PLANNING COMMITTEE
th 13 January 2015
SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR (COMMUNITIES, PLANNING & PARTNERSHIPS)
BOROUGH OF TAMWORTH
PLANNING COMMITTEE
SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS
13th January 2015
A Reports for Consideration 3
B Appeals Received 0
C Appeal Decisions 0
D Consultations 0
E High Court Challenges 0
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Tamworth Local Plan 2001 – 2011 Pre submission Local Plan 2006-2031 for public consultation October 2014
All other documents referred to in individual reports
SUMMARY OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION
Part A Reports for consideration
Application Number: 0365/2014
Development: Reserved Matters Application for: the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 94 new residential dwellings
Location: Land off Pennine Way, Stonydelph, Tamworth, Staffordshire
Target Date: 16 January 2015
Recommendation Approval subject to conditions
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… .
Application Number: 0401/2014
Development: Construction of 5 buildings comprising of 12 light industrial units and associated access parking and refuse areas.
Location: Land off Glascote Road (B5000), Stonydelph, Tamworth
Target Date: 04 February 2015
Recommendation Approval subject to conditions
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… .
Application Number: 0405/2014
Development: Construction of 29 dwellings and associated works
Location: Land off Freasley Lane Tamworth Staffordshire
Target Date: 09 February 2015
Recommendation Approval subject to conditions
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… .
Application Number: 0365/2014
Development: Reserved Matters Application for: the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 94 new residential dwellings
Location: Land off Pennine Way, Stonydelph, Tamworth, Staffordshire
1 Site and Surroundings
1.1 The site is located approximately 3 miles south east of the town centre in the Stonydelph Ward. It is roughly triangular in shape and has a frontage to Pennine Way and an area of public open space owned by the Borough Council.
1.2 The site is made up of rough grassland broken up by small self set trees, with mature trees around the periphery of the site to the south and east. Trees on the eastern boundary are protected by a Tree Preservation Order 2/1976. The area has a distinct slope, which makes the site highly visible to the public with a high point in the south to a low point in the north. The southern and eastern boundaries of the site abut a public footpath/cycleway which provides a link to the Malham Road estate beyond, the local centre at Ellerbeck, Relay Park and the service area at Junction 10.
1.3 To the east of the site are residential properties accessed via Malham Road. To the south are commercial properties on the Relay Park Employment Area, including the Sainsbury Distribution Centre. To the west, beyond Pennine Way is a further residential area accessed from Pennymoor Road which incorporates an equipped play area.
1.4 Pennine Way is an all purpose road, with a 40 mile per hour speed limit where it abuts the site, and provides access to Stonydelph properties. It forms a key part of the town’s highway network, giving direct links between junction 10 of the M42 and commercial and residential developments in the eastern part of the Borough. A regular bus service passes along Pennine Way with bus stops in close proximity to the site.
2 Proposal
2.1 The application seeks approval of reserved matters following the grant of outline planning permission (reference 0349/2012). It seeks detailed approval of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the development of 94 new dwellings.
2.2 A total of 66 two storey dwellings are proposed along with 28 apartments. The dwellings are intended to be constructed in a variety of building styles and materials (render, red brick, dark grey or red concrete roofing tiles) with mostly hipped roof forms with projecting gable features. The apartments proposed are of 4 storeys with hipped roofs, are mainly constructed from brick with frontages in render and small pitched canopies over the main entrance.
2.3 The proposed landscaping scheme includes a central tree lined avenue linking the pedestrian refuge on Pennine Way with the pedestrian node at the southeast corner, denoted by a large specimen tree. The scheme also a pedestrian link into the existing footpath network close to the existing link with Mossdale.
2.4 The intended layout situates the open space to the north of the site abutting the Council owned open space. A swale drainage solution is proposed within a portion of the site area within the applicants ownership in order to provide surface water drainage capacity and this links via culvert to an existing surface water drain in Malham Road.
