meeting Cabinet
date 16th September 2009 agenda item number
Report of the Portfolio Holders for Environment and Sustainability and Transport and Highways
Nottingham Gateway (south of Clifton) planning application: Strategic planning observations
Purpose of the Report
1. To seek approval for comments set out in this report to be sent to Rushcliffe Borough Council (RBC) in response to the request for strategic planning observations on the above planning application.
Introduction
2. On 8th June 2009 an outline planning application was submitted to RBC for residential development of up to 5500 dwellings; employment uses of mixed B1, B2 and B8 on up to 30 hectares: retail development (classes A1–A5); leisure use; community buildings; extension to Nottingham Express Transit with tram stops; park and ride site; primary schools; new roads, footpaths and cycleways; green and ancillary infrastructure and ground modelling on land south of Clifton.
3. Nottinghamshire County Council has been consulted for strategic planning and highway observations on the application and this report compiles responses from Departments involved in providing observations on such matters. On the basis of Cabinet’s decision, comments will be sent to RBC in response to this consultation.
4. This report is based on the information submitted by the applicant in the context of national, regional and local policy.
Description of the proposed development
5. The application site (site plan attached), which is approximately 570 hectares in area, is located immediately to the south and south- west of Clifton, to the east of Barton-in-Fabis and to the north of Gotham. The site’s northern boundary, adjoining Clifton, is also the administrative boundary between Rushcliffe Borough and Nottingham City Councils. The A453 runs north-east to south-west across the site in close proximity to its western boundaries, Barton Lane runs west to east across part of the site and Nottingham Road runs north to south through the site.
6. The site lies within the Nottingham-Derby Green Belt on a sloping site and comprises agricultural land, which is predominantly arable, together with small pockets of woodland, grassland and wetland.
7. The submission is an outline planning application so it is the principle of the proposed development which is to be assessed, with all matters reserved for determination at a later date should outline permission be granted. The detailed design of the scheme would be subject to a further design stage and subsequent planning applications, however the parameters of the proposed development have been fixed to enable the assessment of the proposal which is contained in the Environmental Statement (ES) which accompanies the application. Any future reserved matters applications would be in accordance with these parameters which are set out in the development specification as follows: • up to 5500 residential units, with a mix of size, tenures and types; • up to 30 ha of employment land (B1a, B1c/B2 and B8 uses); • a Park and Ride facility; • two community hubs, providing retail (A1, A2, A3 and A4), community facilities, health centre, crèche, start up/work units and gym; • two primary schools; • comprehensive green infrastructure including open space, community sports provision, local areas of open space, play space and green networks; • two new junctions off the A453 to the west of the site; • extension of the Nottingham Express Transit (NET) into the site and connecting to the park and ride facility with stops in the northern larger and smaller southern community hubs; • a network of pedestrian and cycle paths which connect to the surrounding area; • retention of Glebe Barn Scheduled Ancient Monument; and • foul and surface water drainage infrastructure.
8. The parameters plan shows the proposed layout, land uses, site access, maximum building heights and green infrastructure. A Planning Statement and a Design and Access Statement have been submitted as supporting documents, setting out the applicant’s justification, and design principles, for the proposed development. An Urban Regeneration Statement and a draft Section 106 agreement also accompany the application.
Planning Policy Context
National Policy
9. The proposal must be considered in the context of national planning policy statements and guidance notes (PPSs and PPGs), which set out the Government’s national objectives and policies on aspects of planning in England. The documents that are of particular relevance in assessing this application are listed, with a short description of their contents, in Appendix A.
East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS)
10. On 12th March 2009 the East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS) was published and the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Joint Structure Plan ceased to be part of the statutory development plan for Nottinghamshire.
11. For the purposes of determining planning applications within the borough of Rushcliffe, the RSS is therefore part of the statutory development plan for the area and decisions must be made in accordance with it, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
12. The RSS has a number of policies which are of particular relevance to this application. These are listed in Appendix B.
Local Plan
13. Within Rushcliffe, a Non-Statutory Replacement Local Plan (NSLP) has been formally adopted by the Borough Council, which RBC considers carries significant weight and will be used as the basis for determining planning applications. This is following the abandonment of the Local Plan process. There are no housing or employment allocations in the NSLP.
14. The NSLP contains a policy which allows for residential development in certain locations, but not those that extend the built-up area, and a policy to protect the open countryside.
15. RBC has also approved an Interim Planning Statement to assist determination of planning applications submitted in advance of the Local Development Framework. One of its aims is to ensure that development takes place in the most sustainable locations. RBC therefore expects applicants to fully demonstrate the suitability of their sites and the scale of development proposed above that of reasonable alternatives, by undertaking comparative analysis of alternative locations.
Local Development Framework (LDF)
16. The councils of Ashfield, Broxtowe, Erewash, Gedling, Nottingham City and Rushcliffe are working with Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire County Councils to prepare new Aligned Core Strategies for Greater Nottingham. Each of the Core Strategies is one of the Development Plan Documents (DPDs) which makes up the LDF. Under the plan- led system, the LDF, together with the RSS, forms the statutory development plan for the area. The councils have agreed to cooperate and align the preparation and content of their Core Strategies to ensure planning for the future of the area will be more consistent and the administrative boundaries of the local authorities (LAs) will not get in the way of coherent planning.
17. The first stage in the preparation of the Aligned Core Strategies, the Issues and Options document, was published for formal consultation in June 2009. The consultation period ended on 31st July 2009. The County Council’s response was sent following approval by an all party Members Working Group. Responses to the consultation will be considered and the next stage, the Preferred Options consultation, is scheduled to commence in January 2010. It is expected that the Aligned Core Strategies will be adopted in December 2011. The Aligned Core Strategies will be the key documents setting out strategic policies to guide and control the overall scale, type and location of new development (including identifying any particularly large or important sites) and infrastructure investment.
18. There are a number of issues which need to be considered in the context of the planning policy framework outlined in paragraphs 9 to 17 above. These issues are dealt with in detail below.
Strategic Planning Issues
Prematurity
19. PPS1 emphasises that sustainable development is the core principle underpinning planning. Decisions on whether the principle of development of a site of such a significant scale is acceptable should be taken through the LDF process. The Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategies provide the opportunity to determine which are the most sustainable sites to accommodate growth, particularly for housing, across the entirety of the Nottingham Core Housing Market Area (HMA). This accords with RSS policy 17 which seeks to ensure that the release of land for housing should be managed to achieve a sustainable pattern of development across both local planning authority areas and the wider HMA.
20. ‘The Planning System: General Principles’ states that ‘In some circumstances, it may be justifiable to refuse planning permission on grounds of prematurity where a DPD is being prepared or is under review, but has not yet been adopted. This may be appropriate where a proposed development is so substantial, or where the cumulative effect would be so significant, that granting planning permission could prejudice the DPD by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development which are being addressed in the policy in the DPD.’ The scale of the proposed development is such that it would have implications for the future pattern of development across the whole HMA, which is a major issue being addressed by the Aligned Core Strategies Issues and Options document. If planning permission were to be granted for the proposal it would undermine the plan-led system and pre-empt the decisions which must be taken through the LDF process in order to ensure that the most sustainable pattern of development possible across the HMA can be achieved.
