. However, there would be wider traffic impact resulting from the closure of Green Lane although, with a package of traffic management measures, it's considered that this can be adequately mitigated. As residential development is supported in the Local Plan and was considered by the Transport Study, in turn found sound by the Local Plan's Inspector, it's suggested that development of this site should also to be proportionally contributing to any requisite mitigation of off-site impacts on the local highway network i.e. anywhere on the A515 between Buxton Market Place and Sterndale Moor as well as Grinlow Road between (and including) its junctions with Burlow Road and the A53.

• Notwithstanding the above, the new junction will need to be laid out in accordance with current design criteria and, based on recorded 85%ile traffic speeds, provided with exit visibility sightlines of 2.4m x 52m in each direction. Whilst no drawing printed to scale has been provided to this office, the taper lengths currently demonstrated appear to be short. Therefore, detailed designs for the junction layout will need to be submitted, including demonstration that the requisite visibility sightlines can be provided in both the horizontal and vertical plane.

Page 89 • The internal site layout beyond the proposed junction with Burlow Road, should comply with the new Delivering Street and Places design guide - this has recently replaced the 6C's design guide. The new document contains a number of modifications to estate street design and construction, to reflect modern guidance. Whilst the majority of the layout does not raise any significant issues there are nevertheless some amendments that will need to be addressed before the layout will be acceptable in highway safety terms and would be eligible for adoption by the Highway Authority, if this was pursued at a future date. These can be summarised as follows: -

o A 25m forward visibility splay around all bends in the highway alignment need to be demonstrated on a plan, the area in advance of the sightline forming part of the street and not part of any adjoining plot. This is likely to affect the property on plot 13.

o 2.4m x 25m visibility splays should also be available at internal estate street junctions, again the area in advance of the sightline forming part of the street and not part of any adjoining plot. This should be demonstrated at all internal estate street junctions.

o Swept path analysis has been provided within the Transportation Assessment, based on an 11.2m long refuse vehicle. In accordance with Manual for Streets, this Authority requires suitability of the proposed layout to be demonstrated for use by a Large Refuse Vehicle of 11.6m length and allow for at least 300mm 'relief' between the proposed kerb-line and wheel-track of the vehicle. The currently submitted swept paths would appear to require precise manoeuvring to avoid over-run and the extent of over-hang of the narrow footway on the opposite side of Burlow Road to the proposed junction is of concern.

o Carriageway widening on the inside of small radius bends will also be required, to allow vehicles to pass each other. This is likely to affect the proposed highway layout in the vicinity of plot 13.

o The cul-de-sacs off the main streets should have a minimum carriageway width of 5m (new DSP document) and be provided with 2m wide surfaced footways where there is pedestrian demand from frontage properties (where the street has no developed frontage the 2m surfaced forward may be replaced with a 2m verge - providing pedestrian connectivity is not compromised). Some cul-de-sacs are shown circa 4.5 wide - serving plots 20- 39, 64-76, 90-102, 104-130. At this dimension the street may not be eligible for adoption and it is also unsure how it would function as a street for all users. Some of the cul- de-sacs appear to be provided with grassed margin, in lieu of footways i.e. providing only a narrow carriageway for the shared surface street which would not be acceptable.

o All dwellings should be located within the recommended maximum man carry distance of 25m of a turning facility demonstrated as being

Page 90 suitable for use by a typical supermarket delivery vehicle e.g. private driveways serving plots 36- 39, 96-99, 117-121, 142-145 and 150-155. Provision of turning will reduce the likelihood of overlong/ awkward reversing manoeuvres being required where more vulnerable pedestrian users may be present.

o Based on a 20mph design speed, which would on balance be a reasonable expectation for drivers to achieve throughout most of the development, a 25m visibility sightline should also be available from private and shared driveway access points. Particular attention should be paid to accesses in the vicinity of bends, where alternative access arrangements or handing of properties may be required to achieve satisfactory visibility sightlines. Further consideration should therefore be given to access points associated with plots 11, 12, 49-52 and 150- 155.

o A continuous footway should be provided on Trenchard Drive, fronting plots 49 - 53 with a suitable crossing point at its termination to the opposite side of the existing road.

o Access to driveways and vehicle manoeuvring associated with plots 49-52 is likely to be awkward given the dimensions and layout of the shared private drive and parking space approach angles. Consideration should be given to increasing width and/ or geometry of the shared drive layout.

o The site is challenging in terms of levels therefore long section information, showing the gradients along the proposed streets, should be provided to support the proposals.

o Off-street parking spaces should be of 2.4m x 5.5m minimum dimension (2.4m x 6.5m where located in front of garage doors) with an additional 0.5m of width to any side adjacent to a physical barrier e.g. wall, hedge, fence, etc. Garages should achieve minimum internal dimensions to ensure they can accommodate vehicles and count towards on-plot parking for the property. A single garage should have absolute minimum dimensions of 3m x 6m long and a double garage 6m x 6m. It's trusted that you will ensure that an adequate level of off- street parking is provided for each residential unit as any under- provision will be likely to result in vehicles being parked on-street thereby causing obstruction to carriageways/ turning facilities/ footways, situations considered against the best interests of safety for highway users.

• Specific comments with regard to the Travel Plan are appended to this letter. It's recommended that monitoring fees of £1,000 pa are secured for a period of 5 years i.e. £5,000 total.

• Therefore, it's recommended that the applicant is given opportunity to submit revised/ further details to satisfactorily address the above issues. However, if

Page 91 you are minded to determine the application as submitted, the Highway Authority will be grateful to receive further opportunity to make recommendations

HPBC Economic Development

• The proposal is for full planning permission for development for of 155 units of residential accommodation.

• Residential development will impact on the local economy in terms of jobs and purchasing of supplies and services. In order to assess the economic impact of this development, we have relied upon the data supplied by the applicant and used the Council’s approved multipliers to prepare these comments.

• The proposal for development of 155 dwellings off Trenchard Drive, Buxyton, will provide the following outputs:

o The new householders occupying each new house will spend some of their income locally through shopping and use of local services. National research has identified that 34% of all household expenditure is spent at district level or below. For this development of 155 units this is calculated at £1,426,378 per year.

o Each new house will generate direct jobs within the construction industry or associated supply chain, of which 25% are likely to be locally based. Indirect Jobs are also generated by local spend in shops and services. This is calculated at an additional local job for every seven new homes. Using these multipliers the development will generate 165 direct jobs and 22 indirect jobs.

o The development will also generate approximately £30,376.90 council tax for the Council per annum

Police Designing Out Crime Officer

• Thanks for the additional and amended plans. • Most previous comments have been addressed in respect of house type, treatment and boundaries. • There was no plan PHNW-F-01 attached for the added communal gates. • If you are satisfied that the spec’ will meet the needs of residents in respect of practical access and security that’s fine. • Plots 134-136 have not had this provision added. • None of the plots which now have shared access gates have an individual garden gate (all others with only individual access now have one) so would meet with a solid fence on their own boundary? • A practical point which could be added later but I thought I’d mention whilst on the subject. • Regarding the positioning of the garage for plot 155, tree constraints are noted.

Page 92 • Probably one for your discretion if you’re happy with the general layout in this part of the site.

County Planning Officer

Education

• The NPPF clearly sets out that the purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development. With regard to education, paragraph 94 of the NPPF (2018) reiterates this: ‘It is important 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 collaborative approach to meeting this requirement and to development that will widen choice in education They should: a) give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools through the preparation of plans and decisions on applications; and b) work with schools promoters, delivery partners and statutory bodies to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted’

• Whilst education provision is a statutory function of the County Council, and the Government provides funding to address natural demographic growth, it does not provide monies to accommodate additional pupils generated as a result of new housing development as a matter of course. • The County Council has a statutory duty to make education provision available for each young person and elects where possible to provide a school place for each child at their normal area school(s). The number of places at the normal area school is assessed through a system provided by the Department of Education which produces a net capacity. The number on roll at a school reflects the number of pupils attending the school, and the difference between the net capacity and the number on roll is the number of places available or not available to accommodate future requests for places. • Pupil numbers are calculated looking at the five year projection of numbers on roll based on birth rates (this projection does NOT include the impact of any new housing with planning permission or allocated in local plans) and then add the pupil yield from approved planning applications in the normal area of the school. The requirement for financial contributions towards education provision is therefore based on the net capacity and current number on roll as well as projected pupil numbers over the next five years. • The level of contribution required is fair and reasonable in scale and kind and is determined using multipliers provided by the Department for Education based on their analysis of building costs per pupil adjusted to reflect regional variations in costs. These multipliers are revised annually in line with building cost inflation using the Building Cost Information Service All in Tender Price Index. The thresholds and level of contribution required is set out below.

Page 93 Per 100 Cost Cost per Cost per Cost dwellin per pupil 1 10 per gs place dwellin dwellings 100 Primary school 20 places £16,187.64 £3,237.53 £32,375.27 £323,752.70d lli Secondar 15 places £24,391.73 £3,658.76 £36,587.60 £365,875.95 y school Post-16 6 places £26,453.32 £1,587.20 £15,871.99 £158,719.92 educatio

Primary Level

• The proposed development falls within and directly relates to the normal area of Harpur Hill Primary School. The proposed development of 155 dwellings would generate the need to provide for an additional 31 primary pupils. • Harpur Hill Primary School has a net capacity for 351 pupils, with 330 pupils currently on roll. The number of pupils on roll is projected to decrease during the next five years to 276. • An evaluation of recently approved residential developments of 11 or above units or over 1,000 square metres of floorspace within the normal area of Harpur Hill Primary School shows new development totalling 275 dwellings, which would generate an additional 55 primary pupils. • Analysis of the current and future projected number of pupils on roll, together with the impact of approved planning applications shows that the normal area primary school would have sufficient capacity to accommodate 20 of the 31 primary pupils arising from the proposed development.

Secondary Level

• The proposed development falls within and directly relates to the normal area of Buxton Community School. The proposed development of 155 dwellings would generate the need to provide for an additional 23 secondary and 9 post16 pupils. • Buxton Community School has a net capacity for 1,331 pupils with 995 pupils currently on roll. The number of pupils on roll is projected to increase to 1,012 during the next five years. • An evaluation of recently approved residential developments of 11 or above units or over 1,000 square metres of floorspace within the normal area of Buxton Community School shows new development totalling 303 dwellings, which would result in demand for an additional 45 secondary and 18 post16 pupils. • Analysis of the current and future projected number of pupils on roll, together with the impact of approved planning applications shows that the normal area secondary school would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the 23 secondary and 9 post 16 pupils arising from the proposed development.

Mitigation

Page 94 • The above analysis indicates that there would be a need to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on school places in order to make the development acceptable in planning terms as the normal area primary school would not have sufficient capacity to accommodate all of the additional pupils generated by the proposed development. The County Council therefore requests financial contributions as follows: o £178,064.04 for the provision of 11 primary pupils at Harpur Hill Primary School towards Project C - Additional teaching and support accommodation • The necessary contributions required as indicated above will be used to help deliver the projects as identified. • Primary: I confirm that since April 2010 no obligations have been secured towards Project C at Harpur Hill Primary School and currently the County Council has made no further requests for contributions to pool towards Project C. • The above is based on current demographics which can change over time and therefore the County Council would wish to be consulted on any amendments to a planning application or further applications for this site. • Should it emerge that there are viability issues associated with the proposals in the above planning application and the Borough Council is in agreement with the applicant’s financial appraisal, there may be some flexibility in the payment triggers. The full contribution, however, would still be required to fully mitigate the impact that the proposed development would have on the normal area primary school and secondary schools. The County Council requests that its officers are also party to any further negotiations on developer contributions. • If there is insufficient capacity to accommodate the increase in pupils forecast to be generated by this proposed development and the development itself cannot enable the necessary provision, the County Council wishes to highlight that the proposed development may not provide for a sustainable form of development.

Broadband

• Currently access to the internet is mainly through the national telephone network infrastructure. Broadband service quality varies across Derbyshire and access to superfast broadband speeds in the County is limited. Improvement to broadband connectivity is identified as a key priority in the County Council’s Council Plan 2014 – 2017. The County Council aims to broaden Derbyshire’s economic base and improve economic performance and broadband plays an essential role. • The Digital Derbyshire programme is providing access to high speed broadband services for residential and business users. The roll-out applies to existing households and businesses. This is supported by Part R of the Building Regulations which took effect on 1st January 2017 which requires that new buildings and buildings subject to major renovation works accommodate the physical infrastructure required to connect to high speed electronic communication networks.