2.5 The following documents have been submitted in support of the application and all are available to view at www.tamworth.gov.uk
Design Statement (amended received 15 December 2014) Site layout plans Detailed Housing Mix Plans Street Scene elevations in accordance with finished floor levels plans Topographical survey Materials Schedule S.104 Drainage agreement layout Tree Schedule and Arboricultural Method Statement (dated 05 November 2014) and Detailed Addendum (dated 21 November 2014) Detailed elevations and floor plans of all building types (A-L) Detailed hard and soft landscaping plans Detailed drainage plans and sectional drawings 3D Perspective drawings conveying the appearance of the proposal from distance
3 Key Issues
3.1 The key issues in the determination of this application are considered to be
1 Design and Character and appearance 2 Housing Mix and Density 3 Amenity of neighbouring residents and prospective occupants 4 Tree and biodiversity implications 5 Designing out crime versus walkable communities 6 Drainage provision 7 Scale and Position of Open Space 8 Other issues – Highway matters, designation as open space, commencement of works on site, insufficient amenities and schools, the oil pipeline and the golf course development implications
4 Conclusion
4.1.1 The application proposes the construction of 94 dwellings on a triangular piece of land off Pennine Way. In terms of its design merits the layout of the scheme is considered to respond well to its context in urban design terms. A clear frontage to Pennine Way is proposed, the scheme incorporates pedestrian linkages into the surrounding network, makes the central access road a focal point through the development and attempts have been made to soften the dominance of the highway within the scheme. The density, form and massing of the two storey dwellings is reflective of the modern residential development which exists in the context and a good variety and mix of building styles is shown on the street scene elevations. Although the scale and massing of the apartment blocks relative to the proposed two storey dwellings is questioned by some respondents, the peripheral position of these building and proximity to the much higher warehouse building beyond is a key factor in why officers judge the scale of the buildings is compatible with the setting of the area and does not harm the design successes within the wider scheme.
4.1.2 The outline approval was issued subject to a S.106 that requires 30% on site affordable housing provision equating to 28 units. Although the emerging policies would require a comparable mix of affordable housing to that required overall, the Council does not yet have an adopted policy regarding affordable housing mix. Indeed it is only in recent months that the re-drafted Emerging Plan included distinction between market and affordable housing mix. It is also noted the emerging plan reduces the percentage of affordable housing required from 30% under the current policies to 25%. Therefore the Council must either accept the agreed 30% (28 units) with no specific mix under the current plan or alternatively they should accept a lesser provision at 25% (23 units) with a specified mix. Setting aside the legalities of the S.106 having already been signed at 30%, of the two options the Housing Strategy Manager favours the provision of more affordable housing overall. Consequently given the lack of an adopted policy and that overall the mix of housing is in compliance with the housing needs evidence as emphasised by the NPPF, the proposal achieves a mix of housing that is appropriate to meet local needs and the requirements within the NPPF.
4.1.3 The detailed amenity implications for neighbouring properties such as overlooking, overbearing and overshadowing have been carefully assessed as part of the application process. In all cases the separation distances apparent surpass typical standards used by Local Planning Authorities and no other overbearing or overshadowing impacts result. The living environment for prospective residents is a relevant consideration but the outline approval requires further survey to assess and mitigate the noise from the highway and nearby warehouse development such that no further conditions are required.
4.1.4 The previously submitted reports by a Chartered Ecologist accompanying the outline application confirmed the site ‘is an undeveloped parcel of land in an otherwise entirely urban setting surrounded by housing, a busy main road and a large factory … These developments effectively break connectivity to natural and semi-natural habitats in the wider area.’ Overall the report concluded ‘the application site has limited wildlife value and re-development would not have a significant upon biodiversity. No further surveys are recommended. The most valuable habitat on site is the north eastern boundary hedge and it is recommended this is retained.’ The current proposal seeks to reinforce this hedge boundary with additional planting, and aside from the removal of the TPO Ash justified on the basis of a fungal infection, is to be retained. As such the application is considered to meet the requirements of Tamworth Local Plan Policies ENV7, ENV8 and ENV9.
4.1.5 Concerns are raised by the Police Architectural Liaison on the basis that the pedestrian permeability (linkages) incorporated into the scheme will promote crime by providing criminals with ease of access and escape and that the proximity of property boundaries to the footpath to the south is a concern. Whilst Officers understand the concerns raised, these must be balanced against DCLG objectives of promoting walkable and sustainable communities. Such links make it possible to walk to employment areas, to local shops and to dwellings in the local area. Such links promote healthy living, outside play, cycling and the use of local facilities. With regard the two linkages proposed, these are sited along existing desire lines and are designed such to provide access through the development along street frontages maximising natural surveillance. With regards boundary security, these concerns relate to the south of the site where the existing footpath abuts gardens to dwellings. Putting aside this is a common arrangement within the wider context of the development, the applicant has opted to include robust fencing topped with trellis (2.1m overall) backed by defensive spikey planting. Therefore with regards both concerns raised, Officers consider these matters must be balanced against wider planning objectives and where possible the applicant has taken reasonable steps to attempt to overcome the matters such that the development is considered acceptable.