Location
21. RSS policy 3 prioritises urban concentration as the basis for the distribution of new development and states that new development ‘will be concentrated primarily in and adjoining the Region’s five Principal Urban Areas (PUAs)’. RSS policy Three Cities SRS1 defines the Nottingham PUA as including Clifton. The location of the application site is therefore in accordance with the RSS in so far as it adjoins the PUA. Policy 3, however, goes on to state that ‘in assessing the suitability of sites for development priority should be given to making best use of previously developed land (PDL)’ and the application site does not include any PDL.
22. However the main issue to be addressed in terms of the location of the application site is that it lies within the Nottingham-Derby Green Belt. PPG2 states that the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness and there is a general presumption against inappropriate development within them. The proposed development is inappropriate within the terms of PPG2 and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. PPG2 states ‘Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In view of the presumption against inappropriate development, the Secretary of State will attach substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt ..’.
23. The Planning Statement submitted in support of the application sets out the applicant’s case for very special circumstances. The matters cited as very special circumstances are looked at in turn in paragraphs 24 to 35 below.
24. The applicant states that paragraph 2.7 of PPG2 can be regarded as a very special circumstance because it ‘…recognises that existing Green Belt boundaries can be changed if this is facilitated by strategic policy. As…Green Belt Review is envisaged by the Development Plan…the policy imperative for Green Belt Review amounts to a very special circumstance in favour of the application.’
25. The Green Belt Review referred to relates to RSS policy Three Cities SRS 2 which states that ‘a comprehensive review of the most sustainable locations for growth within the Nottingham Core HMA and Hucknall will be required urgently to consider how to accommodate future growth requirements over at least the next 25 years.’ It goes on to state that this may include considering locations within the Green Belt and, when implementing the review through LDFs, LPAs will have regard to the level of growth required, sustainable development principles, the principles and purposes of including land within Green Belt and retaining or creating defensible boundaries.
26. The requirement for a Green Belt Review does not constitute very special circumstances to justify development of the application site, as the relevant policy clearly sets out that it is for LPAs to determine, through the LDF process, which locations across the Nottingham Core HMA and Hucknall best meet the criteria set out in that policy.
27. The following are also stated as very special circumstances: • ‘There is a need to provide housing to deliver the requirements of the RSS and deliver the Government’s Growth Point Agenda.’ • ‘Rushcliffe Borough Council cannot demonstrate a deliverable 5 year housing land supply. In accordance with PPS3, applications for housing should be considered favourably having regard to policies in the PPS.’
28. Whilst it is not disputed that these are circumstances which are relevant, they only provide the context within which this application has been submitted. They do not demonstrate very special circumstances to justify development of the application site as opposed to any other site, either within Rushcliffe or the wider Greater Nottingham HMA, in order to address the need for housing.
29. PPS3 states that where LPAs cannot demonstrate an up-to-date 5 year supply of deliverable sites ‘they should consider favourably planning applications for housing, having regard to the policies in this PPS including the considerations in paragraph 69.’ Paragraph 69 states that, in deciding applications, LPAs should have regard to several criteria including ‘ensuring the proposed development is in line with planning for housing objectives, reflecting the need and demand for housing in, and the spatial vision for, the area and does not undermine wider policy objectives.’
30. The Aligned Core Strategies will set out the spatial vision for the area and the policy objectives to achieve that vision. The Aligned Core Strategies Issues and Options consultation presents options relating to the issue of how future development should be distributed around Greater Nottingham, including whether there is scope for redistribution of housing growth between local authority areas and whether the number of new homes to be provided in or adjoining the PUA should be in line with the RSS.
31. If it is justified and found to be ‘sound’, through the LDF process, that the most sustainable locations for development across the HMA would result in housing distribution that did not conform strictly with the housing figures by district set out in the RSS and was more sustainable without a development of up to 5500 houses at Nottingham Gateway, then the delivery of sustainable development through the LDF process would be undermined by permission being granted for this proposal.
32. The application does not provide an alternative site assessment which provides comparative analysis across an appropriate area. As part of such an analysis it should be demonstrated that the need which the proposal seeks to meet could not be met in a non-Green Belt location or less harmful Green Belt location or by several smaller sites in non-Green Belt or less harmful Green Belt locations. Without such analysis there is no basis for strategic planning justification for the proposed development on the application site. The alternative site assessment provided in the ES relates only to the three sites in Rushcliffe which were examined by the ‘Appraisal of Sustainable Urban Extensions’ study (2008) (SUE study). These were: • Edwalton (east of Sharphill), which has recently, on appeal, been granted planning permission for up to1200 dwellings; • land east of Gamston, which the SUE study judged to be unsuitable for development; • Clifton Pastures, which, like the application site, is to the south of Clifton. Clifton Pastures was identified by the SUE study as potentially suitable for development – this site was, however, significantly more restricted in extent than the application site and the recommendation was made with substantial reservations about the uniqueness of the open landscape, lack of a defensible southern boundary, poor performance on Green Belt criteria and loss of Grade 2 agricultural land.
33. The SUE study considered a number of areas for growth and recommended which SUEs it considered suitable for development. However this study does not provide a definitive assessment of where growth should occur. It provides a technical evidence base for LPAs to use in considering options for housing allocations and identifying the precise location and scale of any sustainable urban extensions. The sites recommended as suitable for development by the SUE study would provide more potential capacity than required to accommodate the RSS housing numbers, but the study did not provide a comparative analysis to indicate which of these sites may be more sustainable than others. Also, the SUE study only considered sites against certain set criteria. Consequently it remains for the LDF process to evaluate whether the SUE study’s findings are valid in all cases, particularly if other criteria are factored in, such as infrastructure viability and potential to mitigate climate change, and to decide which sites will deliver the most sustainable pattern of development. The Aligned Core Strategies Issues and Options consultation has therefore posed questions regarding these matters and the LDF process would be undermined should the proposed development be approved.
34. A further 3 very special circumstances are stated by the applicant as follows: • ‘There is a significant problem in the provision of affordable housing in Rushcliffe.’ • ‘There is a need to provide additional employment land in parallel with the provision of housing land to assist in promoting and improving the economic prosperity in the area, and to meet the needs of the required housing.’ • ‘There is a need to maximise the potential to deliver significant regeneration benefits to Clifton.’
35. These cannot be considered as additional very special circumstances because they would not be put forward as separate development proposals in their own right. The proposal is primarily for housing development and these are elements which would be required to ensure such development could function as a sustainable urban extension. Also these specific needs could be met by other development proposals.
Non-residential development
36. The application incorporates employment, retail, community, leisure and education uses, a park and ride site and green infrastructure. It is important that the scale and location of these uses within the site are appropriate for achieving a sustainable community which is integrated with the existing Clifton estate.