Page 95 • The County Council requests that an advisory note be attached to any planning permission that encourages the developer to make separate enquiries with broadband providers in order to ensure that future occupants have access to sustainable communications infrastructure, and that appropriate thought is given to the choice and availability of providers which can offer high speed data connections. Any new development should be served by a superfast broadband connection unless it can be demonstrated through consultation with the network providers that this would not be possible, practical or economically viable.

Waste

• The County Council is currently reviewing its approach to assessing the impact of housing development on waste services and is not currently requesting mitigation measures with regards to waste management.

Open Spaces

• Subsequent to initial comments about the original location of the on site play area, it is good to see that this has now been incorporated into the open space on the south-east side of the site. This will mean that the space will be centrally located between the two development sites (including HPK/2017/0613) serving both communities. What I would like to check is that there will be suitable access provided between the two developments to allow access for residents from the Heathfield Nook development onto the play area? • With regard to the on-site play area, this would need to be a LEAP. The design and layout should follow the LEAP guidance of 20m x 20m (400 square meters) with 20m minimum separation between activity zone and the habitable room façade of nearby dwellings. In view of the play equipment now being located within the open space and woodland area, I would suggest timber equipment would be more appropriate and in keeping with the area. • We would also be seeking an off-site outdoor sports contribution towards outdoor sports provision in the vicinity of the proposed development. The formula for calculating this off site contribution is £489.40 x number of properties.

Archaeology

• A heritage impact assessment (by ArcHeritage Ltd) has been submitted, including the results of archaeological desk-based assessment of the site. • This concludes that the bulk of the site has been occupied by the former campus buildings built during the later 20th century, and that demolition and remediation of the site has led to further truncation. There is consequently little or no potential for archaeological survival within the vast majority of the site. • A small area at the extreme north of the site (north of Trenchard Drive) appears to remain undisturbed and this retains some archaeological potential because of its proximity to the Scheduled Monument (the Bronze Age Fox

Page 96 Low bowl barrow) at c90m, and a second possible barrow site (Derbyshire HER 31103) at 70m. This small area should be archaeologically investigated in line with NPPF para 199, and this work should be secured by planning condition. • With regard to the setting of the scheduled Fox Low barrow, there is no intervisibility despite the proximity of the proposal site, and the development does not represent any net harm to significance given the existing housing development north of Trenchard Drive and east of the main bloc of the site. • The following conditions should therefore be attached to any planning consent: o Submission, approval and implementation of a Written Scheme of Investigation.

Environment Agency

• The ‘Phase II Geo-environmental Site Assessment’ (ref 10-560-r2, dated July 2015) submitted in support of this planning application provides us with confidence that it will be possible to suitably manage the risk posed to controlled waters by this development. Further detailed information will however be required before built development is undertaken (as explained above). It is our opinion that it would place an unreasonable burden on the developer to ask for more detailed information prior to the granting of planning permission but respect that this is a decision for the Local Planning Authority. • In light of the above, the proposed development will only be acceptable if a planning condition is included requiring the submission of a remediation strategy, carried out by a competent person in line with paragraph 121 of the National Planning Policy Framework. • Without these conditions we would object to the proposal in line with paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework because it cannot be guaranteed that the development will not be put at unacceptable risk from, or be adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution. • The Environment Agency have reviewed the ‘Phase II Geo-environmental Site Assessment’ (ref 10-560-r2, dated July 2015) which has been submitted in support of this application. Please note that these comments only relate to the protection of controlled waters in the vicinity of the site. • The site overlies the Bee Low Limestone which is part of the Carboniferous Limestone Group. It has been classified as a Principal aquifer. Furthermore, the site lies within an SPZ 1 associated with the Portobello abstraction 3.5km to the west of the site. The nearest groundwater abstraction is Staden, 1km to the north-east. The limestone is fractured and fissured meaning that pollution entering at the surface can travel long distances very rapidly. Groundwater at this location is therefore highly sensitive to pollution and must be protected. • The report mentions a desk study report, which has not been submitted as part of this planning application. We need to review this report to be satisfied that the conceptual site model is accurate. Limited contamination has been identified at the site which has been assessed as not posing a risk to controlled waters. Whilst we are satisfied with this conclusion parts of the site were not investigated due to access issues. This includes the district heating system in the northern part of the site, some sub-surface structures and the

Page 97 electricity sub-station. We would expect the stockpiles that are present on site to be tested for contamination prior to re-use. • Section 5.11 of the report states that delineation of impacted soils will be carried out, together with a ‘Remediation and Enabling Works Specification’. We would expect that these previously inaccessible areas of the site to be investigated further. • The application form suggests that surface water will be directed to mains drainage, but the ‘Phase II report’ mentions soakaway testing, indicating that SuDS might be used. If a SuDS is proposed we would draw the applicants attention to the following information. • The position statements detailed in ‘The Environment Agency’s approach to groundwater protection’ document (Feb 2018) outline when we will accept SuDS in an SPZ1. • The discharge of clean roof water to ground is acceptable both within and outside SPZ1, provided that all roof water down-pipes are sealed against pollutants entering the system from surface run-off, effluent disposal or other forms of discharge. The method of discharge must not create new pathways for pollutants to groundwater or mobilise contaminants already in the ground. No permit is required, if the above criteria can be met. • The Government’s expectation is that sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) will be provided in new developments wherever this is appropriate. The Environment Agency supports this expectation. • Where infiltration SuDS are to be used for surface run-off from roads, car parking and public or amenity areas, they should: o be suitably designed o meet Governments non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems – these standards should be used in conjunction with the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance, o use a SuDS management treatment train – that is, use drainage components in series to achieve a robust surface water management system that does not pose an unacceptable risk of pollution to groundwater, • Where infiltration SuDS are proposed for anything other than clean roof drainage (see G12) in a SPZ1, a hydrogeological risk assessment should be undertaken, to ensure that the system does not pose an unacceptable risk to the source of supply. • The design of infiltration SuDS schemes and of their treatment stages needs to be appropriate to the sensitivity of the location and subject to a relevant risk assessment, considering the types of pollutants likely to be discharged, design volumes and the dilution and attenuation properties of the aquifer. • Unless the supporting risk assessments show that SuDS schemes in SPZ1 will not pose an unacceptable risk to the drinking water abstraction, the Environment Agency will object to the use of infiltration SuDS under position statement G10. • The Agency has no objections, in principle, to the proposed development but recommends that if planning permission is granted the following planning conditions should be imposed: o Submission, approval and implementation of remediation strategy

Page 98 o If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site the LPA shall be notified and a remeiation scheme prepared, approved and implemented o Infiltration systems should only be used where it can be demonstrated that they will not pose a risk to groundwater quality. A scheme for surface water disposal needs to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Environmental Health

Acoustic report • Hepworth Acoustics ref: P18-254-R01v2, dated May 2018 • The acoustic report submitted in support of the application should not be accepted at this time. • The acoustic report should adopt acoustic design criterion of 50 dB LAeq (16 hours) for external amenity areas, utilising high quality design to protect amenity (NPPF para 127). Where this is not possible the criterion may be relaxed to 55dB, following consultation with the LPA. • The report assumes a reduced noise output from a/c condensing units (primary noise source) at the Leisure Centre, due to them only being operational 50% of the time. Measurements were undertaken during the month of May, with a recorded temperature of 15°C and a light wind. Summer temperatures regularly exceed 15°C for extended periods, and it seems prudent to assume that the a/c unit may be in continual operation for several hours at a time during these periods. • The arithmetic mean of measured background has been adopted in the report. A more conservative approach is necessary, by adopting the lowest measured LA90, 1hr (daytime). This reasonably established the worst likely case, for determining likely impact upon future residents. • The report should be resubmitted. Condition 2 is recommended.

Contamination • The submitted phase 2 contaminated land report has not been assessed at this time as the phase 1 study has not been submitted. As the site is suspected to be contaminated due to previous use, and the proposed end use of the development is particularly sensitive to the presence of land contamination, the following condition 1 is recommended.

Construction

• The construction stage of the development could lead to an increase of noise and dust experienced at sensitive premises and subsequent loss of amenity, for this reason conditions 3 to 7 are recommended.

Conclusion

Page 99 • The Environmental Health Department has no objection to the proposed development subject to the conditions set out below being applied to any permission granted. o Submission, Approval and Implementation of contaminated land report / mitigation o Submission, Approval and Implementation of Noise Insulation Scheme o There shall be no visible dust emissions beyond the site boundary o Any waste material associated with the demolition or construction shall not be burnt on site but shall be kept securely for removal to prevent escape into the environment. o There shall be no fires lit on the site for purpose of disposing of demolition materials. Any open fires that arise shall be extinguished without delay. o If piling is necessary a written method statement shall be submitted o Limit site working hours for noisy operations to • 07:30 - 18:00 hours (Monday to Friday); • 08:30 - 14:00 hours (Saturday) • No working is permitted on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

5. POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Planning policies

7.1 The determination of a planning application should be made pursuant to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is to be read in conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

7.2 Section 38(6) requires the Local Planning Authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material considerations which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the Adopted Local planning authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations". The Development Plan currently consists of the Adopted High Peak Local Plan April 2016.

7.3 The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was issued on the 24th July 2018. The Framework is considered to be a mandatory material consideration in decision making. The applicable contents of the revised Framework will be referenced within the relevant sections of the officer report as detailed below.

7.4 Once again achieving sustainable development sits at the heart of the Framework as referred to within paragraphs 10 and 11. As before, achieving sustainable development requires the consideration of three overarching and mutually dependant objectives being: economic, social and environmental where they are to be applied to local circumstances of character, need and opportunity as follows:

a) an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the

Page 100 right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure;

b) a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of the present and future generations; and by fostering a well designed and safe built environment, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well being; and,

c) an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making the effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.

7.5 Paragraph 11 of the Framework requires decision makers to apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision makers this means approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay.

7.6 Section 5 of the Framework relates to delivering a sufficient supply of homes. Paragraph 59 identifies that to support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.

7.7 Adopted LP (Local Plan) Policy S1a establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development as contained within the Framework.

Principle of development

7.8 The site comprises previously developed (brownfield) land and lies within the built up area of Buxton where there is a general presumption in favour of new development. The site is also allocated under Policy H2 of the adopted Local Plan for the development of 105 dwellings. Whilst the current application shows considerably more units in total than is indicated by policy H2, the allocation only relates to the eastern part of the site and is an indicative number based on developable areas and constraints known at the time of the Local Plan publication. This is not an upper limit figure. This application seeks full planning permission and all matters such as layout, landscaping, design fall to be considered as part of this application. However, provided that the detail of the scheme is found to conform to other relevant policies of the local plan the principle of development on the site, including the increase in density is considered to be acceptable.

Sustainability

7.9. Adopted Local Plan seeks to reduce the need to travel and widen transport choices. This Policy reflects the NPPF which encourages patterns of growth that

Page 101 make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling. A short distance to the south east along Burlow Road is a bus terminus with a half hourly bus service to Buxton up until 18.15 Monday to Saturday and an hourly on Sundays and bank holidays until 1740, which provides for the full range of local services and facilities.

7.10. In terms of proximity to local services and facilities, distances are as follows. Note that routes taken for the purposes are calculating these distances are dependent on the starting point within the site so may not be relied on to be strictly accurate but give indicative distances:

Bus Terminus 450m Farm Shop 345m Convenience store/Takeaway 720m Children’s Play Area 880m Public House (Parks Inn) 895m Harpur Hill Primary School 1720m Buxton Hospital (non emergency) 2255m Staden Lane Industrial Estate 1900m Harpur Hill Industrial Estate 1995m

7.11 A farm shop, convenience shop, takeaway, a public house and children’s play area are all within 1000m of both sites. Furthermore, in terms of employment opportunities, Staden Lane Industrial Estate and Harpur Hill Industrial Estate are around 2000m from both sites. As such whilst the sites are positioned on the edge of the existing urban area and would not have good accessibility to all local services and facilities, the site is served by reasonable public transport links during the daytime. . In terms of the local terrain, anyone walking to the local primary school, convenience shop/takeaway, local churches and public houses would be required to walk up the hill to these facilities. Whilst it is acknowledged that walking distances and the local terrain are not ideal this was taken into account when allocating the site. It is also noted that the Council has granted planning permission on the adjoining site on Burlow Road having found it to be a sustainable location for new residential development. Therefore, with these factors in mind, sustainability of location is not a decisive factor on its own which would prevent the grant of planning permission. Consequently it is considered that the development does not conflict with Policy TR1.