4.1.6 At the time of writing this report comments from the Lead Local Flood Authority regarding the proposed surface water drainage solution and the full extent of the swale within the proposed open space had not been received. As such conditions are suggested requiring the submission and agreement of further information on these matters. Comments have also not been provided from the Highways Authority regarding the internal road layout and functionality. However discussions with the Highway Officer prior to submission of the amended plans indicated a solution was feasible subject to amendments. These changes have been incorporated into the amended plans. An updated highway comment is expected before Planning Committee and will be set out in a formal Planning Committee update paper.
4.1.7 Taking into account all of the above matters and those raised in the submitted representations, the application is considered to comply with Tamworth Local Plan Policies TRA3, HSG5, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV14, ENV19 and Paragraph 7 of the NPPF.
Recommendation
Approval with conditions
0365/2014
M
O
N
T L E
Y
E
L
A
D
S
S
O
M
Y
A
W
E
N
I
N
N
E
P
ROAD
Y A
W
E
N I
N N E P
MIC
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright.
5 Relevant Site History
5.1 0419/2011 – Outline Application for up to 109 dwellings refused on the grounds of:
1. Loss of open space, biodiversity impacts and adverse effect on visual amenity 2. Adverse highway safety implications 3. Decision premature relative to production of Emerging Local Plan
5.2 0349/2012 – Outline application for up to 94 dwellings approved subject to S.106. The S.106 secured the provision of 30% affordable housing, to pay the required open space contribution of £25,000, where constructed to an adoptable standard to transfer the open space to the Borough Council and pay a maintenance contribution of £67,000, to pay £3000 for a traffic regulation order to reduce the speed of Pennine Way to 30mph, to pay a travel plan sum and education contribution to be confirmed.
6 Consultation Responses
6.1 Tamworth Borough Council Development Plans
Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraphs 6-10 provide more detail on sustainable development and highlight the importance of balancing economic, social and environmental elements.
Paragraph 6 advises that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievements of sustainable development. The policies in paragraphs 18-219, taken as a whole, constitute the government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system.
Paragraph 17 outlines the 12 Core planning principles that should underpin both plan making and decision taking, and as such are relevant to this application.
Paragraph 50 states that “local planning authorities should: plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes); identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations, reflecting local demand;.”
Paragraphs 56 to 68 provide guidance on achieving high quality design in new development and this is further supported by the national online Planning Practice Guidance under the Design category. This includes direction on how all development should be considered and some specific guidance for housing design (Paragraph: 040 Reference ID: 26-040-20140306):
“Well-designed housing should be functional, attractive and sustainable. It should also be adaptable to the changing needs of its occupants.
In well-designed places affordable housing is not distinguishable from private housing by its design, nor is it banished to the least attractive part of the site.
Consideration should be given to the servicing of dwellings such as the storage of bins and bikes, access to meter boxes, space for drying clothes or places for deliveries. Such items should be carefully considered and well designed to ensure they are discreet and can be easily used in a safe way.
Unsightly bins can damage the visual amenity of an area. Carefully planned bin storage is, therefore, particularly important. Local authorities should ensure that each dwelling is carefully planned to ensure there is enough discretely designed and accessible storage space for all the different types of bin used in the local authority area (for example landfill, recycling, food waste).
In terms of parking, there are many different approaches that can support successful outcomes, such as on-street parking, in-curtilage parking and basement parking. Natural surveillance of parked cars is an important consideration. Car parking and service areas should be considered in context to ensure the most successful outcome can be delivered in each case.”
Since its publication the policies contained within the NPPF are material considerations which we are required to take into account in determining planning applications. The NPPF states that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans such as the adopted Tamworth Local Plan, according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. We consider that the following policies are consistent with the NPPF.
Adopted and Emerging Local Plan
Saved Local Plan Policies
The Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 was adopted in July 2006 and under the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the policies remained in force for three years. The Secretary of State has now confirmed which policies are saved beyond this date. Relevant policies to the proposal include:
ENV19: High Quality Design HSG5: Residential Development within the Urban Area
The design objectives set by these policies have a high level of compliance with the NPPF and it should be ensured that the proposal contributes towards them.