37. The amount of employment land and specific mix of employment use classes proposed is not justified in the proposal and it is unclear whether it is intended to meet the need for jobs locally or is seeking to address the wider strategic employment land requirements. If it is intended to meet strategic needs then this raises similar issues to the housing proposals in that it is a matter for the Aligned Core Strategies to provide the strategy for addressing employment land provision, including in terms of sustainable locations.
38. There is a lack of reasoning for providing two community hubs and for the uses to be located in each. It is not made clear how the provision in the community hubs will integrate with, or impact upon, existing provision in Clifton. With regard to retail provision, no needs test or impact assessment, as required by PPS6, has been provided.
39. A key element in creating a development which is as sustainable as possible is ensuring accessibility to the range of non-residential uses by non-car modes of transport. PPG13 states that one of its main objectives is to ‘promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling’. There is no clear reasoning provided to explain the proposed locations of such uses within the site in terms of accessibility by non-car modes for both residents of the new development and existing residents of Clifton. The location of the major area of employment development, for example, is on the southern periphery of the proposed built development and if this is intended to address a local need for jobs further consideration needs to be given to whether this is appropriate.
40. The provision of green infrastructure is essential to the delivery of a sustainable community. As defined by the RSS, green infrastructure refers to ‘networks of multi-functional greenspace which sit within, and contribute to, the type of high quality environment required to deliver sustainable communities’. RSS policy 28 seeks to ensure the delivery, protection and enhancement of green infrastructure. A substantial amount (approximately 325ha) of green infrastructure is proposed, largely around the periphery of the site which is important in mitigating the impacts of the development in landscape and biodiversity terms. However there appears to be limited integration of green infrastructure into the built development or linking into Clifton which is at odds with the concept of green infrastructure providing networks of greenspace and enhancing the urban environment.
Sustainability and climate change
41. PPSS1 seeks to ensure new development is planned to limit CO2 emissions, make good use of opportunities to decentralise renewable or low carbon energy and to ensure future vulnerability is minimised in a changing climate. In addition the supplement stresses the importance of climate change considerations being integrated into all spatial planning concerns. RSS policy 1 includes amongst its objectives reducing the causes and impacts of climate change and minimising adverse environmental impacts of new development.
42. The proposed development offers the opportunity to provide an exemplar development in terms of sustainability and the ES claims that it will do so. If this is to be implemented the development will need to reflect best practice and incorporate the highest standards in respect of climate change adaptation and carbon minimisation. It should aim to achieve: • a high initial proportion of zero carbon housing in the first phase, the remainder having CO2 emissions set in accordance with the Code for Sustainable Homes or with the agreed policy approach for domestic buildings taken by RBC when adopting the forthcoming final Nottinghamshire Sustainable Energy Planning Partnership (NSEPP) Sustainable Energy Policy Framework (2009); • low carbon development for all other buildings, to accord with the BREEAM rating of ‘Excellent’, until a higher national non-domestic CO2 emission target is introduced or until RBC’s Core Strategy adopts suggested low carbon performance standards from the above NSEPP Framework; • a very high energy efficiency performance before other supporting technologies and/or green energy procurement can be introduced; • the establishment of decentralised energy systems from the outset, tied to local low-carbon sources of energy such as a biomass CHP plant providing both district heat and electricity (as referred to in paragraph 88 below), (the requirement for land to be set aside for such infrastructure within the site should be considered and conditions will need to require details); • other sustainability issues to accord with the recommendations of the Sustainable Developer Guide for Nottinghamshire (2004) ; • a high degree of climate proofing of buildings and a low coverage of hard surfacing to combat future storm/drought/heat conditions (the ES states that there will be a sustainable drainage system for the site and that the orientation of buildings will be considered, which is encouraging); • clear, innovative and reliable management mechanisms, with strong community input, to ensure enduring sustainability; • stable long-term management of the energy system through a dedicated Energy Services company (ESCo) which can undertake expansion to adjoining areas and maximize self-sufficiency.
43. Many of these issues require further consideration and a clear commitment from the applicant in order to ensure that a highly sustainable development is delivered.
Sustainable communities
44. It is important that this development facilitates the creation of a sustainable, inclusive and mixed community, in accordance with the objectives of PPS3. In order to ensure that this can be achieved the developer will need to engage with key stakeholders, particularly with regard to social and community infrastructure. For the elderly, for example, community facilities suitable for older people should be provided, as well as ensuring their residential needs are catered for through homes being built to Lifetime Homes standards and the implementation of ‘Secure by Design’ standards to provide safer communities.
Agricultural land
45. The ES indicates that approximately 200 hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land (57 ha Grade 2 and 143ha Grade 3a) would be permanently lost to built development as a result of the proposal. PPS7 advises that the presence of best and most versatile agricultural land should be taken into account alongside other sustainability considerations and it is for LPAs to decide whether such land can be developed, ‘having carefully weighed the options in the light of competent advice’. RSS policy 26 seeks to protect and enhance natural and cultural heritage by applying a number of principles, including protecting the Region’s best and most versatile agricultural land from permanent loss or damage. Within this policy context careful consideration must be given to whether the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land is outweighed by other sustainability considerations.
Landscape
46. RSS policy 31 seeks to ensure that natural and heritage landscapes are protected and enhanced and that development proposals respect intrinsic landscape character in rural and urban fringe areas.
47. The methodology of the landscape assessment undertaken by the applicant follows established landscape and visual assessment procedures and in general its findings are agreed with. The assessment has taken into account Natural England’s ‘National Character Assessment’, the County Council’s ‘Nottinghamshire Landscape Guidelines’ and more local landscape assessments such as ‘Clifton Pastures and Barton Moor Landscape Character Assessment’ produced by Barton Parish Council, as well as ‘The Character of Nottinghamshire’s Historic Landscape’.
48. The landscape assessment was undertaken before the completion of the Greater Nottingham Landscape Character Assessment (10th July 2009) which defines Draft Policy Zones to provide landscape guidelines for individual areas. The impact of the development and means of mitigation could now be considered further in the light of this.
49. The significance of impacts for the construction phase to local existing residents and residents of phases of the proposed development is categorised as major negative and that to users of the local road network and footpaths as negligible to moderate negative. However, there is no description as to the operations that are likely to cause the impacts (either direct impacts on the landscape or visual impacts). Apart from the removal of vegetation, soil stripping, soil stockpiles, and site cabins, the movement of large construction vehicles including cranes can also cause impacts that are temporary, but adverse in nature. Also, the construction impacts are not separated out from the impacts at one year (year 1) after completion of the proposed development and the impacts at these different stages may be of a different intensity and type.
50. The effect of the proposed built development on night time character is considered and it is stated that modern lighting technology will be used to minimise light pollution. However, if floodlights are to be provided for the sports fields shown to the west of the A453, their impact should also be assessed.
51. In terms of landscape character and visual amenity the proposals for green infrastructure, which show a variety of new habitats and existing landscape features to be retained and incorporated within the overall design, are supported. The proposed built development lies within the ‘Heart Lees’ Character Area, which is an open landscape comprising gently undulating farmland with occasional geometric blocks of trees. The impact at year 1 for the majority of this area is defined as being of moderate negative significance. At year 15 this has become a moderately positive impact, due largely to the maturing of the proposed planting. Many of the visual receptors will have a negative impact at year 1 and an overall positive impact at year 15 (excluding some properties on the southern edge of Clifton and users of the footpath to Gotham Hill).