Design / Layout / Character & Appearance

7.12 The NPPF highlights that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, and is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Paragraph 58 requires development to function well and add to the overall quality of the area for the lifetime of the development. It should respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials whilst reinforcing local distinctiveness. Planning decisions should aim to ensure that developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping. Paragraph 64 of the Framework advises that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails

Page 102 to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and how it functions.

7.13 Local Plan Policies S1 and EQ6 seek to secure high quality design in all developments; developments should respond positively to the environment and contribute to local distinctiveness and sense of place by taking account of the distinct character, townscape and setting of the area.

7.14 The Residential Design Guidance SPD recognises the need to ensure new developments is accessible to everyone and it is important to create places which are welcoming and inclusive.

7.15 The proposed site layout comprises a single spine road into the site from Burlow Road, forming a “T” shape within the site, with a number of cul-de-sac’s being served from it. A large area of public open space including a play area is sited along the south eastern boundary adjacent to the previously approved Burlow Road site. A number of properties at the northern edge of the site adjacent to the Trenchard Drive boundary front on to that road and are served directly from it. This includes a number of plots on the north side, which provides a continuation of the existing development and an active frontage to Trenchard Drive which is a positive design feature.

7.16 Active frontages are maintained elsewhere throughout the development, including on to the open space. Double fronted and “corner turning” units have been provided on corner plots throughout the site. This provides for good natural surveillance of public areas. It is also noted that the Police Liaison Officer raised a number of minor concerns regarding the layout of the site and that these have now been adequately addressed through amended plans. It is therefore considered that the scheme has taken into account Policy requirements in respect of designing out crime. An active frontage is also provided to Burlow Road, with plots served by a private drive set back from the frontage behind the visibility space which provides the opportunity for an attractive landscaped entrance to the site whilst achieving highway safety requirements.

7.17 The site displays different character areas with more densely developed, terraced and semi-detached units being located within the centre of the site, and a looser form of development, characterised by larger detached properties fronting onto the open space. The density of development along Trenchard Drive itself reflects the existing urban grain of that estate. Overall, therefore the layout is considered to be acceptable.

7.18 The site slopes generally downward from north to south meaning that Burlow Road is at a significantly lower level than Trenchard Drive. Sectional details have been provided through the site. The submitted section does not show any retaining wall above 1.5 metres and no retaining structures above 1.5m will be required on the current layout. Nevertheless a condition requiring submission and approval of engineering drawing showing details of all retaining walls and on-plot engineer prior to commencement of development, with express reference within the condition that no retaining structure will exceed 1.5m is considered to be appropriate.

Page 103 7.19 In terms of boundary treatment, the plans show a 1.8 close boarded fencing, which would be predominantly in areas separating garden areas and therefore would provide sufficient privacy for future residents. Where garden boundaries front on to public areas, such as the side boundaries to private rear gardens a 1.8m stone wall wall is proposed which will provide a higher quality finish.

7.20 The surrounding development comprises a mix of architectural styles, ages, designs and materials ranging from traditional quarry workers cottages and more modern cul-de-sac development on the opposite site of Burlow Road, to mid- twentieth century, former RAF housing on Trenchard Drive and other roads within the same estate, much of which has been finished in render and concrete tile. The elevational detail of the scheme respects the simple traditional pitch-roofed form of the surrounding development but incorporates detailing which is more locally distinctive such as stone cils and lintels. The properties are predominantly 2 storeys with selected units incorporating some accommodation within the roof space, which manifests itself as rooflights. Dormers are proposed on the Kendal and Saunton 2 ½ storey units. However, these are on a limited number of plots and are not used where they adjoin existing properties. Small open porches, lean-to roofs and gables add detail and interest to the front elevations of some units.

7.21 Details of materials have been provided. The developer is proposing the use of Edenstone Buff Darlstone artificial stone and Russell Grampian concrete roof tiles in slate grey on all units. Windows would be White uPVC garage doors, front doors and rainwater goods would be black uPVC. This pallet is considered to be generally acceptable, given the context of the mid-twentieth century estate alongside, with the exception of the Grampian Concrete tile. It is considered that a Russell Moray concrete plain tile in slate grey would be more appropriate. However, this can be secured by condition. 7.22 Overall, the development is therefore considered to comply with Local Plan Policies S1 and EQ6 along with guidance contained within the Councils Residential Design SPD and Paragraph 17 and the Design Chapter of the Framework all of which seek to ensure that the overall design, scale, density, massing, landscaping and use of materials are sympathetic to the character of the area.

Amenity

7.23 The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance requires minimum separation distances of 21m to be achieved between principal windows. This will be achieved between both existing and proposed dwellings and between the proposed dwellings themselves. Separation distances of c.13m will be achieved between gable elevations and neighbouring principal windows which will be sufficient to ensure a suitable level of light. Minimum garden sizes of between c.44m2 for the smallest terraced units to over 100m2 for the largest detached units will be provided which is considered to be commensurate with the size of the dwellings themselves and similar properties in the vicinity. However, it is considered to be appropriate to impose a condition removing permitted development rights on the terraced units, which are those with the smallest gardens to allow the Council to maintain control over future development.

Page 104 7.24 The surrounding development comprises the existing dwellings in College Road and Trenchard Drive to the west, the previously approved Heathfield Nook site to the east as well as 2 dwellings in the road known as Hillside, also to the east. To the south, for the most part the site fronts on to Burlow Road and the dwellings on the opposite side, apart from a short length at the western end, which lies to the rear of a commercial garage premises. The northern end of the site adjoins the retained college sports complex, and, as noted above a small part of the site lies to the north of Trenchard Drive. As such, the site actually adjoins relatively few existing residential properties and where it does they the required minimum distances will be maintained.

7.25 Overall therefore the proposal is considered to comply with Local Plan policies in respect of amenity. Amenity implications arising from construction activities will be addressed through the conditions recommended by Environmental Health which were attached to the outline consent.

Noise Impact

7.26 An acoustic assessment has been submitted with the application which includes an environmental noise measurement survey at a number of sample locations on the development site. It states that appropriate acoustic design criteria have been adopted from BS 8233:2014 that will ensure the protection of residential amenity. The findings of the assessment indicate that some noise mitigation measures are warranted for certain parts of the proposed development in respect of road traffic noise, plant noise, car park noise and potential noise from the nearby Auto-tune garage. It is recommended that noise mitigation measures are implemented in order to protect the amenity of the new residents and to safeguard the business interests of the nearby commercial premises, both now and in the future.

7.27 The report has been considered by the Environmental Health Officer who is concerned that applies the wrong design criteria and recommends that it is not accepted at the present time. However, a revised report and amended mitigation can be secured by condition. Therefore he raises no objection to the application on these grounds.

Contaminated land

7.28 A Phase II Site Assessment by consultancy E3P has been submitted with the application. It states that:

• The site comprises a former college of further education and most of the buildings and infrastructure has been demolished and crushed on-site. A relict slab and remains of what appear to be a district heating system is present in the north of the site. • There are no significant industrial developments on-site or within the immediate locality. • As such, it is E3P’s opinion current site activities pose no risk to human health, controlled waters or the wider environment • The Tier I Human Health Risk Assessment, undertaken using chemical laboratory analysis identified the presence of cadmium, lead and asbestos

Page 105 containing material (ACM) within localised areas of the shallow Made Ground deposits. Based on the analysis completed, these determinands are not considered to be representative of the entire site’s Made Ground or site wide conditions • The impacted soils should be delineated and a material management plan developed to ensure that they can be retained on-site within low sensitivity areas such as beneath roads and car-parks where the dermal contact, ingestion and inhalation pathways associated with these determinands will be broken. Where this is not feasible a cover system comprising 450mm sub-soil and 150mm topsoil within garden and landscaped areas may be necessary. • The desk study has not identified any significant on-site of contamination. The subsequent ground investigation and soil and leachate analysis has identified that for the majority of the determinands, the concentrations are below the relevant guideline values. The only exception to this is a marginal (7ppb) exceedance of lead in one location when compared with the Drinking Water Standard. As this is a marginal exceedance and given the distance (990m) to the closest potable abstraction, there is not considered to be a significant risk to controlled waters. • Radon protection measures will be required at the site. • The Made Ground is not considered to be a suitable founding strata due to its variability and in places, relict slabs and structures are still present. Based on this, prior to the detailed design of suitable foundation solutions, a programme of remediation and enabling works will be required to remove the existing buried former slabs and cut / fill the site to suitable development platform levels. This may render areas of deeper Made Ground suitable for Vibro Replacement Stone Columns. • However, for the majority of the site, the Made Ground is generally <1.0 to 1.5m thick and sits directly on weather limestone bedrock. In these areas, the optimum foundation is likely to comprise shallow spread and spread foundations. • Based the site retaining the current levels, E3P considered the site would be suitable for shallowspread (50%) and spread foundations (40%) and Mass Trench Fill/Vibro Ground Improvement (10%). • Should the site levels require change, then the foundation conditions should be re-assessed. • Visual assessment of the crush material on-site suggests that this would be suitable for use within any proposed highways. A programme of remediation and enabling works will be required to remediate the proposed road sub- grade in accordance with the requirements of the highways design manual (series 600) for a Method Compaction. It is considered that the material can be re-engineered to a method to achieve a CBR in excess of 5% if works are completed in favourable climatic conditions. • Permeability testing has been completed and the results are currently awaited. However, based on field observations, the sub-strata are highly permeable and will support soakaway drainage.

7.29 The Environmental Health Officer has considered the report and has commented that he has not been able to properly assess it as the Phase 1 report has not been provided. This has now been forwarded by the developer for consideration by Environmental Health. It states:

Page 106

• No significant source of potentially mobile contamination have been identified with the site, additional works will be required to assess the extent of relict structures and in particular an apparent relict heating system which may be contain asbestos within below ground ducting. There are numerous stockpiles of material that are reported to have been generated through the demolition of the existing buildings and removal of below ground obstructions. E3P has attended site and based on a non-intrusive assessment, has not observed any potentially deleterious material. • The site is located within an area where greater than 30% of homes are above the action level for radon. It will therefore be necessary to provide radon protection measures to all future properties. • The site has historically be used as a small farm and associated agricultural land prior to the construction of a college. While significant contamination is not considered likely additional assessment of the apparent heating system is considered necessary. • Historic buildings formerly present on the site have been demolished to ground level and all obstructions to 1.5m reportedly removed. This material has been processed on-site and remains in stockpiles. • While the remaining material may be suitable for use, given that the site is likely to be on shallow bedrock there may not be a requirement for it/all of it and this may attract disposal cost. • The material appeared to be free of any obvious contamination and may therefore be classified as inert for waste classification purposes. It would be prudent to undertake laboratory analysis to determine its suitability/waste classification. • The presence of shallow bedrock may require additional works to form excavations for foundations and infrastructure. However, it is likely that if the ground has been disturbed during the demolition process which may necessitate the use of ground improvement techniques in order to deliver a suitable development platform. • The underlying limestone strata may be suitable for soakaway drainage but given the sensitivity of the site with respect to groundwater, these may only be permitted for the disposal of clean roof water.

7.30 A further update on this matter will be provided to Members when the Environmental Health Officer’s revised comments have been received.

Highway Safety / Access

7.31 Policy CF6 states that the Council will seek to ensure that development can be safely accessed in a sustainable manner. Proposals should minimise the need to travel, particularly by unsustainable modes of transport and help deliver the priorities of the Derbyshire Local Transport Plan. This will be achieved by, inter alia: • Requiring that all new development is located where the highway network can satisfactorily accommodate traffic generated by the development or can be improved as part of the development • Requiring that new development can be integrated within existing or proposed transport infrastructure to further ensure choice of transportation

Page 107 method and enhance potential accessibility benefits • Ensuring development does not lead to an increase in on street parking to the detriment of the free and safe flow of traffic

7.32 The applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment with the application which concludes that:

• The proposed site access along Burlow Road provides visibility splays that have an ‘x’ (minor arm setback distance) of 2.4m and a ‘y’ (major road visibility) distance of 45m in both directions. The visibility for the site accesses are based on the observed traffic speeds along Burlow Road and in accordance with the guidance present in the MfS. • Pedestrian and cycle access will be provided from the same location as the vehicular access, as well as numerous locations around the site to maximise permeability. • The internal road network has been designed to ensure the movements of service and refuse vehicles can be accommodated without allowing their requirements to dominate the layout, in accordance with the principal set out in the Manual for Streets. • The proposed development will provide a mixture of 1-3 car parking spaces per dwelling. The majority of the development will provides 1-2 car parking spaces per dwelling or one space plus 1 garage, however the Winster style house will provide 3 car parking spaces. • The personal injury accident data for the most recently available five year period has been reviewed and does not represent a material concern in the context of the proposed development. • The development is compliant with local, regional and national policy as it will promote sustainable modes of travel and reduce the number of car trips to local facilities. • It has been demonstrated that the development is sustainable with good accessibility to the site provided to those travelling by foot and by bicycle and is served by bus services. • The proposed access will operate with significant space capacity during the peak hours for the opening year of 2021 and a future year or 2026. Having regard to the above, it is concluded that there can be no highway or transport related reasons to withhold planning permission for the scheme.