Pre-submission Local Plan
The pre-submission Local Plan is currently under public consultation (between October 22nd to December 3rd 2014) and is based on the most up-to-date evidence. As such, some weight can be attached to this document and the following policies of the pre-submission Local Plan are considered to be relevant to the determination of this application:
HG4 Affordable Housing HG5 Housing Mix EN5 Design of New Development
HG5 states that: “Proposals for housing development should achieve the following mix of units:
4% of new housing will be 1 bedroom sized units 42% of new housing will be 2 bedroom sized units 39% of new housing will be 3 bedroom sized units 15% of new housing will be 4 bedroom or more sized units
Both the affordable housing provision and the overall housing mix of the development shall be in accordance with the specified housing mix.”
HG4 requires on-site affordable provision to provide dwelling sizes to be well designed and blend in with the rest of the development.
Detailed Comments
Setting aside detailed design considerations the main principle at stake in the consideration of the reserved matters is Tamworth’s housing requirement. Ignoring tenure, the overall mix of unit sizes is close to Tamworth’s needs, with a slight skew towards 4 bedroom dwellings:
4 x 1 bed (4.3%), 37 x 2 bed (39.4%), 36 x 3 bed (38.3%), 17 x 4 bed (18.1%)
However, taking tenure into account the mix of affordable units is poor with no provision larger than 2 bedroom apartments, whilst the market housing is skewed towards larger dwellings:
Affordable - 4 x 1 bed (14.3%), 24 x 2 bed (85.7%) Market – 13 x 2 bed (19.7%), 36 x 3 bed (54.5%), 19 x 4 bed (28.8%)
As recognised at the outline stage, due to its capacity the application site will make a significant contribution towards Tamworth’s delivery in the short term - greater than half a year’s provision under the currently proposed housing target. Deviation from the required mix therefore has the potential to unbalance that short term delivery and conflict with the aims of the emerging Local Plan.
On the other hand, the pre-submission policies are intended to be flexible and are not yet adopted. Therefore the housing mix requirement relies on what combined weight can be given by the evidence base and paragraph 50 of the NPPF. Correcting the mix exactly could affect site viability, although I have not seen an appraisal. If it is the case that a positive move towards pre-submission Local Plan policies HG4 and HG5 would have a negative impact on site viability this information should be shared with the Council.
The views of colleagues from Housing Strategy should also be taken into account as they may have an up-to-date understanding of affordable housing need and delivery considerations of registered providers.
Conclusion
A better housing mix within the affordable and market provision should be sought from the applicant. Any negative impact on the local housing market will need to be weighed with design considerations and the desirability of making the scheme deliverable.
6.2 Tamworth Borough Council Housing Strategy
The Council would support the provision of 30% affordable housing on this site. This equates to 28 affordable dwellings (from total of the proposed of 94 dwellings).We would expect to negotiate a tenure mix of 75% affordable rent and 25% shared ownership sale (subject to discussion with Registered Provider partner(s)). For example, of the 28 units identified for affordable provision, up to 75% could be for affordable rent (21= units) and 25% shared ownership sale (7= units).
In line with evidence and analysis of the Housing Register and updated housing needs data, the Council would seek to ensure that the affordable housing provision on this site was predominately 2 and 3 bed provision (with potentially some limited 1 bed provision to reflect current national policy) to reflect the need for affordable (i.e. rented) family accommodation in the Borough and a predicted increased need for 3 bed units following the implementation of the Council’s new Allocations Policy and to assist with the decant of residents from Tinkers Green and Kerria regeneration schemes). The housing mix should be in line with the percentages identified in the updated SHMA and compliant with Policy HG5 incorporated within the pre-submission Local Plan.
Particular consideration should be given the provision of adequate amenity space that is suitable for use by young families / children and is accessible to residents with disabilities (see below).
The above stance represents the Council’s preferred option in terms of affordable provision on this site to meet identified local need. However, it is noted that the current s106 Agreement for Pennine Way proposes the provision of 4 x 1 bed and 24 x 2 bed units with no 3 bed provision. Whilst this is not an ideal position as noted above and is not compliant with Emerging Policy HG5, it does ensure 30% affordable provision (as opposed to 25%) is delivered on this site and would assist in increasing the supply of much needed 2 bed accommodation.