52. The significance of impacts in terms of change in views for the operations phase (that is, once the proposed development is operational) has been assessed as minor negative for local existing residents and moderate positive to minor negative for users of the local road network and footpaths.
53. The positive impacts are largely dependent on the success of the implementation, continued maintenance and long term management of the green infrastructure that is proposed. The landscape assessment does not include any information on the long term management objectives for the green infrastructure or how the management of the scheme will be dealt with. However it is noted that the draft Section 106 agreement provided by the applicant refers to long term management of green infrastructure. It should be ensured that the terms of the Section 106 agreement include adequate provision for the long term maintenance and management of the green infrastructure.
54. The green infrastructure areas to the south and north-west of the development area are not shown in relation to the phased development of the site. If planting is to mature and provide the longer term positive benefits, such as screening and filtering views, then this needs to be implemented as soon as is possible as the site is developed. Dependent on the location of the works, working area and construction impacts, green infrastructure works could be carried out as advanced works, during or immediately after construction of the built development. A timescale of how the green infrastructure works would fit into the overall site development should therefore be provided by the applicant and it should be ensured that planting is implemented at the earliest possible stage.
Natural Environment
55. PPS9 and RSS policies 1(h), 26 and 29 seek to ensure the protection, enhancement and appropriate management of natural heritage. In order to assess the impacts of the development, the applicant has undertaken a comprehensive range of surveys, which is welcomed, and has made proposals for mitigation and enhancement works, including the provision of extensive green infrastructure.
Impact on designated sites and mitigation 56. No statutorily designated sites lie within or immediately adjacent to the development site, and no such sites can be expected to be indirectly affected by the development. Similarly, no non-statutorily designated sites (Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation [SINCs], also known as Local Wildlife Sites) lie within the development site, although four such sites do lie immediately adjacent to the site boundary. These are Brandshill Wood SINC (5/2272), Brandshill Grassland SINC (1/23), Fairham Brook Nature Reserve SINC (2/59) (also a Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust Reserve) and Long Spinney Pastures SINC (2/860). Although (at worst) a short-term minor negative impact is possible on two of these sites (Brandshill Grassland and Fairham Brook Nature Reserve), no change to the integrity of these sites is predicted, and residual effects are expected to be of negligible significance with the implementation of best practice procedures during construction.
Impact on habitats and mitigation 57. The site is predominantly intensively farmed arable land, and therefore has a relatively low nature conservation interest as it stands (although see comments relating to species, below). Some areas of semi-natural habitat do, however, exist on the site with broad-leaved plantation woodland, semi-improved neutral grassland, ponds, the Fairham Brook, mature and veteran trees, and hedgerows all present. Whilst the significant majority of this semi-natural habitat will be incorporated into the green infrastructure network, some hedgerow lengths and mature trees will be lost, although the extent of these losses is not quantified.
58. However, by way of mitigation, significant areas of new habitat will be created as part of the green infrastructure network, including 185ha of grassland (including wet grassland), 57ha of woodland, 18ha of wetland (including scrapes for use by breeding and passage wildfowl and waders) and 13ha of water bodies (in part serving a dual purpose as water attenuation features).
59. Habitat creation on this scale would make a significant contribution to local and regional targets for habitat creation, as contained in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan and the RSS, and these new areas of habitat can be expected to give rise to a long-term major positive impact, significantly enhancing the biodiversity of the local area, and probably Rushcliffe as a whole. It should be noted that there are likely to be few other opportunities for habitat creation on this scale in the Borough.
60. In addition, it is worth noting that the bulk of the green infrastructure is located on the south-eastern part of the site, between the built-up area and the Fairham Brook. This location is consistent with the historic landscape, given that much of this area formed Clifton Pasture, shown as an area of common grazing on Sanderson’s map of 1835.
Impact on species and mitigation 61. Several protected and notable species occur on the development site. It is predicted in most cases that with mitigation (i.e. the retention and creation of habitat within the green infrastructure network), such species will experience a positive impact due to the creation of large areas of enhanced habitat.
62. However, of particular concern is the impact of the proposed development upon breeding and wintering birds associated with the existing arable habitat. Most notably, corn bunting, a farmland bird which has suffered significant declines in recent decades, was recorded as breeding (5 pairs) and wintering (small flocks) on the development site. In Nottinghamshire, this species is now largely restricted to the Idle Valley (particularly Gringley/Misterton Carr), and the area around the proposed development (Clifton Pasture/Barton Moor/Ruddington Moor etc.), and the presence of this species here is therefore likely to be of County significance. As this species relies on extensive open arable fields, the areas of grassland and wetland provided by the green infrastructure network will not provide replacement habitat and it can be expected that this species will be lost from the development site. The significance of this is not clear, as no surveys for this species have been carried out in the wider area during the breeding season. As no significant mitigation appears to be offered for this impact, it is suggested that further information should be supplied on this matter. For example, the applicant could fund a project aimed at safeguarding the long- term future of this species in the area through a programme of surveys and targeted action (e.g. landowner advice, breeding habitat improvement and winter feeding).
63. Other breeding and wintering birds will be affected by the proposals, and whilst there will inevitably be some negative impact on those species that rely on the habitats currently present, they are less restricted in their distribution (locally and at a County level) and impacts upon them will therefore be less severe than for corn bunting. In particular, moderately-sized flocks of wintering golden plover and lapwing occur on the site, but surveys have indicated that these species move around the wider area, exploiting the local farming regimes (which differ from year to year). Furthermore, the creation of wetland habitat, including wader-scrapes, can be expected to benefit these species by providing alternative areas of habitat.
64. In addition, a small population of grass snake exists on the development site. Whilst mitigation is proposed, in the form of habitat manipulation (encouraging any reptiles present to move out of an area before construction works commence), it is questioned whether this is sufficient. Without further details on the phasing of development, and the extent of these development phases, it is unclear if this methodology will ensure that grass snakes are left unharmed, given the size of the site and the fragmented nature of the existing semi-natural habitats. It is suggested that a more pro- active trapping programme will be required to minimise the risk to grass snakes as far as possible, and ensure compliance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
Additional mitigation 65. It is stated that a Biodiversity Management Plan will be produced to cover the management of the green infrastructure network. The production of this document should be secured by a suitable planning obligation, along with the provision of sufficient funding for its implementation in the long-term. A review process should be built into the Plan to allow amendments to be made as the created habitat matures.
66. In order to ensure that impacts on protected species, namely bats and badgers, are minimised, the production and implementation of a detailed lighting plan should be secured through the planning system.
67. Vegetation clearance should only take place outside the bird nesting season, unless otherwise approved and where it has been shown that there will be no impact on nesting birds.
68. Steps should be taken to ensure that beneficial features, such as artificial bat roosts and swift nest-boxes, are incorporated into community facilities, especially where these are located adjacent to areas of the green infrastructure network, in order to maximise the biodiversity potential of the development.