7.33 The application and Transport Assessment has been carefully considered by the Derbyshire County Council Highway Engineer. With regard to the proposed access arrangements, he has commented that the proposed visibility splays appear to be short. Therefore, detailed designs for the junction layout will need to be submitted, including demonstration that the requisite visibility sightlines can be provided in both the horizontal and vertical plane.

7.34 With regard to the internal site layout the highway engineer has confirmed that the majority of the layout does not raise any significant issues but there are nevertheless some amendments that will need to be addressed before the layout will be acceptable in highway safety terms. These are set out in detail in the highways response above, but in summary include:

Page 108 • Provision of adequate forward visibility splays within the site, • Using appropriate length of refuse vehicles for swept path analysis, • Carriageway widening on the inside of small radius bends, • Minimum carriageway widths of 5m and provision of footways to cul-de-sacs, • Maximum distances from turning areas to properties, • Provision of a footway to trenchard drive, • Provision of adequate vehicle manoeuvring space to all plots on shared driveways, • Provision of sectional levels information • Provision of parking spaces of adequate dimensions.

7.35 Amended plans have been received from the developer with regard to the above and have been passed to highways for consideration. No comments have been received at the time of report preparation and a further update will be provided to Members prior to their meeting.

7.36 He has raised no objection to the scheme in terms of the impact of the scheme on the wider highway network but has suggested that development of this site should be proportionally contributing to any requisite mitigation of off-site impacts on the local highway network i.e. anywhere on the A515 between Buxton Market Place and Sterndale Moor as well as Grinlow Road between (and including) its junctions with Burlow Road and the A53. However, no detail has been provided regarding the amount of contribution required and how this has been calculated. Furthermore, no detail has been provided regarding the scheme of mitigation to which it would contribute. This has been requested from DCC and an update will be provided to Members. In addition, DCC recommend that monitoring fees of £1,000 pa are secured for a period of 5 years i.e. £5,000 total.

7.37 Subject to the appropriate S106 contributions and the Highways Engineer being satisfied with the amended it plans, it is considered that there are no highway safety objections and the development would not have a significant adverse impact on the local road network and would provide safe and suitable access. The proposal therefore complies with the provisions of the NPPF and policy CF6 of the adopted Local Plan 2016 in this regard.

Trees and Landscaping

7.38 Policy EQ9 of the adopted Local Plan seeks to protect existing trees, woodlands and hedgerows, in particular, ancient woodland, veteran trees and ancient or species-rich hedgerows from loss or deterioration. This will be achieved by: • Requiring that existing woodlands, healthy, mature trees and hedgerows are retained and integrated within a proposed development unless the need for, and benefits of, the development clearly outweigh their loss. • Requiring new developments where appropriate to provide tree planting and soft landscaping, including where possible the replacement of any trees that are removed at a ratio of 2:1. • Resisting development that would directly or indirectly damage existing ancient woodland, veteran trees and ancient or species-rich hedgerows.

Page 109 7.39 The site is currently overgrown with self-set scrub which has developed since the college moved out and the buildings were demolished. There are a number of mature trees on the site boundaries, particularly in the south eastern corner, where the open space is proposed, as well as a number of individual specimens and groups within the site.

7.40 An arboricultural report was submitted with the application which states:

• The proposed development to the north of Trenchard Drive requires the removal of 2 TPO trees, 2 further trees and 3 groups of scrub trees. It is recommended that the land to the north of the proposed development area is replanted with large specimens to mitigate the loss of the TPO trees. • The proposed development between Burlow Road and Trenchard Drive necessitates the removal of trees within the centre of the site. Where possible trees have been retained on boundaries and within proposed open spaces. It is recommended that this tree loss is mitigated for by replacement tree planting and the production of a robust soft landscaping scheme. • Before any tree works are carried out trees should first be assessed for their suitability for protected species by a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist. • Tree protection fencing and ground protection will need to be installed at the alignment shown on the Tree Protection Plan in Appendix 4 before any construction activity takes place. • It will also be necessary to carry out supervised root pruning of G69, as indicated on the Tree Protection Plan • A cellular confinement system will need to be installed on footpaths within the RPAs of trees T22, G23, T59 and T60 • Hand excavation will be required on G19 to ensure that no roots are present prior to the construction of the proposed footpath. • Boundary treatments will need to be designed to avoid the roots of retained trees, especially around T22, G23, T59, T60 and G63. • An Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) will be required to provide solutions and working methods so that the impacts identified do not have a detrimental effect on retained trees.

7.41 The report has been considered by the Council’s Arboricultural Officer, who initially expressed concerns about the removal of the two protected trees amended plans have now been submitted showing the omission of 2 plots (reducing the overall number from 155 dwellings as originally submitted, to 153 dwellings) in order to retain the protected trees. The Arboricultural Officer has withdrawn her objection to the scheme, but remains concerned about the details of proposed landscaping and replacement planting, particularly in terms of species. However, a revised landscaping scheme can be secured by condition. Subject to this condition, overall the proposed development complies with Policy EQ9 of the adopted Local Plan.

Drainage

7.42 The applicant submitted, a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) with the application. The findings of the report can be summarised as follows:

Page 110 • This flood risk assessment demonstrates that the requirements of the NPPF and Sequential Test have been met, with the location of the proposed developable area being within Flood Zone 1 meaning that any form of classification of development is considered to be acceptable. Flood Zone 1 is designated by the Environment Agency land having a chance of flooding of less than 1 in 1,000 (<0.1%) in any year. • This flood risk assessment has concluded that: o The location at which the proposed development is located within Flood Zone 1, and as such is at a very low risk of flooding from fluvial sources; o The site is far enough inland not to be at risk of any tidal flooding event; o Flood risk from surface water is generally considered very low across the site; and o Flood risk from other sources – groundwater, sewers, reservoirs and artificial sources – is demonstrated to be low. o Overall, taking into account the above points, the development of the site should not be precluded on flood risk grounds.

7.43 The Lead Local Flood Authority, and the Environment Agency have considered the report and raise no objections subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions. It is therefore concluded that the proposed development will not adversely affect onsite, neighbouring or downstream developments and their associated residual flood risk. Subject to planning conditions being attached to any approval, the proposal complies with CS Policy SD4 ‘Pollution and Flood Risk’ and the NPPF.

Ecology

7.44 Policy EQ5 – Diversity seeks to ensure that biodiversity interests are conserved and where possible enhanced. An ecological assessment has been submitted with the application which states that:

• A desk based study and field study were conducted in order to identify habitats on site and to determine the suitability for any ‘protected and notable’ species to occur on site. As a result of the initial field study, further nocturnal bat surveys were undertaken upon two buildings with no roosting bats found to be present on site. Following the survey work, the key recommendations are summarised in the table below o a pre-commencement badger check is undertaken no more than 1 month prior to works starting on site. o The site was considered to have ‘low’ suitability for commuting and foraging bats, whilst a number of commuting and foraging bats were identified within the nocturnal bat surveys. It is recommended that where possible trees on site are retained, particularly areas of mixed woodland on the southern and western boundary. o Any trees, hedgerows, scrub or buildings on site to be removed should be done so outside of the breeding bird season (which is from March to August inclusive). If this is not possible, a suitably experienced ecologist should check the habitat for breeding bird activity no more

Page 111 than 24 hours before clearance. If nesting activity is found, nests need to be left in situ until the young have fledged. o An area of cotoneaster was identified on site. This shrub is an invasive species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. If it is to be removed from site it should be done so carefully and in a controlled manner to avoid the spread of this species.

7.45 Derbyshire Wildlife Trust has considered the application and have raised some concerns about the proposed species mix to be used in the landscaping scheme. However, as noted above, a revised landscaping and planting scheme can be secured by condition. No other issues have been raised by DWT and they have confirmed that they have no objection in principle subject to suitable conditions to ensure adequate mitigation and protection for ecology on site. With the imposition of suitable conditions, it is considered that the scheme will provide acceptable biodiversity enhancements, in accordance with Policy EQ5.

Archaeology

7.46 A heritage impact assessment (by ArcHeritage Ltd) has been submitted, including the results of archaeological desk-based assessment of the site. This concludes that: • Research for the report indicates that while extensive prehistoric activity took place to the north and north-east of the Site, currently available evidence does not indicate similar activity within the Site itself. The Site was enclosed from commons in the late 18th century, and field boundaries established by the enclosure process remained largely unchanged into the mid-20th century. Burlow Farm, constructed in the southern part of the Site by 1883, remained extant in 1955 but had been demolished by 1967. Extensive quarrying which had taken place to the south-east of Burlow Farm by 1883 had been largely infilled by 1899. • Living quarters for the personnel of RAH Harpur Hill had been constructed in the north-west part of the Site by 1938. These became part of the High Peak College of Further Education in 1967 and remained standing as part of the University of Derby’s Harpur Hill Campus until their closure in 2009. Further college and university buildings were constructed in the majority of the Site between 1967 and 1973. The university campus closed in 2009 and all of the buildings within the Site were demolished in 2011. Landscaping and remedial works have removed the foundations of the former buildings to a reported depth of 2m. • Extensive prehistoric activity in the area is demonstrated by Fox Low bowl barrow Scheduled Monument and a Mesolithic flint-working area on Harpur Hill, to the north of the Site. Due to topography and the nature of past development within the Site, the proposed development will not lead to any visual, setting or significance impacts on the monument. Due to distance, topography and the existing built environment, the proposed development will not lead to any visual, setting or significance impacts on the Two hlaews at Haslin House Scheduled Monument or the Grade II listed Harpur Hill war memorial. • Extensive ground disturbance associated with the Site’s redevelopment in the mid-20th century and 21st-century demolition and site clearance works will

Page 112 have impacted substantially on any archaeological remains that may have been present within the Site. The Site’s archaeological potential is generally negligible to low.

7.47 The report has been considered by the County Archaeologist who has endorsed it’s conclusions and raises no objections subject to appropriate conditions being attached to any planning consent.

Open space

7.48 Local Plan policy CF4 seeks to protect, maintain and where possible enhance existing open spaces, sport and recreational buildings and land including playing fields. This will be achieved by, amongst other things, resisting the loss of such facilities, encouraging improvements to facilities, securing financial contributions towards off-site provision of such facilities and exploring options for the management of new areas of open space.

7.49 The proposal includes a significant area of informal public open space in the south eastern corner of the site which can be used for informal play, recreation, dog walking etc. This area also includes an equipped childrens play area. The open spaces officer has welcomed this provision and considers that it has been placed in a good location within the site. She has queried whether access will be provided to the adjoining Heathfield Nook development. This is not possible due to changes in site level within the Heathfield Nook site. However, it is proposed that a condition is added to require a direct pedestrian access from the open space onto Burlow Road to minimise the walking distance between the play area and the adjoining site via the public road.

7.50 The Open Spaces officer has also commented that the play area should be provided to LEAP standards and details of equipment including materials should be approved. This along with a management company to ensure long term maintenance of the play area and all other areas of open space within the development can be secured via the Section 106 Agreement.

7.51 The Open Spaces Officer has also commented that she would also be seeking an off-site outdoor sports contribution towards outdoor sports provision in the vicinity of the proposed development. This is acceptable in principle, although in order to be compliant with the CIL Regulations, more details is required as to precisely where this will be spent. The Open Spaces Officer has been asked for further clarification and an update will be provided. . The formula for calculating this off site contribution is £489.40 x number of properties. This equates to a total of £74,878.20. Subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement to secure all of the above it is considered that the scheme complies with Policy CF4 of the Local Plan.