The affordable housing should be developed in partnership with one of the Councils current preferred Registered Provider partners (Bromford, Waterloo or Midland Heart) and should comply with current Homes and Communities Agency design and quality standards. Any units of shared ownership housing on the site will be developed in partnership with one of the above listed RP partners.
6.3 Staffordshire County Council Education:
This development falls within the catchments of Three Peaks Primary School and Tamworth Enterprise College.
The development is scheduled to provide 94 dwellings, a development of 94 houses could add 20 primary aged children, 14 secondary aged children and 3 sixth form aged children.
The relevant Outline Application for this site is 0349/2012.
A Section 106 Agreement was signed when the Outline Application (0349/2012) was granted, and the education contribution amount and terms should be calculated in line with this.
For ease of reference the relevant clause relating to the calculation of the education contribution has been copied below:
Such sum in respect of primary school provision only, index linked calculated by the County Council in accordance with the current approved policy of the County Council in place at the date of this Deed, such sum being the number of primary school pupils generated from housing provided by the Development (at a rate of 21 pupils per 100 dwellings prorated) multiplied by the financial contribution per pupil per place being £11,031 (eleven thousand and thirty one pounds)
Utilising the information available the education contribution using the above methodology calculates a total of £220,620 plus index.
6.3 Tamworth and Lichfield Joint Waste Service
No objections, standard waste requirements for dwellings and apartments apply. Consider whether the proposed block paving is sufficient to take weight of refuse vehicle (30 tonne laden weight).
6.4 Tamworth Borough Council Tree Officer
I would support the findings and recommendations contained in the Tree Report supplied which are in accordance with good arboricultural practice.
I have no objections to the proposed removal of the trees identified which are generally in a poor condition and of limited amenity value. The mature Ash tree which is subject to a TPO makes a significant contribution to the amenity of the area however there is evidence of Inonotus hispidus bracket fungus which is a particularly aggressive decay fungus that weakens timber and can result in potential failure during stormy weather conditions. As such no objections are raised to its removal subject to replacement planting.
6.4 The Coal Authority
Site is not within Coal Mining High Risk Area therefore only standing advice applicable. Include standing advice on any decision.
6.5 Natural England
The application should be determined in accordance with standing advice
6.6 Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service
Driveway access for fire appliance should be possible to within 45m of all properties and all drives serving properties should be capable of accommodating 17800kg fire appliance.
6.7 Environment Agency
Development is greater than 1Ha and is in flood zone 1 (least vulnerable). Local Planning Authorities should consult their Local Lead Flood Authority to support the production and review of a flood risk assessment. Various measures to control and reduce surface water run off are possible. Developments should be designed for exceedance upto the 1 in 100 flood event scenario.
6.8 Staffordshire Police Architectural Liaison Officer
I object to these proposals on the grounds that the high level of permeability will promote crime by providing criminals with ease of access and escape and a legitimate reason to explore this neighbourhood unchallenged.
Wherever possible pedestrian routes should run alongside vehicle routes, ensuring that they benefit from a large amount of natural surveillance, and that they are wide and open. I support the intention to make some of the proposed layout outward looking. I recommend that a vehicle access route or ‘private road’ feature runs to the south of the development to promote a higher level of natural surveillance over the existing footpath from vehicles and dwellings. One of the keys to the security of an estate is the discouragement of casual intrusion by non- residents, therefore footpaths should be designed to serve the neighbourhood rather than provide unnecessary access.
Properties and their perimeters which adjoin footpaths are liable to crime and vandalism, as they provide a space for people to congregate and often lead to the disturbance and nuisance of residents. In addition they can provide an escape route for criminals that have attacked vehicles, dwellings and other property. Steps should be taken to design out these situations.