69. It is understood that a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be produced. This should draw together all the construction phase mitigation measures outlined in the ES, including steps to ensure the protection of retained habitats (i.e. protective fencing, including for the root-protection zones of trees), and the reduction of light spill from night-time lighting (particularly relating to potential impacts on badgers and bats).
70. Details of the phasing of works are required, especially for the advanced provision of the green infrastructure network (which is needed as mitigation for impacts on certain species).
71. The submission of a detailed plan of the green infrastructure network should be secured through the planning system, including levels and cross sections (especially for wetland areas and wader scrapes), planting schedules, establishment and maintenance methods, and water level control systems (etc.). As part of this, it is suggested that smaller ponds should be incorporated into the green infrastructure network, in addition to the large water bodies, to benefit the local amphibian population.
72. It is stated that each phase of the development area will be resurveyed prior to works commencing in that area. This is welcomed, given that the distribution and abundance of protected and notable species can change, and should be secured by a suitable planning condition.
73. Details of enhancements to the Fairham Brook, forming the south- eastern boundary of the site, should be considered, for example the creation of off-line sections of water-course and areas of fen and swamp habitat.
Other natural environment comments 74. As well as providing significant opportunities for wildlife, the extensive green infrastructure network has the potential to be an extremely valuable resource for local people, offering health and well-being benefits. However, it is noted that measures will be taken to minimise disturbance from public access and household pets on certain parts of the green infrastructure network through the use of fencing and ditches, where such habitats, and the species expected to use them, are likely to be sensitive to disturbance. Whilst this approach is accepted, assurances are sought that features such as viewing points/screens will be provided over these areas, so that people can still make use of them (rather than them just becoming un-valued ‘no-go-zones’).
75. Coupled with this, sufficient site interpretation should be provided (e.g. information panels), and all efforts should be made to engage local people with the conservation and management of the surrounding habitat, for example through a residents conservation group. To this end, it is suggested that the funding of a ranger post will probably be required to oversee both the formal and the community-based conservation management. This approach will help ensure that people value, and feel engaged with, their environment.
76. In pre-application discussions between the applicant’s ecological consultant and the Country Parks and Conservation Service, it was suggested that the area of land abutting the north-west corner of the site, known as Brandshill Grassland (designated as a SINC) should be incorporated within the green infrastructure network, given that it is within the control of the same landowner as the rest of the development site. In doing so, this would help ensure the sensitive and appropriate management of this site. Clarification is therefore required as to why this area has been excluded from the green infrastructure network.
Natural environment conclusions 77. Overall, the development site is of relatively low nature conservation interest, although certain notable species do occur, upon which there will be impacts arising from the development. The provision of a green infrastructure network will provide mitigation for most of these impacts, as well as delivering large areas of new habitat, which can be expected to deliver a significant gain for biodiversity. However, there will be certain impacts which will not be mitigated and additional opportunities which can be taken, and further consideration needs to be given to this.
Historic Environment
78. PPGs 15 and 16 set out advice on identification and protection of archaeological remains, historic buildings and conservation areas which is reflected in RSS policies 26 and 27. These policies seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment.
Archaeology 79. Previous schemes of Fieldwalking in and around the proposed development site have recovered scatters of prehistoric flints dating from the Neolithic and Bronze Age. The proposed site also contains a number of Iron Age and Romano-British sites along with a Roman villa at Glebe Farm which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. Further background information in the form of an archaeological desk-based assessment of the site has indicated that there are a number of significant archaeological sites ranging from the prehistoric period up until the post-medieval and modern periods within the proposed development area.
80. It is possible that the application site contains important archaeological remains. If so, it is possible that surviving archaeological deposits will be able to provide very valuable information. However, the proposed development is likely to damage or destroy these deposits. Unfortunately, there is not enough information available about the buried archaeological resource to indicate its importance and level of survival and, therefore, the weight that should be attached to its preservation in situ. Archaeology is a material consideration here, and it needs to be certain that there is sufficient information for a fully informed decision to be made.
81. Accordingly, it is recommended that the applicants supply additional information on the buried archaeological resource, in accordance with the advice given in PPG 16. An archaeological field evaluation is necessary here, and this work should include an element of geophysical survey, possibly with a scheme of trial trenching. A professional archaeologist or archaeological organisation should carry out this work, and the results of the evaluation should be available for consideration before the planning application is determined.
Cultural Heritage 82. A Historic Environment Record search has been carried out, however the extent of the assessment of the impacts on the built environment and the extent of the coverage of the baseline data gathering give cause for concern.
83. The extent of the data search has been insufficient. The extent of the study area at 1.5km is unacceptably low. It should be at least 2km in the case of conservation areas and further than this in the case of grade I and II* listed buildings. Also there is no evidence of any thorough ground survey to identify the presence of historic buildings of local interest within the development area. The ES asserts that there are no historic buildings of local value within the site boundary but also indicates that this is based on only a desk based assessment. This is insufficient as a full site survey is required.
84. The ES also asserts that there are 'no conservation areas within the site or in the vicinity that will be affected by the proposed development'. In fact Clifton Village and Thrumpton are within the study zone and Attenborough Village would fall within a more appropriate 2km study area. There is no examination of the impact on the setting of any of these conservation areas. In all cases conservation areas are of 'national' importance and when they fall within a study area they must be assessed properly against the criteria, taking into account magnitude. The ES sets out criteria for appraisal of the magnitude of effects on heritage resources but omits conservation area character and setting from the list. This should be included and the impact of the development on it should then be assessed.
85. It is therefore considered that the methodology for the cultural heritage assessments is not adequate and points made by English Heritage at the scoping stage have not been addressed.
Waste management
86. PPS10 points out that ‘waste management should be considered alongside other spatial planning concerns’, recognising the positive contribution it can make to developing sustainable communities. It aims to drive waste management up the waste hierarchy, using waste as a resource whenever possible and viewing disposal as the last option. This approach is reflected in RSS policy 38 and one of the core objectives stated in RSS policy 1 is to protect and enhance the environment through ‘reducing the amount of waste produced and increasing the amount recycled or otherwise beneficially managed’.
87. The PPS looks for greater integration of waste management facilitates alongside new developments so communities can take more responsibility for their own waste. Developers therefore need to give careful consideration to site design and layout to ensure that there is adequate space for waste storage and collection, including, for example, identifying suitable bring-site locations to facilitate recycling.
88. The ES refers to community composting facilities and facilities for the segregation of commercial/industrial waste but it is not clear whether these actually form part of the proposal. Moreover, a site of this magnitude provides the opportunity to provide the type of comprehensive waste management strategy which would contribute significantly to its overall sustainability, but there is no consideration of the potential for some form of energy recovery plant which could be integrated into the development from the outset to provide combined heat and power to homes, community facilities and businesses (also see paragraph 42, 4th bullet point).