Education

7.52 The County Planning Officer has commented that there is capacity in the Local Secondary and Post-16 educational establishments to cater for pupils generated by the proposed development. However, there would be a shortfall in primary school

Page 113 places. Therefore, in accordance with the standard formula, Derbyshire County Council have requested £178,064.04 for the provision of 11 primary pupils at Harpur Hill Primary School towards Project C - Additional teaching and support accommodation. This Officer’s have queried this calculation with DCC in the light of the reduction in number of units on the site to 153 and a further update will be provided. However, subject to this matter being clarified it is considered to meet the requirements of the CIL Regulations. Subject to this sum being secured through the Section 106 Agreement, it is considered that the scheme is acceptable in terms of the impact of the development on local education provision

Affordable Housing/Viability

7.53 Policy H4 of the CNP seeks to ensure that affordable homes are designed to be well integrated with existing and new housing development. Policy H3 of the Local Plan requires new residential development to address the housing needs of the area and therefore a mix of housing types and sizes should be provided, including an appropriate level of affordable housing. This policy requires that on sites of over 25 units 30% of the housing should be for affordable purposes.

7.54 The applicant has submitted a viability assessment which concludes that it is not financially viable for the development to provide a policy compliant level of affordable houses. However, it would be viable to provide 15% starter homes in addition to a Section 106 package of £417,000 towards other contributions (comprising highways, education and open space contributions detailed elsewhere in this report). This has been independently verified by the Council’s Viability Consultants, Keppie Massey. They have confirmed that on this basis, the scheme could provide 15% starter homes and is viable whilst not generating excess developer profit. It should be noted, however, that this was based on a scheme of 147 units submitted for pre-application discussion. Given that the scheme has now been increased to 153 units, the developer has agreed to provide £16% starter homes and a total of £440,000 in Section 106 contributions. The developer has also agreed to commence development within 12 months which will assist with early delivery of housing, including the starter homes and would also be agreeable to the inclusion of an “overage clause” within the Section 106 Agreement so in the event that additional or unexpected profit levels are generated a share of those profits would be provided to the Council in the form of additional S106 contributions to be applied to provision of affordable housing in Buxton.

7.55 The proposal would not meet requirements of the Local Plan Policy H3 in respect affordable housing provision. However the NPPF makes clear that financial viability is an important material planning consideration. The developer has adequately demonstrated that at policy compliant levels of affordable housing the scheme is not financially viable but that it could sustain 16% starter homes, which equates to 24 units. This has been verified by the Council’s consultants and the scheme is therefore found to be acceptable in this regard.

7.56 It is necessary, however, to consider the mix of house type and space standards. With regard to house type mix, the Strategic Housing Market Assessment recommends the following property size and type mix for both market and affordable dwellings.

Page 114

Percentage of dwellings 1 bed flat 10% 2 bed flat/ house/ bungalow 45% 3 bed house/ bungalow 35% 4 bed house 10%

7.57 The breakdown of house types for the development as a whole is outlined below, and would include a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties:

House Type Number of properties 1 Bedroom 0no. (0%) 2 Bedroom 81no. (52%) 3 Bedroom 65no. (42%) 4 Bedroom 7no. (5%)

7.59 These percentages are broadly reflective of the SHMAA requirements and are considered to be acceptable. Although no 1 bedroom units are provided, and the number of 4 bedroom units is slightly less than the SHMAA recommends the scheme provides a large number of 2 3 bedroom units (including 2 bedroom starter homes) which is where the SHMAA indicates the majority of demand lies. In effect the report recommended that there should be a re-balancing of the existing housing stock away from small terraces properties and 3 bedroom accommodation to 2 bedroom dwellings

7.60 The submitted plans show that all of the housetypes for which consent is sought meet the Nationally Described Space standards. Some of the units contain a “study” at first floor level which is considered to be too small for use as a bedroom. When this is discounted as a bedroom (as noted above) they do meet the overall NDSS requirements.

7.61 In terms provision for elderly accommodation, Policy H3 of the adopted Local Plan under criteria (e) states that flexible accommodation, which is capable of future adaption should be provided in accordance with the National Described Space Standards and delivered to meet accessibility standards set out in the Optional Requirement M4(2) of Part M of the Building Regulations. As noted above the size of the dwellings has been assessed against NDSS and found to be compliant. The general purpose of Part M of Building Regulations is to ensure that both internally and externally new buildings are designed to provide accessible and adaptable dwellings to meet the requirements of older people and people with specialist housing needs. Matters which are addressed in this section include, for example, the ability to wider driveways/parking spaces to accommodate a wheel chair, step free access and internal circulation space of a certain size to ensure that dwellings can be adapted if required. The SHMA identified a need to provide 20% of dwellings as bungalows/specialist elderly accommodation.

7.62 Although no bungalows are proposed, the applicant has submitted evidence to show that 77 units or 50% of the dwellings would meet Part M4 (2) of Building Regulations. This includes adequate internal circulation spaces, parking and access widths which could be widened if required and level access to dwellings. Whilst not

Page 115 fully compliant with Part M4 (2), achieving 50% is sufficient to meet the requirements of the Policy, bearing in mind that the SHMA requirement is for only 20% bungalow/special housing need.

7.63 The scheme overall provides for a range housing types and sizes and therefore is considered to be acceptable.

Section 106 and CIL Regulations.

7.64 Under the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)_Regulations, any contributions secured under a Section 106 Agreement must meet 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.

7.64 As noted above, contributions have been requested towards highway improvements on the A515, travel plan monitoring, primary education and open space. The education contribution is considered to comply with the 3 tests subject to clarification of the calculation following the reduction in dwelling numbers. The Open Space contribution is also compliant provided that the precise details of the scheme on which it will be spent are supplied. Further information is required in respect of the highways contribution in terms of the amount requested, method of calculation and scheme on which it will be spent in order to determine whether or not the request is CIL Compliant.

7.65 Notwithstanding this, the developers viability appraisal has assumed a Total Section 106 package of £440,000. At present the total contributions (excluding highways) totals only £253,942. Depending on the amount requested by Highways, and whether or not this is considered to be CIL Compliant, there may be a surplus from the £440,000 and on this basis additional affordable housing could be provided. This is reflected in the current recommendation and Members will be updated on these points. It is recommended that the agreement of the final detail of the Section 106 package is delegated to the Chairman of the Committee and Operations Manager – Development Services to agree.

8. PLANNING BALANCE & CONCLUSION

8.1 The determination of a planning application is to be made pursuant to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is to be read in conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

8.2 Section 38(6) requires the local planning authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material circumstances which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the local planning authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations." The Development Plan currently consists of the High Peak Local Plan 2016.

Page 116 8.3 The site is allocated for development of 105 dwellings in the adopted Local Plan. This scheme seeks consent for 153 dwellings. However, the figure set in the Local Plan is considered to be a guide based on estimated site capacity and does not represent a maximum provided that any scheme which is forthcoming complies with all other relevant policies with regard to matters such as design. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle.

8.4 The site is located within reasonable walking distance of a number of local amenities and bus links and has previously been established as a sustainable location for new development through the allocation of the site and granting of planning permission on the neighbouring site at Heathfield Nook.

8.5 The scheme is considered to be acceptable in terms of design and layout and would provide an adequate standard of amenity for existing and future residents. Subject to suitable conditions there are no objections on any environmental health grounds such as noise or contaminated land. There are no concerns regarding loss of existing trees and an improved scheme of proposed landscaping can be secured by condition. This would also satisfy DWT in terms of ecology. The Lead Local Flood Authority, and the Environment Agency have considered the application and raise no objections on drainage and flooding grounds subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions.

8.6 The County Archaeologist has raised no objections and adequate on site informal open space and childrens play space has been provided. A Section 106 Agreement can be entered into which will ensure that the specification for the play area and long term management arrangements are secured as well as providing the appropriate contribution to off-site sports provision. County Planning Officer has commented that there is capacity in the Local Secondary and Post-16 educational establishments to cater for pupils generated by the proposed development. However, there would be a shortfall in primary school places. Therefore, in accordance with the standard formula, Derbyshire County Council have requested £178,064.04 for the provision of 11 primary pupils at Harpur Hill Primary School (subject to clarification). This would also be secured through the Section 106 Agreement

8.7 The proposal would not meet requirements of the Local Plan Policy H3 in respect affordable housing provision. However the NPPF makes clear that financial viability is an important material planning consideration. The developer has adequately demonstrated that at policy compliant levels of affordable housing the scheme is not financially viable but that it could sustain 16% starter homes, which equates to 24 units. This has been verified by the Council’s consultants and the scheme is therefore found to be acceptable in this regard. The submitted plans show that all of the housetypes for which consent is sought meet the Nationally Described Space standards. With regard to house type mix, and property sizes, the proposed percentages are broadly reflective of the SHMAA requirements and are considered to be acceptable. Although no bungalows are proposed, the applicant has submitted evidence to show that 77 units or 50% of the dwellings would meet Part M4 (2) of Building Regulations. This is considered to be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Policy, bearing in mind that the SHMA requirement is for only 20% bungalow/special housing need.

Page 117

8.8 The Derbyshire County Council Highways Engineer has raised no objections in terms of the impact of the scheme on the wider highway network. However, he has made a number of points with regard to internal design detail and visibility at the site access. Amended plans have been submitted to address these issues and his comments were awaited at the time of report preparation. Members will be updated prior to their meeting. Subject to the highway authority not raising any objection, it is considered that the development accords with the provisions of the relevant development plan policies and, in the absence of any material considerations to indicate otherwise, accordingly should be approved without delay.

9. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. That approval be GRANTED subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure: • £TBC primary places at Harpur Hill Primary School towards Project C - Additional teaching and support accommodation • £74,878.20 towards outdoor sports provision (location & project TBC) • Travel plan and £5000 travel plan monitoring fee • £TBC towards highways improvements on the A515 between Buxton Market Place and Sterndale Moor as well as Grinlow Road between (and including) its junctions with Burlow Road and the A53. • Provision of play area to LEAP standards • Management company to maintain play area, open space and any areas of incidental open space within the development. • Minimum 24no. starter homes (subject to any uplift in accordance with viability appraisal if other contributions reduced) • Viability reassessment to apply a Sales Revenue Overage: (33% of Revenue above £230ft2 achieved, subject to BCIS increases; build costs are fixed at £125 per ft2 and an adjustment is made for any increases from this linked to BCIS indices; Sales Revenue Overage Calculation to be undertaken upon final plot conveyance; NIL Sales Revenue Overage to be applicable to all plots completed within the first 12 months from the date of decision notice) to be used, if there is any, for the provision of affordable housing in the Buxton area, including development of schemes for land acquisition and/or other projects to promote an increase in the number of affordable homes in the Buxton area.

With the final detail of S106 package & contribution amounts including number of affordable units delegated to the Chairman and Operations Manager – Development Services

And the following conditions:

Code Condition Notes NSTD 12 month time limit NSTD Approved Plans NSTD Materials to include artificial stone and Russell

Page 118 Moray concrete plain tile in slate grey to all plots NSTD Submission, approval and implementation of detailed design and associated management and maintenance plan of the surface water drainage for the site NSTD A detailed assessment to be provided, to demonstrate that the proposed destination for surface water accords with the drainage hierarchy as set out in paragraph 80 of the planning practice guidance NSTD Study or Office shown on drawings not to be marketed as bedrooms NSTD Submission, approval and implementation of details indicating how additional surface water run-off from the site will be avoided during the construction phase NSTD Submission approval and implementation of scheme of lighting NSTD Submission approval and implementation of scheme of Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) NSTD Submission approval and implementation of Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy NSTD Submission and approval of revised landscaping scheme NSTD Implementation of landscaping scheme NSTD No development approved by this planning permission shall commence until a remediation strategy to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site NSTD If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until a remediation strategy detailing how this contamination will be dealt with has been submitted NSTD Infiltration systems should only be used where it can be demonstrated that they will not pose a risk to groundwater quality. A scheme for surface water disposal needs to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved NSTD Arboricultrual method statement, including a tree protection plan and provision for arboricultural supervision as a condition of approval NSTD Landscape and ecological management plan NSTD Archaeology - Submission, approval and

Page 119 implementation of a Written Scheme of Investigation. NSTD Submission, Approval and Implementation of contaminated land report / mitigation NSTD Submission, Approval and Implementation of Noise Insulation Scheme NSTD There shall be no visible dust emissions beyond the site boundary NSTD Any waste material associated with the demolition or construction shall not be burnt on site but shall be kept securely for removal to prevent escape into the environment. NSTD There shall be no fires lit on the site for purpose of disposing of demolition materials. Any open fires that arise shall be extinguished without delay. NSTD If piling is necessary a written method statement shall be submitted NSTD Limit site working hours for noisy operations to 07:30 - 18:00 hours (Monday to Friday);08:30 - 14:00 hours (Saturday)No working is permitted on Sundays or Bank Holidays. NSTD submission and approval of engineering drawing showing details of all retaining walls and on-plot engineer prior to commencement of development, with express reference within the condition that no retaining structure will exceed 1.5m is considered to be appropriate NSTD removing permitted development rights on the terraced units, NSTD Provision of pedestrian access to Burlow Road from Open Space

B. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager - Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

Page 120 Site Plan

Page 121 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date 4th February 2019

Application HPK/2018/0597 No: Location Unit 4, Hague Bar Works, Hague Bar, New Mills Proposal Application for variation of condition 2 in relation to HPK/2017/0162 Applicant Mr Bob Wood Agent Mr Richard Fay Parish/ward New Mills West Ward Date registered 14 December 2018 If you have a question about this report please contact: Mark Ollerenshaw, [email protected] 01538 395400 ext. 4921

REFERRAL

The application is referred to the Development Control Committee because the previous application was determined by Committee.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The site comprises a yard area associated with Hague Bar Works, which is an industrial site currently occupied by two businesses, Applied Industries and Tec-Ties Ltd, the later being the applicant’s own company. The proposed warehouse/office block is for Tec-Ties Ltd. The site is currently occupied by an area of hardstanding and containers. The site slopes gently down from Hague Bar Road with a steep slope down to the railway embankment beyond. The main factory building is to the east. Hague Bar House (flats) is to the west of the site. Access into the site is from Hague Bar Road with terraced properties on the opposite side of the road.