Minerals
89. A small area of the western part of the proposed site overlies or runs adjacent to sand and gravel resources so there is a potential risk of these mineral resources being sterilised. Policy M2.2 of the current Adopted Minerals Local Plan would therefore apply. This aims to prevent development which would result in the sterilisation of mineral resources. The actual risks may be quite low and probably long term but they should be taken into account. The area affected comprises the block of land between the A453 and Barton- in-Fabis. The resource may also continue for 100 - 200 metres east of the A453.
90. In April 2009, as part of the new Nottinghamshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework, the County Council produced a draft ‘Minerals Safeguarding Background Paper’ for consultation as part of the issues and options stage. The land between the north- western boundary of the site and the river is identified as a possible safeguarding area but this is not as yet County Council policy and is subject to further public consultation and ultimately an independent examination.
91. Land within the southern part of the application site, shown as an area for community habitat creation, overlies former areas worked for gypsum that were drift mined. Consultation with the mineral operator British Gypsum is advised before any development takes place on this land in order to take account of any mining hazards. Mined areas are unsuitable for built development due to possible subsidence risks.
Highways
92. This is an outline application with all matters reserved including access. However, as the scale of development commands an Environmental Statement which includes a Transport Assessment (TA), the Highway Authority assumes that the applicant must at least demonstrate that an acceptable form of development can be delivered on this site in transport terms even if this should change as part of future reserved matter submissions.
Transport Infrastructure 93. As submitted, the Transport Assessment assumes that the A453 trunk road will be improved and NET Phase Two completed. Without these facilities, the development cannot be delivered in its current proposed form. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) therefore must be content that it is appropriate to make any consent subject to a Grampian style planning condition (which prevents the start of development until off-site works have been completed on land not controlled by the applicant) preventing development until such time as these major schemes have been delivered, both of which are outside the gift of the developer. There is a risk that only one, or neither, scheme will take place.
Transport Assessment Methodology 94. The TA acknowledges that the appropriate method of assessing the impact of this development is to use an area wide transport model. This is supported by the Department for Transport’s document ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’ (GTA) when considering the impact of alternative spatial developments or development of regional significance.
95. The TA suggests that the PTOLEMY (Planning, Transport and Land Use for the East Midlands Economy) model is to be used to predict the likely traffic flows generated by the development and that this would be input into the Highways Agency’s VISUM traffic model produced for the A453 improvement scheme. However, the impact appraisal in the TA then uses manual trip generation and assignment methods. This is not adequate for a development of this scale. It will therefore be necessary to produce an area wide transport model and agree the assessment periods with the County Council, City Council, and the Highways Agency in accordance with the GTA (paragraphs 4.45 – 4.47) including an opening year assessment, future assessment years, and committed developments. It should be noted that the substantial completion of the development is predicted two or three years after the current assessment year.
Trip Generation 96. A trip generation exercise has been carried out using the TRICS database version 2008(b) (the current version is 2009(a)) and average vehicle trip rates have been produced. This is not consistent with the GTA which states ‘If sites with comparable accessibility as well as scale and location cannot be found when using a standard database system, 85th percentile trip generation rates should be considered as a starting point for assessment of the baseline trip generation’. Furthermore the proposed 30ha of employment land has been assessed as an Employment Business Park. However, in the Design and Access Statement the employment area is described as 19,800sq.m B1(a), 29,350sq.m B1(c)/B2, and 70,200sq.m B8. This is not consistent with the TRICS Business Park sub-category. The trip rates are therefore yet to be agreed. Notwithstanding this, the traffic generated by the development and proportions living and working within the development should be derived from the PTOLEMY model mentioned above. Passenger Transport 97. The TA suggests that the NET extension with a tram frequency of 12 per hour would reduce peak period traffic flow by up to 30%. It then reduces the residential trip rate by 20% to take account of the modal shift predicted by the introduction of the tram. However, the NET Phase Two extension report acknowledges that the patronage modelling will be dependent on the existing and forecast traffic flows for the proposed improvements to the A453 trunk road and therefore this figure cannot be agreed until this exercise has been done. Furthermore, the percentage of bus and tram patronage should be derived from a Passenger Transport model that takes into account the frequency, locality, time, and distance of services with respect to origins and destinations. Any changes to proposed bus and tram services will have a bearing on patronage. It therefore must firstly be established what can be delivered before an estimate of the likely modal split can be made.
Travel Plan 98. It is essential that appropriate passenger transport facilities are confirmed as these must link with the Travel Plan.
Junction Capacity Analysis 99. The TA only assesses two junctions that are proposed to serve the development. These are an amended Mill Hill Roundabout proposed as part of the Highways Agency’s improvement scheme with the addition of a fourth leg into the site, and a proposed grade separated junction onto the re-aligned A453 towards the southern end of the development. The former is predicted to suffer from substantial queuing in both peak hours. This in the first instance is a matter for the Highways Agency but could result in vehicles diverting from the strategic road network in an attempt to find less congested routes through Clifton, Ruddington, and Gotham.
100. A wider assessment area is required that includes all junctions that would be impacted on by the development as identified by the VISUM model and appropriate mitigation where congestion is likely to occur should be proposed. This must demonstrate that the improvements to the strategic road network (A453) are of a scale that minimises the likelihood of traffic generated by the development from diverting onto less appropriate routes through local villages such as Gotham, East Leake and Ruddington to avoid congestion elsewhere and that facilities such as the proposed park and ride would not draw significant additional traffic into these areas.
NET 101. Any further extension to NET beyond that already proposed by the NET Phase 2 extension will require a Transport and Works Act Order which can include deemed planning consent. This is a separate process from the determination of this planning application. The process may result in a public inquiry being called depending on the level of objections received and therefore there can be no certainty as to the delivery of the NET extension.
102. The NET Phase 2 extension report contained within the Transport Assessment acknowledges that the patronage modelling will be dependent on the existing and forecast traffic flows for the proposed improvements to the A453 trunk road. However, this information has not been used in the assessment. It is therefore impossible to assess what would be the favoured scheme of those submitted, if any. The chosen scheme will have a bearing on the programme for delivery of the proposed NET extension, as would any potential public inquiry mentioned above, and may also require the construction of a new NET depot and amendments to track off site due to additional trams.
103. The application proposes a 1,500 space Park & Ride facility. This would be a relocation of the proposed 1,000 space NET Park & Ride site to the end of the proposed extension to the Phase Two Clifton route. This conflicts with the NET Extension Feasibility Report which suggests a 2,500 space car park. No justification is given for the size of the parking area under either scenario.
104. It is strongly recommended that these matters be taken up by the LPA with the NET Team including the need for developer contributions to be secured by Section 106 Agreement.
Bus Services 105. It is proposed to provide a bespoke local bus service around the Nottingham Gateway development that connects with the NET, and retain and extend existing services with potential minor diversions. The amendments to existing services will require the agreement of the existing operators, and a contribution is likely to require determining as part of the Section 106 Agreement including a contribution to subsidise these services including school buses. However, the draft Section 106 agreement provides no details under the provision for ‘Public Transport Measures’ nor is there any evidence that the existing operators would be willing to amend their services. This to some extent may also be dependent on the NET proposals which will remain uncertain for some time. All of which will affect public transport patronage as mentioned above.
Construction Traffic 106. The TA suggests that the existing alignment of the A453 and Barton Lane will be used for construction traffic. It should be noted that Barton Lane is subject to a 7.5 tonne environmental weight limit and is considered to be of an inappropriate standard for this function in its current form.
Safety 107. In accordance with the GTA, the TA should identify any significant safety issues and provide an analysis of the recent accident history of the study area. For example, the A453 has a poor safety record, with a recorded accident level 33% higher than the observed national average for similar rural roads and 23% higher than the observed national average for similar urban roads. Over a five-year period between 2003 and 2007 there were 167 personal injury accidents, of which 134 were slight, 31 serious and 2 fatal. The TA makes reference to this being addressed as part of ‘the supplementary TA report’. The Highway Authority is not in receipt of this document. Also, the TA does not give appropriate consideration to cyclists or other vulnerable road users.
Highways Conclusions 108. There is insufficient information in support of this application for the Highway Authority to be in a position to appropriately consider the application in road safety, road traffic, and passenger transport terms.
109. The application fails to demonstrate that the traffic generated by this development can be satisfactorily accommodated on the highway network or that appropriate passenger transport measures can be put in place to meet sustainable transport objectives leading to a potentially unacceptable increase in congestion on the highway network. Nor have the safety implications of the development been appropriately considered, increasing the likelihood of road traffic accidents.
Rights of Way
110. Only one of the definitive footpaths is seriously affected by the proposal but there are opportunities for increasing public access by foot, cycle and equestrian use.
111. The fact that the proposed route of Footpath number 4 ‘Barton in Fabis’ has been retained within the development on its existing line in a green corridor is welcomed, however there are a number of issues over the design of the new rights of way that require further consideration.
112. There are three plans submitted with the application which show various routes all linking to public non-motorised access which contradict each other by depicting routes of different status on different lines, omitting some routes and a change in status of others and the overall plan for formal and informal access is not clear. The use of cycles is intermixed with the pedestrian routes and this needs careful consideration as to how these routes are to be used, managed and where it is recommended to split the users up. (Full details of the specific issues raised by each of the three plans are given in Appendix C).
113. It is noted that in various sections of the documents it mentions that all rights of way will be enhanced by improved surface, lighting and signage. It is presumed that the lighting and signage will relate mainly to routes within the urban environment and this will not follow through in to the green infrastructure area. Public rights of way that are lit usually are then adopted and maintained as part of the urban environment. For clarity, the paths then adopted should be removed from the Definitive map.
114. Routes in the rural environment should stay as rights of way, unless they are part of a strategic cycle network or managed as part of a local authority managed country park. It is considered that there ought to be a hierarchy of paths within the rural environment to encourage easy access routes around the area, which are surfaced to a higher level as well as more rough stoned or grass paths which encourage other users of the formal routes into the less formal areas.
115. In order to clarify these issues, an overall plan is required showing the walking, cycling and equestrian routes planned for the site. It should clarify the distinction between the formal and informal routes and indicate which are likely to be adopted. It is suggested that the hierarchy of routes is considered and this is differentiated with different surfacing types.
Education
116. There is a requirement for additional primary school provision on the proposed development. Based on 5500 dwellings this equates to an additional 1155 primary places. The developer has identified the provision of two new primary schools on the development which will be required to accommodate the additional primary pupils arising from the Nottingham Gateway development.
117. There is also a requirement for 880 secondary school places arising from the proposed development. The applicant’s Urban Regeneration Statement indicates that a secondary school/ ‘learning village’ will be provided on the Fairham site. However following discussions with Nottingham City Council it has become clear that Farnborough School will now be rebuilt under the Building Schools for the Future programme on the Fairham site. The options for secondary provision to serve the proposed development would therefore appear to be either extending the new school on the Fairham site to accommodate the additional secondary aged pupils arising from the development or providing a secondary school within the proposed development site. Officers within the County Council are continuing to work closely with officers in the City Council to ensure that optimum solutions are found to these issues. The requirements for education provision in the Section 106 agreement will be dependent on the outcome of these discussions.
Conclusions
118. The proposal raises issues of principle in terms of strategic planning for the long term growth of the Greater Nottingham conurbation.
119. Firstly, its substantial scale raises implications for the future pattern of development across the entire HMA. If permission were to be granted for the proposed development at this time it would seriously prejudice the development of the Aligned Core Strategies for Greater Nottingham.
120. Secondly, the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and it is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are very special circumstances which justify the development on this particular site.
121. In addition, there are significant transport implications resulting from such a large development and it has not been demonstrated that these can be adequately addressed either in terms of road traffic and safety or in respect of sustainable transport objectives.
122. The proposal also raises a number of detailed concerns arising from: • lack of information on many issues, including the scale and location of non-residential uses, retail needs test and impact assessment, phasing and management of green infrastructure, archaeological evaluation; • inadequate consideration of various issues, such as climate change adaptation, sustainable energy systems, waste management, mitigation of certain biodiversity impacts, cultural heritage assessment; • lack of clarity, for example, in terms of proposed rights of way.
Recommendations
123. It is therefore recommended that Nottinghamshire County Council should raise strategic planning and highways objections to the proposed development on the grounds that: i. it would be premature in advance of establishing the most sustainable locations for growth through the Aligned Core Strategies for Greater Nottingham; ii. it would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and it has not been demonstrated that there are very special circumstances to justify the development on this site; iii. it has not been demonstrated that the traffic generated by the development can be satisfactorily accommodated on the highway network or that appropriate passenger transport measures can be put in place to meet sustainable transport objectives, leading to a potentially unacceptable increase in congestion on the highway network; iv. the highway safety implications of the development have not been appropriately considered, increasing the likelihood of road traffic accidents; and should request that Rushcliffe Borough Council refuse the application.
124. It is also recommended that, if Rushcliffe Borough Council is minded to approve the application, Nottinghamshire County Council should request that the detailed concerns set out in this report are addressed prior to planning permission being granted and that planning permission is only granted subject to conditions and planning obligations as referred to in this report.
COUNCILLOR RICHARD BUTLER PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY
COUNCILLOR RICHARD JACKSON PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
Statutory and Policy Implications
This report has been compiled after consideration of implications in respect of finance, equal opportunities, personnel, Crime and Disorder and those using the service. Where such implications are material, they have been described in the text of the report.
Human Rights Act Implications
The Human Rights Act implications arising from this report have been assessed in accordance with the Council’s adopted protocol. At this strategic level, no human rights issues are raised. However, these are matters for consideration by Rushcliffe Borough Council when specific planning and transport matters are considered by them as part of their determination of the specific development proposals.
Legal Services Comments
The decision falls within the delegation to Cabinet. (HD - 26/08/09)
Comments of the Service Director – Finance
There are no direct financial implications arising from this report at this time. (MA - 25/08/09)
Background Papers Available for Inspection Planning application documents, including Environmental Statement, Non- Technical Summary and Planning Statement.
County Electoral Divisions Affected All.