2.2 The site is outside the built up area boundary within land designated in the Local Plan as Green Belt and Open Countryside.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 This application seeks to vary Condition 2 attached to the previous approval for removal of existing containers and replacement with a new two storey storage building with offices above (ref. HPK/2017/0162), which was granted permission in October 2017. Condition 2 lists the approved plans

Page 123 1 and the applicant is seeking to vary this condition to reference the updated plans which detail an amended layout. The applicant states that the amended layout allows easier on site operations including loading and unloading of materials.

3.2 The previous application showed the proposed building within the south western corner of the site with the side elevation facing towards Hague Bar Road. The amended layout seeks to rotate the building through 90 degrees so that the narrower front elevation faces towards the road and the building would also be slightly closer to the western site boundary. The overall footprint and dimensions of the building would remain the same. Minor changes are proposed to window and door openings to reflect the revised layout including the relocation of the two large roller shutter doors from the front elevation to the east facing side elevation and an additional first floor window and emergency exit to the rear elevation.

3.3 The Committee resolved to approve the previous application at the September 2017 meeting. However, as the previous application was considered to be a departure from national and local Green Belt policy it was referred to the Secretary of State for consideration as a possible ‘call- in’ prior to the decision being issued. The Secretary of State decided not to call in the application and it was therefore approved.

3.4 The application, the details attached to it, including the plans, comments made by residents and the responses of the consultees can be found on the Council’s website at: http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=229335

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The following is a summary of the most recent planning applications relating to the site.

HPK/2017/0162 – Removal of existing containers & replaced by new two storey storage building with offices above – Approved 05/10/2017. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=215169

NMA/2018/0031 – Non material amendment in relation to HPK/2017/0162 – Refused 23/10/2018. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=227630

HPK/2003/0457 – 6 no. detached houses and 8 no. semi detached houses – Refused 11/07/2003.

Page 124 2 http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=40819

HPK/0003/8031 – Change of use of existing vacant office space to estate manager’s living accommodation – Approved 10/06/1999.

http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=31949

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

High Peak Local Plan 2016

S1 – Sustainable Development Principles S1a – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development S2 – Settlement Hierarchy S6 – Central sub area strategy EQ1 – Climate Change EQ2 – Landscape Character EQ3 – Rural Development EQ4 – Green Belt Development EQ5 – Biodiversity EQ6 – Design and Place Making EQ8 – Green Infrastructure EQ9 – Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows EQ10 – Pollution Control and Unstable Land EQ11 – Flood Risk Management E1 – New Employment Development CF6 – Accessibility and Transport

National Planning Policy Framework

Para 11 The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Section 6 Building a Strong, Competitive Economy Section 9 Promoting Sustainable Transport Section 12 Achieving well designed places Section 13 Protecting Green Belt Land Section 14 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding & coastal change Section 15 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Site notice Expiry date for comments: 30/01/2019 Neighbours Expiry date for comments: 12/01/2019 Press notice Expiry date for comments: N/A

Neighbours

Page 125 3 4 no. letters/emails of objection have been received which raise the following concerns: • The proposed building is very large and will be dominant. • Loss of light to Hague Bar House. • The use of the garden at Hague Bar House will be spoilt. • The proposal will overlook Hague Bar House, garden and car park area. • The proposal will spoil the view. • Noise and air pollution. • Light pollution from flashing lights and security lighting. • Damage to trees and wildlife. • There is an existing building that would suit the developer’s needs. • The proposal may deter people renting properties in Hague Bar House and devalue the flats. • Neighbours at Hague Bar House were not informed or made aware of the previously approved application.

Consultations

Consultee Comment Officer response New Mills Town No comment. Council Highway No objection. Paras 7.30 Authority – 7.32 Comments on previous application, HPK/2017/0162:

No objection subject to conditions. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing storage containers on site with a storage/office building. Whilst the application form states that there only additional parking space is to be provided it is noted that the new building is ancillary to and will support existing business operations. It is also noted from the application form that there will be no additional employees. Care will be required during the removal of existing storage and the creation of the new building so as not to obstruct other business premises in the vicinity.

Recommends conditions requiring provision of space within the site for site accommodation, plant storage

Page 126 4 and parking for the duration of the construction works; provision of parking spaces on site prior to occupation of the development; and a requirement that the proposal be ancillary to the operations in Unit 4.

7. POLICY, MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PLANNING BALANCE

Procedural Matters

7.1 Section 73 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 allows for an application to be made to vary or remove planning conditions associated with a planning permission. One of the uses of a section 73 application is to seek a minor material amendment to a development, where there is a relevant condition that can be varied. There is no statutory definition of “minor material amendment”. However, it is likely to include any amendment where its scale and/or nature results in a development which is not substantially different from the one which has been approved.

7.2 It is therefore necessary to consider whether the changes proposed are a minor material amendment to the development and whether they substantially differ in scale and nature to the development approved in addition to considering whether planning permission for the development should be granted subject to conditions which differ from those previously approved.

Planning policies

Adopted High Peak Local Plan 2016

7.3 The determination of a planning application is to be made pursuant to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is to be read in conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

7.4 Section 38(6) requires the local planning authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material circumstances which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the local planning authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations." The adopted High Peak Local Plan Policies 2016.

7.5 The High Peak Local Plan was adopted at Full Council on 14 April 2016. The policies within the document, including the modifications, attract full weight in decision making.

Page 127 5

7.6 The broad aim of Policy EQ4 – Green Belt states that the Council will seek to protect the Green Belt and maintain its openness and permanence. The boundaries of the Green Belt are defined on the Policies Map. Within the Green Belt, planning permission will not be granted for development unless it is in accordance with national planning policy.

7.7 Policy EQ3 - Rural Development states that outside the settlement boundaries and sites allocated for development as defined on the Policies Map, including the Green Belt, the Council will seek to ensure that new development is strictly controlled in order to protect the landscape's intrinsic character and distinctiveness, including the character, appearance and integrity of the historic and cultural environment and the setting of the Peak District National Park whilst also facilitating sustainable rural community needs, tourism and economic development. This will be achieved by, inter alia:

• Supporting the redevelopment of a previously developed site and/or the conversion of existing buildings for employment use provided it does not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the rural area • Supporting rural employment in the form of home working, commercial enterprises and live-work units where a rural location can be justified • Ensuring that all development is of a high quality design and protects or enhances landscape character and the setting of the Peak District National Park.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

7.8 Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision makers this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay.

7.9 Section 13 of the NPPF outlines Green Belt policy, with its main aim being to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Paragraph 143 states that 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. Paragraph 144 explains that when considering any planning application, local planning 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.

7.10 Paragraph 145 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that new buildings within the Green Belt will be regarded as inappropriate, unless they fall within one of the exception categories which include; • Buildings for agriculture and forestry

Page 128 6 • Appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and cemeteries, provided that it preserves the openness of the Green Belt; • The extension or alteration of a building, provided that it does not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building; • Replacement buildings, provided that the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces • Limited infilling or affordable housing; • Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and purpose of including land within it than existing development.

Main Issues

7.11 There are a number of important planning considerations which arise from this application including Green Belt and countryside development, amenity concerns, and access and highway matters. It is necessary to consider whether the proposed development complies with the relevant policies of the development plan and any other material planning considerations.

Principle of development / Impact on Green Belt

7.12 The key planning consideration relating to the previous application (HPK/2017/0162) concerned its location within the Green Belt and whether it complied with Local Plan Policy EQ4 and the provisions of the NPPF.

7.13 Policy EQ4 - states that the Council will seek to protect the Green Belt and maintain its openness and permanence. The boundaries of the Green Belt are defined on the Policies Map. Within the Green Belt, planning permission will not be granted for development unless it is in accordance with national planning policy.

7.14 As outlined in paragraph 145 of the NPPF, new buildings in the Green Belt will be regarded as inappropriate development unless they fall within one of the exception categories. The proposal does not fall within any of the exception categories and therefore constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. However, as part of the assessment of the previous application it was found that the very special circumstances relating to the proposal outweighed any harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Firstly, the proposal would allow the existing business to expand and remain viable and secure employment opportunities in the long term, in accordance with Policy S4 of the Local Plan and the Government’s intention to build a strong and competitive economy. Secondly, the proposed development, whilst larger than the existing storage containers, comprises development of a brownfield site at the very edge of the Green Belt and would comprise a significant visual improvement to the site. As noted above, following the resolution to approve the application it was

Page 129 7 necessary to refer it to the Secretary of State for consideration as a possible ‘call-in’ prior to the decision being issued since the development represented a departure from national and local policy on development in the Green Belt. The Secretary of State decided not to call in the application and therefore it was approved on 5th October 2017.

7.15 Since the determination of the previous application the new NPPF was published in July 2018 replacing the old NPPF against which the previous application was considered. However, the overall thrust of Green Belt remains the same as before and there have been no other changes in the relevant policy framework relating to this type of proposal which would lead to a different assessment of the principle of the development. In terms of site circumstances, it was noted during a site visit that the storage containers within the south west corner of the site have now been removed.

7.16 The current application is for minor amendments to the previous scheme. The size and scale of the building remain as approved and it would continue to be sited within the south west corner of the site, but it is proposed to rotate the building. Other minor changes are proposed to the fenestration of the building as is discussed in more detail below. The proposed changes to the scheme do not alter its impact on the openness of the Green Belt and it can be concluded that the principle of the development continues to be acceptable.

Impact on Visual Amenity of the Countryside

7.17 The application site lies within the countryside for which Policy EQ3 of the adopted Local Plan 2016 applies. This states that outside the settlement boundaries and sites allocated for development as defined on the Policies Map, including the Green Belt, the Council will seek to ensure that new development is strictly controlled in order to protect the landscape's intrinsic character and distinctiveness, including the character, appearance and integrity of the historic and cultural environment and the setting of the Peak District National Park whilst also facilitating sustainable rural community needs, tourism and economic development. This will be achieved by, inter alia:

• Supporting the redevelopment of a previously developed site and/or the conversion of existing buildings for employment use provided it does not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the rural area • Supporting rural employment in the form of home working, commercial enterprises and live-work units where a rural location can be justified • Ensuring that all development is of a high quality design and protects or enhances landscape character and the setting of the Peak District National Park

7.18 The proposal would be situated on previously developed land and would support rural employment and commercial enterprise. However, it is

Page 130 8 necessary under the terms of the Local Plan policy to justify a rural location. In this case, that argument is limited to the fact that the proposal represents the expansion of an existing business on the site. This is clearly a material consideration which weighs in favour of the proposal in terms of compliance with Policy EQ3 in principle.

7.19 The proposed development comprises development of a brownfield site and constitutes a significant visual improvement to the site, particularly given the removal of the storage containers. As noted above, the unsightly containers previously on site have now been removed and this was a condition of the previous consent. The proposed building will still be located within the south west corner of the site which is at a lower level than Hague Bar Road, thereby reducing its visual impact and the proposal will be viewed as an urban extension to the existing industrial operations on the site. The size and scale of the building remain the same as previously approved and its design is broadly the same. The current application seeks consent to rotate the footprint of the building so that the front elevation faces north directly towards Hague Bar Road rather than eastwards towards the existing buildings on the site and the building would be slightly closer and parallel to the western site boundary. This would not adversely affect the character or appearance of the development or its impact on the visual amenities of the area. It could be argued that the revised proposal is an improved design since it presents the front elevation towards the road instead of the side elevation and this also reduces the apparent massing of the building from the road as the front elevation is narrower than the side elevation. Minor changes are proposed to openings to reflect the revised layout including the relocation of the two roller shutter doors from the front elevation to the east facing side elevation and an additional first floor window and emergency exit to the rear elevation. Overall, the visual impact of the amended proposal would not be any more detrimental than the approved scheme.

7.20 The previous approval includes a landscaping condition to ensure that the development is softened by planting and this condition has again been attached to the recommendation. The trees to the south of the site adjacent to the railway embankment and the conifer hedge to the western site boundary will provide further screening of the proposal.

7.21 In summary, the proposal accords with Policies EQ2, EQ3 and EQ4 of the Local Plan.

Design

7.22 The NPPF highlights that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Paragraph 58 requires development to function well and add to the overall quality of the area for the lifetime of the development. It should respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials whilst reinforcing local distinctiveness.

Page 131 9

7.23 The scale and design of the proposed building remain fundamentally the same as previously approved. The proposal accords with the design principles set out in the NPPF and Policy EQ6 of the Local Plan.

Trees / Biodiversity

7.24 Policy EQ9 of the Local Plan affords protection to existing trees, woodlands and hedgerows, in particular, ancient woodland, veteran trees and ancient or species-rich hedgerows from loss or deterioration. This will be achieved by requiring that existing woodlands, healthy, mature trees and hedgerows are retained and integrated within a proposed development unless the need for, and benefits of, the development clearly outweigh their loss.

7.25 There are no mature trees within close proximity of the proposed building. The site forms part of a larger area of hardstanding which was formerly occupied by containers and is in industrial use. The site is of no obvious ecological interest and this authority has no reason to believe that the development would impact upon any wildlife interest.

7.26 The proposals would not adversely affect and trees or ecological interests on the site and the development thereby complies with Policies EQ5 and EQ9 of the Local Plan.

Amenity

7.27 Paragraph 127 of the NPPF requires a high standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Policy EQ6 of the Local Plan requires new development to achieve a satisfactory relationship to adjacent occupiers to ensure that the amenity of neighbouring occupiers will not be compromised, thus reflecting the requirements of paragraph 127 of the Framework.

7.28 The nearest residential dwellings are located at Hague Bar House (flats) to the west and the terraced properties on the north side of Hague Bar Road. Given the separation distances between the proposal and the neighbouring properties on the north side of Hague Bar House together with the fact that the proposal will sit on lower ground, the proposal is not considered to cause harm to the amenity of those neighbouring residents by virtue of overshadowing, loss of light or overbearing impact. It is noted that neighbours of the flats at Hague Bar House have raised a number of concerns about the proposal, including loss of light, overlooking, overbearing impact, noise pollution, light pollution. The amended layout indicates that the building will be approx. 1m from the western site boundary and rotated so that it runs parallel to the boundary. The previous scheme showed the building positioned at a splayed angle relative to the boundary and approx. 3.3m from the western boundary at the closest point. The amended proposal will therefore a greater impact on the occupiers of Hague Bar House due to it being closer to the boundary and the longer side

Page 132 10 elevation being parallel to the boundary. In addition, the site is elevated relative to the curtilage of Hague Bar House immediately to the west, which largely comprises a large area of hardstanding for parking and manoeuvring but also gardens and bin storage. The side elevation of the proposed building is approx. 16.6m from the side of Hague Bar House. There is an established conifer hedge on the boundary which will screen the lower part of the proposed building from this neighbouring building. The proposed building is not in line with Hague Bar House but is set further south. Given the separation distance and hedge screen on the boundary, and taking into account the extant consent for the building, it is not considered that the revised proposal will have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers of Hague Bar House. In order to protect the privacy of the neighbouring properties at Hague Bar House, a condition is recommended requiring the two windows to the west facing side elevation of the proposed building to be fitted with obscure glass.

7.29 It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with paragraph 127 of the NPPF and Policy EQ6 in this regard.

Highway and Parking Considerations

7.30 The NPPF promotes sustainable transport and recommends that local planning authorities seek to encourage and facilitate where possible sustainable patterns of transport using practical alternatives to private motor vehicles so that people have a real choice about how they travel. Policy CF6 of the Local Plan requires the site to be accessed safely.

7.31 The previous application did not raise any highway safety concerns given that the existing site access is to be used to access the development and no alterations are proposed to the access. The Highways Authority does not object to the application, subject to the new building being ancillary to the existing business operations on the site. Conditions are also recommended requiring provision of space within the site for site accommodation, plant storage and parking for the duration of the construction works; and provision of parking spaces on site prior to occupation of the development. The proposal would continue to be served by ample parking bays situated directly to the north of the building.

7.32 Given the above, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that there would not be a significant adverse impact on the local road network. The proposal therefore complies with the provisions of Section 9 of the NPPF and policy CF6 of the adopted Local Plan in this regard.

Flood Risk / Drainage

7.33 The site does not lie within a designated high flood risk area. Subject to conditions relating to surface water drainage, it is not considered that the proposed development would increase flood risk to the area and as such would comply with Local Plan Policy EQ11.

Page 133 11

8. CONCLUSION AND PLANNING BALANCE

8.1 The development of the site has been accepted by the granting of the previous application in October 2017. The changes proposed are considered to be minor material amendments to the approved scheme and their scale and/or nature would not result in a development which is substantially different from the one which has been approved. Therefore it is considered that a fresh application is not required and these can be dealt with via the Section 73 process.

8.2 Section 38(6) requires the local planning authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material circumstances which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the local planning authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations." The Development Plan currently consists of the High Peak Local Plan 2016.

8.3 The site is located within the Green Belt where there is a presumption against inappropriate development. The erection of new buildings is inappropriate development unless it falls within one of a number of categories. In considering the previous application it was concluded that the principle of the development was acceptable on the basis that there were very special circumstances that outweighed the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm. The very special circumstances relating to this proposal are that it would allow the existing business to expand and remain viable thereby securing employment opportunities in the long term, whilst at the same time comprising development of a brownfield site which represents a significant visual improvement to the site. The revised proposal would not result in any additional harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal would have no impact on the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. For these reasons, the principle of the development is accepted.

8.4 There would be some marginal increase in the impact on neighbouring properties but this is considered to be insufficient to substantiate a refusal. With no additional impact on landscape character, highway safety, , biodiversity or trees, the revised proposal is considered to comply with the relevant Local and National Planning Policies set out at the beginning of this report and, in the absence of any other material considerations, accordingly is recommended for approval.

9. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. That planning permission be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

Page 134 12 Condition ref number Brief description Comment

TL01 Development to begin within 3 years of 5th October 2017. AP01 Development in accordance with amended plans NSTD Existing container/s shall be permanently removed from the site. NSTD Samples of materials to be submitted for approval – walls, roof and hard surfaces. NSTD Landscaping scheme to be submitted and agreed. LA02 Landscaping to be carried out and maintained. NSTD Details for the storage of plant and materials, site accommodation, loading, unloading and manoeuvring of goods vehicles, parking and manoeuvring of employees and visitors vehicles during construction works. NSTD The premises shall not be occupied until the parking spaces have been provided and shall be maintained thereafter free from obstruction. NSTD The office/storage block shall be ancillary to existing operations. NSTD Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems. NSTD Surface water drainage scheme to be submitted for approval. NSTD Sustainable drainage management and maintenance plan to be submitted for approval. NSTD Submission, approval and implementation of

Page 135 13 contaminated land survey and remediation. NSTD Restriction of construction hours. NSTD Obscure glazing to be fitted to the windows in the west facing side elevation of the building.

B. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

Informative

This recommendation is made following careful consideration of all the issues raised through the application process and thorough discussion with the applicants. In accordance with Paragraph 38 of the NPPF the Case Officer has sought solutions where possible to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Site Plan

Page 136 14

Page 137 15 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date: 4th February 2019

PROPOSED SECTION 106 DEED OF VARIATION IN RELATION TO PLANNING PERMISSION REF. HPK/2016/0063 FOR OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION WITH SOME MATTERS RESERVED (EXCEPT ACCESS AND LAYOUT) FOR THE ERECTION OF 9 DWELLING HOUSES AND NEW ACCESS AT LAND AT CHAPEL LANE, HADFIELD.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

Approve, subject to agreed Heads of Terms for a financial contribution of £8,000 towards offsite tree planting.

2. ADDENDUM REPORT

2.1 At the 6th August 2018 Development Control Committee meeting, Members deferred the proposed Deed of Variation seeking a financial contribution of £78,400 towards offsite affordable housing provision in lieu of two onsite affordable ‘rented’ housing units whilst retaining £8,000 towards offsite tree planting. Members required clarification as to whether the proposed contribution of £78,400 would be sufficient to provide the offsite affordable housing provision and requested a current market assessment of Hadfield be undertaken along with further information on the financial appraisal.

2.2 In these circumstances, the Council’s independent FVA (Financial Viability Appraisal) has been amended to consider the provision of discount market sale housing in lieu of a financial contribution of £78,400 towards offsite affordable housing provision.

2.3 The scheme has once again been found to be viable based on the provision of a ‘single’ onsite unit for discounted market sale at a 20% discount and a financial contribution of £8,000 towards offsite tree planting proposed in lieu of the approved agreement as detailed above. The applicant has confirmed that these amended Heads of Term are acceptable.

2.4 In terms of tenure split, Local Plan Policy H4 sets out a target of an 80% ‘rented’ accommodation and 20% ‘intermediate housing split’ of affordable housing provision. The tenure split may be varied where justified and with the agreement of the Council. The revised NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) (July 2018) for ‘Affordable Housing’ now includes the following definitions: (a) Affordable housing for rent; (b) Starter homes; c) Discounted market sales housing and (d) other affordable routes to home ownership e.g. shared ownership etc. Of relevance (c) states: “sold at a discount of at least 20% below local market value. Eligibility is determined with regard to local

Page 139 incomes and local house prices. Provisions should be in place to ensure housing remains at a discount for future eligible households”.

2.5 The scheme proposal for the amended tenure type from affordable rent to discount market housing would be recognised by the revised NPPF as defined affordable housing subject to securing matters of eligibility and perpetuity. The applicant’s justification of scheme viability, as confirmed by the Council’s independent consultant is considered to be sufficient and robust evidence to justify a departure from LP Policy H4 in these circumstances to secure a single discounted unit.

2.6 Government planning guidance, however, sets out that “there are specific circumstances where contributions for affordable housing and tariff style planning obligations (section 106 planning obligations) should not be sought from small scale and self-build development. This follows the order of the Court of Appeal dated 13 May 2016, which give legal effect to the policy set out in the Written Ministerial Statement of 28 November 2014 and should be taken into account. These circumstances are that; contributions should not be sought from developments of 10-units or less, and which have a maximum combined gross floorspace of no more than 1,000 square metres (gross internal area) …”. The courts concluded that the guidance did not prohibit local authorities from requiring small sites contributions provided that they could demonstrate a cogent reason for deviating from the guidance.

2.7 At the time, the newly adopted Local Plan requirement was endorsed by the Inspector on the basis that the Council could demonstrate (by way of up to date evidence that comprised the evidence base of the Council’s Adopted Local Plan) an overwhelming need for affordable housing and it was the view of officers that they were entitled to consider that the local plan outweighed the guidance in these circumstances.

2.8 Subsequently, the new NPPF was published last July (2018) and set out the governments’ policy position on affordable housing thresholds very clearly whereby the: “Provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer)” (NPPF, para 63). The scheme approval for 9 dwellings on a 0.42 ha does not meet with the major residential planning application categorisation. In these circumstances affordable housing contributions should not be sought under the NPPF. Members will be aware that three recent planning appeals have successfully challenged the Council’s policy position on affordable housing at: Land at Fairhaven, New Mills (APP/H1033/W/18/3204752); 39 Buxton Road, Whaley Bridge (APP/H1033/W/18/3201032) and land south of Shaw Drive, Hadfield (APP/H1033/W/18/3203082).

2.9 At the Fairhaven appeal, the Inspector concluded that, in his view, the use of a planning condition was not appropriate in this particular case and also that (having considered the Council’s evidence on need for affordable housing in the Borough) ‘High Peak are not unique. Many areas of the country also have very high affordable housing needs, and also plan to meet only a

Page 140 proportion through the delivery of their general housing requirement, subject to viability assessment. The Government would have been well aware of this when considering the revised Framework and its stipulations with regard to affordable housing thresholds….. In short, LP Policy H4 is inconsistent with national planning policy, yet removing the disputed condition would result in a conflict with the adopted development plan. On balance, I consider that national planning policy in relation to the thresholds for the provision of affordable housing is a material consideration of such significant weight that, in this instance, it justifies a decision being made other than in accordance with the development plan.’ Similar conclusions were reached by the Inspector in respect of the 39 Buxton Road appeal.