APPENDIX A: RELEVANT NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY DOCUMENTS
‘The Planning System: General Principles’ (January 2005), which outlines the key elements of the planning system, including the determination of planning applications.
Planning Policy Statement 1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (January 2005) (PPS1), which seeks to facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of development.
Planning Policy Statement 1 Supplement ‘Planning and Climate Change’ (December 2007) (PPSS1), which seeks to ensure new development is planned to limit CO2 emissions, make good use of opportunities to decentralise renewable or low carbon energy and to minimise future vulnerability in a changing climate. In addition the supplement stresses the importance of climate change considerations being integrated into all spatial planning concerns and that adaptation and mitigation should be considered together, not as exclusive from one another.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 ‘Green Belts’ (January 1995) (PPG2), which has the fundamental aim of preventing urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
Planning Policy Statement 3 ‘Housing’ (November 2006) (PPS3), which seeks to ensure that there is a wide choice of high quality homes, both affordable and market housing, to address the community’s requirements and to create sustainable, inclusive, mixed communities. It states that the following criteria should be taken into account in determining planning applications: achieving high quality housing; achieving a good mix of housing; suitability of the site for housing, including its environmental sustainability; using land effectively and efficiently; ensuring the proposed development is in line with planning for housing objectives, reflecting the need and demand for housing in, and spatial vision for, the area and does not undermine wider policy objectives.
Planning Policy Statement 6 ‘Planning for Town Centres’ (March 2005) (PPS6), which seeks to promote the vitality and viability of centres.
Planning Policy Statement 7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’ (August 2004) (PPS7), which seeks to promote more sustainable patterns of development and promote sustainable, diverse and adaptable agriculture sectors.
Planning Policy Statement 9 ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’ (August 2005) (PPS9), which states that planning decisions should aim to maintain and enhance, restore or add to biological and geological conservation interests.
Planning Policy Statement 10 ‘ Planning for Sustainable Waste Management’ (July 2005) (PPS10), which states that the overall objective is to move waste management up the waste hierarchy, thus making it more sustainable, and stresses that a framework should be provided in which communities can take more responsibility for their own waste.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 ‘Transport’ (April 2001) (PPG13), which seeks to reduce the need to travel, promote the use of public transport, cycling and walking and ensure new developments are well designed, safe and accessible to both vehicles and pedestrians.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’ (September 1994) (PPG15), which advises on the protection of historic buildings, conservation areas and other elements of the historic environment.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 ‘Archaeology and Planning’ (November 1990) (PPG16), sets out advice on archaeological remains and how they should be preserved or recorded both in an urban setting and in the countryside.
APPENDIX B: RELEVANT POLICIES IN THE EAST MIDLANDS REGIONAL PLAN (RSS)
Policy 1 ‘Regional Core Objectives’ Policy 3 ‘Distribution of New Development’ Policy 12 ‘Development in the Three Cities Sub-area’ Policy 13a ‘Regional Housing Provision’ Policy 17 ‘Regional Priorities for Managing the Release of Land for Housing’ Policy 20 ‘Regional Priorities for Employment Land’ Policy 22 ‘Regional Priorities for Town Centres and Retail Development’ Policy 26 ‘Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Heritage’ Policy 27 ‘Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment’ Policy 28 ‘Regional Priorities for Environmental and Green Infrastructure’ Policy 29 ‘Priorities for Enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity’ Policy 31 ‘Priorities for the Management and Enhancement of the Region’s Landscape’ Policy 38 ‘Regional Priorities for Waste Management’ Policy 39 ‘Regional Priorities for Energy Reduction and Efficiency’ Policy 40 ‘Regional Priorities for Low Carbon Energy Generation’ Policy Three Cities SRS 1 ‘Definition of Principal Urban Areas’ Policy Three Cities SRS 2 ‘Sub-Regional Priorities for Green Belt Areas’ Policy Three Cities SRS 3 ‘Housing Provision’ Policy Three Cities SRS 4 ‘Employment Land’.
APPENDIX C: DETAILED RIGHTS OF WAY ISSUES
Illustrative Masterplan
1. The orange dots indicate potential pedestrian/cycle routes. It is crucial to determine where the cycle routes will be as they will be maintained by Highways. If they were to be taken on by the Rights of Way (ROW) team then the routes would have to be definitive bridleways and invite equestrian use on them. Surfacing requirements for each of these users are very different. Pedestrian routes could be definitive footpaths and built accordingly. 2. The colour scheme of dots indicating existing, link and potential paths are not clear enough and make for a difficult assessment of the plan. 3. There are white lines which seem to indicate informal routes. Are these to be definitive or maintained as part of the informal route within a country park managed by a local authority? 4. There is no indication of a formal route around the south west side of the site behind the industrial area. This could be utilised as an equestrian route linking up with the bridleway no 1 Gotham (up Cheese Hill and over the ridge) and the potential under bridge to Barton in Fabis. 5. The plan shows an altered end point for BW no 3 Gotham utilising the old road which could give a direct link to FP 4 Barton in Fabis. The extra link with the lane is outside the development area but is still in the ownership of the County Council (Highways). 6. A number of ROWs are not indicated correctly on the plan such as Gotham Bridleway 1 (does not pass through the wood), Barton in Fabis FP 5 – different line around the farm and does not link into the wood. A number of the routes out of Barton in Fabis are either on the wrong line, wrong status or are shown as a right of way when they are not. 7. Green Street shows a potential pedestrian/cycle route along the road from Barton in Fabis to the roundabout section but not any further – why is this? Should this be in effect a shared use highway pavement alongside the road and continue up to the Mill Hill roundabout? 8. Proposed pedestrian/cycle routes are shown on land between the village of Barton and the A453. The exit point to the south of this area makes no sense as it can only be accessing the quiet road from Thrumpton (there is no crossing of the A453 from FP 5 Barton in Fabis to this point). A better suggestion would be to have a circular route with exit points off Manor Road and the corner nearest the village off New Road. 9. What is the reasoning behind having two routes linking the development of the formal sports provision to Bridleway 3 Barton (Barton to Clifton Bridleway)? 10. There are linking routes shown (such as the route running south towards the railway and the one running north-east out towards the city and the Fairham Brook). These are not in existence at present and the creation of these will either rely on the landowner’s agreement to dedicate or a potentially expensive compensation claim to create a route.
Green Infrastructure Plan (Figure 14)
1. This plan shows all routes as potential footpaths and no cycleway but they are on the same or similar lines as that shown on the Illustrative Masterplan which includes cycle routes. 2. There seem to be two line styles (both red on the plan but only one in the key) both indicating links to existing public footpaths. How are these different? 3. There are a number of potential footpath links indicated by orange arrows. Near to Barton in Fabis. The northerly most one is a footpath linking two bridleways – surely this should be a potential bridleway link. The next one down is along the flood bank which, although walked, is not definitive and very unlikely to gain EA agreement to become a definitive footpath.
Existing & Proposed Cycle Routes
1. This plan contradicts a number of features shown on the previous plans considered above and confuses the assessment of the public access over the site.