2.10 In view of the Inspectors conclusions as referenced above, Officers consider that Local Plan Policy H4 requiring affordable housing provision on small sites of less than 10 dwellings within non-designated rural areas is inconsistent with the NPPF and therefore carries limited weight in these circumstances. Officers consider that the NPPF sets out the most up to date policy provision on this matter and such guidance should be accepted to avoid the risk an adverse award of costs against the Council for unreasonable behaviour in applying Policy H4 on small sites.

2.11 In conclusion and whilst the applicant’s acceptance of a single market discounted unit accords with local plan policy, this approach would be wholly inconsistent with the provisions of the NPPF. In these circumstances, the entire obligation relating to the provision of affordable housing should be removed given that the scheme falls below NPPF thresholds.

3. RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Approve the variation as requested to vary the provision of affordable housing at land at Chapel Lane, Hadfield in relation to planning permission ref. HPK/2016/0063 as follows:

• £8,000 towards compensatory tree provision on the adjoining Council-owned public open space land.

3.2 The recommendation is made following careful consideration of all the issues raised through the application process and thorough discussion with the applicants. In accordance with Paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Case Officer has sought solutions where possible to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

3.3 In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager (Development Services) has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, provided that the

Page 141 changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

Site Plan

Page 142 HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date: 6th August 2018

PROPOSED SECTION 106 DEED OF VARIATION IN RELATION TO PLANNING PERMISSION REF. HPK/2016/0063 FOR OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION WITH SOME MATTERS RESERVED (EXCEPT ACCESS AND LAYOUT) FOR THE ERECTION OF 9 DWELLING HOUSES AND NEW ACCESS AT LAND AT CHAPEL LANE, HADFIELD.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

Approve, subject to agreed Heads of Terms for a financial contribution of £78,400 towards offsite affordable housing provision and £8,000 towards offsite tree planting.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The proposed s106 legal agreement deed of variation relates to a 0.42 ha ‘greenfield’ site containing a number of trees, which are protected by a TPO (Tree Preservation Order) DC61. The site is located in the village of Hadfield within the defined urban area. The site fronts Chapel Lane and adjoins a Council owned equipped public open space immediately to the east boundary. To the west boundary, the site adjoins the rear gardens of the cul-de-sac Woodfield Close, beyond which is the Mersey Bank Nursing Home positioned at the junction with The Carriage Drive / Chapel Lane. To the south of the site is no.37 Mersey Bank Drive and its access drive.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 A proposed section 106 deed of variation is sought in relation to outline planning permission ref. HPK/2016/0063, which also secured matters of access for a new vehicular access off Chapel Lane and the layout for the erection of 9 dwelling houses.

3.2 Members resolved to approve the outline planning application for the residential development of this site at the 5th September 2016 Development Control Committee meeting. This was subject to a section 106 legal agreement securing two onsite affordable ‘rented’ housing units and mitigation tree planting to the adjoining Council owned public open space. Planning consent was issued on the 19th July 2017 following the completion of the s106 legal agreement securing the above requirements.

3.3 The approved layout provides for 3no pairs of semi-detached dwellings and a 3-row terrace positioned within an L-shape arrangement. The new access point would be from Chapel Lane, which leads to a private driveway

Page 143 arrangement. This is orientated north-south and culminates with a turning head within the south of the site. Off-street car parking is provided for the terraced and semi-detached dwellings both within the plot and off the access road.

3.4 The deed of variation proposes to omit the secured affordable housing provision equating to two onsite ‘rented’ units in lieu of a financial contribution of £78,400 towards offsite affordable housing provision and £8,000 towards offsite tree planting. A site viability appraisal has been submitted to the Council to support this departure from planning policy.

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

HPK/2016/0063 - Application for outline planning permission with some matters reserved (except access and layout) for the erection of 9 dwelling houses and new access. Approved with conditions and s106 legal agreement.

HPK/2018/0110 - Re-submission of HPK/2016/0063 - Application of Outline Planning Approval with some matters reserved (except access and layout) - Construction of 9 dwelling houses and new access. Withdrawn.

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

Adopted High Peak Local Plan 2016

Policy S1 Sustainable Development Principles Policy S1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy H4 Affordable Housing Policy CF3 Local Infrastructure Provision Policy CF4 Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities Policy CF7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy

Supplementary Planning Guidance

• Housing Needs Survey • Planning Obligations

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) July 2018

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

6. CONSULTATIONS

6.1 Council’s Independent Financial Viability Assessment (Conclusions)

Page 144 In conjunction with our QS (Quantity Surveyor) we have assessed the likely costs and revenues associated with the application proposals. With reference to the appraisal that has been submitted by the applicant, the methodology that has been adopted for assessing viability is reasonable. In relation to the appraisal variables themselves many are considered reasonable for the purpose of the assessment however we have made some adjustments to the following elements: Construction costs including fees, contingency and abnormals – we have adopted our QS assessment of these elements at a total of £1,399,029; Land Value – to assess viability we have adopted a land value of £222,700; Agents fees on acquisition – these have been adjusted to 2%; Loan Arrangement and monitoring – these have been adjusted to 2%; Affordable rented units – these have been valued at 40% of market value and Developer’s profit – we have adopted a profit of 18% on GDV.

We have retained all of the other appraisal variables adopted by the applicant. In terms of the other S106 contributions a figure of £8,000 has been included which we assume is the cost of compensatory trees on the adjoining open space.

Having regard to these changes we have prepared a revised appraisal for the development. In order to do so we have used Argus Developer Software, an industry standard development appraisal tool. We have firstly prepared an appraisal including 2 affordable units (plots 8 and 9) valued at 40% of market value. The appraisal includes all of the required planning contributions and results in a residual developer’s profit of 10.10% of GDV (Gross Development Value). This shows that as the level of residual profit is less than the 18% of GDV then on this basis the development is not sufficiently financially viable to support the full package of planning contributions.

We have therefore prepared a further financial appraisal to establish the point at which the development becomes viable, i.e. the residual developers profit equates to 18% of GDV. The appraisal includes one affordable dwelling (plot 8) together with a S106 contribution of £8,000 and on this basis there is a residual profit of 16.43% of GDV. This appraisal shows that the development is still not viable on this basis and would not be able to support one affordable dwelling and a S106 contribution of £8,000.

Finally we have considered whether if the development was entirely market housing whether it could support a payment in lieu to offsite affordable provision. The appraisal assumes all of the houses are provided as market units. We have included as fixed inputs the land value and developers profit at 18% and on this basis have used the appraisal to calculate the amount of S106 contribution that could be supported.

The summary appraisal shows that on this basis the development could support a payment of £8,000 towards compensatory tree provision on the adjoining land and a payment in lieu to offsite affordable housing provision of £78,400 and remain viable.

Page 145 7. OFFICER COMMENTS

7.1 Planning obligations under Section 106 (A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) are a mechanism which makes a development proposal acceptable in planning terms, which would not otherwise be acceptable. In this case, the planning obligations, amongst other matters, secured onsite affordable housing provision (two rented units) and specified the type and timing of this housing, in addition to financial payments towards offsite tree planting at the adjoining public open space.

7.2 If the s106 is not complied with, it is enforceable against the person that entered into the obligation and any subsequent owner. The legal tests for a s106 agreement are: (i) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, (ii) directly related to the development, and, (iii) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Under the Planning Act s106 (A) a person bound by the obligation can seek to have the obligation modified or discharged after five years. The principles for modifying an obligation are that it ‘no longer serve a useful purpose’ or ‘continues to serve a useful purpose equally well’.

7.3 When a developer makes an application under Section 106 to vary an affordable housing obligation, the Council must assess the affordable housing obligation and decide whether it prevents the development from being economically viable. If the Council finds that the obligation prevents the development from being economically viable, then the application should be dealt with in a way that safeguards and promotes the economic viability of the permitted scheme to which it relates. In order to achieve this, the Council has three options: (1) it can modify the obligation either in the way the application suggests or in another way if more appropriate, (2) it can replace the obligation again in the way suggested by the application or with another obligation if more appropriate or (3) it can remove the obligation altogether.

7.4 LP (Local Plan) policy H4 ‘Affordable Housing’ includes a financial viability test to justify any reduced provision of affordable housing below the required 20% onsite provision policy level. Planning permission ref. HPK/2016/0063 secured two onsite ‘rented’ affordable dwellings units at the Chapel Lane, Hadfield site. In addition, £8,000 was secured in relation to tree and ecology impacts for mitigation tree planting to the adjoining Council owned public open space to accord with LP policies EQ5 ‘Biodiversity and EQ9 ‘Trees, woodlands and hedgerows’.

7.5 The recently issued NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) document states that a planning application should be considered to be viable where it complies with up-to-date development plan policies and the applicant is required to demonstrate whether particular circumstances justify the need for a viability assessment at the application stage.

7.6 Whilst no viability case was submitted at the planning application stage, LP policy H4 would not preclude the applicant from seeking a s106 (A) varied

Page 146 agreement to be subject to modifications to assess the site’s capability to provide affordable dwelling units subject to viability considerations.

7.7 The first issue for Members to consider is that the mitigation offsite tree planting costed at £8,000 is required for the approved scheme to remain policy compliant as outlined above. This element of the agreement should not be modified in these circumstances.

7.8 Secondly, there is an evident need for affordable housing within the District, including Glossopdale. This is such that in the first instance, the obligation should be modified rather than simply being removed. A FVA (Financial Viability Appraisal) has been submitted to the Council to support this departure from planning policy to omit the secured affordable housing provision from the approved scheme. Accordingly, the applicant’s FVA has been independently appraised on behalf of the Council. The conclusions are that the development could not support the provision of an affordable unit on site but could support a payment of £8,000 towards compensatory tree provision on the adjoining land and a payment in lieu to offsite affordable housing provision of £78,400 and remain viable.

7.7 In view of these facts, Officers would not object to the release of the restriction for the 20% affordable housing provision to be sold on the open market subject to securing these financial payments towards offsite provision as set out above. These heads of terms have been accepted by the applicant and the approval of the variation is hereby recommended.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Approve the variation as requested to vary the provision of affordable housing at land at Chapel Lane, Hadfield in relation to planning permission ref. HPK/2016/0063 as follows:

• £8,000 towards compensatory tree provision on the adjoining Council-owned public open space land, and, • £78,400for offsite affordable housing provision.

8.2 The recommendation is made following careful consideration of all the issues raised through the application process and thorough discussion with the applicants. In accordance with Paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Case Officer has sought solutions where possible to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

8.3 In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Regulatory Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided

Page 147 that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

Page 148 Site Plan

Page 149 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to Development Control Committee

4th February 2019

TITLE: PERFORMANCE ON PLANNING APPEALS

CONTACT: DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT TEAM

WARDS INVOLVED : ALL

Appendices Attached - None

1. Reason for the Report: To inform members of appeals lodged and decided since the last meeting of the Development Control Committee.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the report be noted.

3. APPEALS LODGED

None

4. APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED

Application No. HPK/2017/0296

Location: adjacent field Cherry Tree Drive, Fairfield, Buxton.

Proposal: Outline application for 4 new houses

Level and Date of Decision: Delegated

Recommendation: Minded to refuse

Decision: Appeal against non-determination

Appeal Decision and Date: Appeal dismissed on 19th December 2018

Method of Decision: Written Representations

Page 151

Main Issues: The main issues are (i) whether the proposed development would safeguard the route of the proposed Fairfield Link Road and (ii) the effect of the proposal upon highway safety.

Conclusions:

The Inspector concluded: • the proposed development would safeguard the route of the proposed Fairfield Link Road and there is no conflict with LP Policy S7. However, due to a lack of information in respect of the access, I conclude that the proposal would pose an unacceptable risk to highway safety.

Officer Comment

• This was an Appeal against non-determination, as the route of the proposed link road is currently unknown both in terms of its horizontal alignment and vertical alignment Officers did not feel able to approve this small application for 4 houses in case it prejudiced the delivery of the road, which is an important regeneration priority and will unlock a substantial number of houses and local plan sites. • Lack of objection from highways and information to explain why the route of the road may change weighed against the Council in defending this point. • It is unfortunate that the Inspector did not support the Council on this point, but he did agree that the limited information supplied with the outline application and lack of detail about the road alignment meant that the applicant had been unable to demonstrate a safe and suitable access.

Page 152