6.9 Tamworth Borough Council (Environmental Protection)
Previous comments were provided at the outline application stage relating to suggested details required to be submitted before the development commence. These matters have not been addressed within the current submission and therefore the following conditions are still relevant:
1) Before the development hereby approved commences a scheme of sound insulation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be designed following the completion of a noise survey undertaken by a competent person. The scheme shall take account of the need to provide adequate ventilation, which may be by mechanical or passive means and shall be designed to achieve the following criteria with the ventilation operating or the windows partially open:
Bedrooms 30 dB LAeq (15 Minutes) (2300 hrs – 0700 hrs)
Living rooms 35 dB LAeq (15 Minutes) (0700 hrs – 2300 hrs)
Bedrooms 45 dB LAmax (2300 hrs – 0700 hrs)
Before the development is occupied the scheme shall be validated by a competent person and a validation report submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
2) Before the development hereby approved commences a survey (or modelling) shall be undertaken to determine any garden areas to dwellings that exceed a noise level of 55dB dB LAeq(16 hour) or above. Any land identified as having a noise level above this level shall either be excluded for residential use or shall be subject to a noise mitigation scheme to reduce the noise to a level of 55dB(A) Leq (16hour) or below. On completion of the development the external noise levels in relevant garden areas shall be measured by a competent person and a validation report shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval.
3) Finally, whilst the Council has no formal specified ‘construction hours’, it is reasonable to expect that most construction work is carried out during normal working hours. These would normally be:
Monday to Friday: 7.30am to 6pm
Saturday: 8am to 1pm
Sunday and Bank Holidays: no working
On some occasions there may be valid reasons for working outside these hours in certain situations. If a company wishes to carry out noisy activities outside of these hours (on a construction site) they will normally be required to submit an application for prior consent under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. 6.10 Tamworth Borough Council Head of Environmental Management
It is assumed the technical data is correct regarding the storage capacity of the system in respect of the 100y +30% flood risk. I have no further comments on this matter.
Tamworth Borough Council would not want responsibility for the fences proposed on site - ideally these should be within the curtilage’s of the adjacent properties where feasible.
It is assumed the culvert will become the responsibility of Severn Trent together with the HB chamber
In respect of the swale, in principle I have no objections to this but it is noted the solution will reduce the amount of public open space that is available for recreational use from that which was in the outline proposal.
The sum calculated for maintenance in the original proposal did not include the maintenance of a swale, which at this current time is undetermined. I would seek an additional sum should the swale proposal be agreed as the way forward. We currently do not have any similar SUDS systems in the borough and therefore it is difficult to assess the impact of one on the local community.
6.11 Severn Trent Water Ltd
No objections subject to inclusion of standard condition:
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of the foul and surface water drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that sustainable drainage provision is made for the development in accordance with paragraph 94 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
6.12 British Pipelines
No objections are raised to the proposed scheme. Discussions regarding the manner in which works will progress are being undertaken with the applicant. Where works involve the crossing of the pipeline or working within the wayleave, plan of work drawings, a method and risk assessment should be submitted before any engineering works commence.
6.13 Staffordshire Lead Local Flood Authority
As submitted the application contains no information regarding foul or surface water drainage. In the absence of any analysis refusal is recommended.
The applicant has subsequently provided further details relating to foul and surface water drainage however no comments from the Flood Authority have been received in response at the time of writing this report.
6.14 Staffordshire County Council Highway Authority
Comments from the Highways Officer raise various technical matters which require further information, changes to surfacing and repositioning of junctions amongst other detailed matters affected the highway network within the site.
To date no formal comments have been received on the amended proposal although internal discussions have been carried out. Officers anticipate an update report will be prepared for Planning Committee which incorporates the County Council’s final comments on the amended proposals. 7 Additional Representations
7.1 One letter of support for the application has been submitted but contains no further comments
7.2 17 letters of objection have been received in relation to the proposal. In summary these raise the following matters:
The three storey flats are not in keeping with the area and will be an eyesore due to the elevated land at the end of the site. Two storey flats should be considered. The density of the development is not compatible with the surrounding area and should be reduced Concerns regarding crime implications with the enclosed footpaths to the rear (southeast of the site). Such an area will be a no go area after dark. The development will increase littering, ASB and drinking on the street and the dumping of rubbish Drainage from the site will be a problem because Pennine Way is prone to flooding due to poor maintenance The Tree removals proposed will adversely impact the biodiversity potential of the site. The effect on wildlife should be taken into account. The development will detrimentally affect songbirds, kestrels woodpeckers, voles, shrews and foxes. The tree survey does not conform to the Council’s validation guidance regarding trees because no photographs have been submitted. The housing mix proposed is not in conformity with the housing need within the borough. The development proposes larger dwellings than that required. The affordable mix does not contain a proportion of dwellings that reflect local needs. The provision of flats is not appropriate because families would struggle to accommodate push chairs and the lack of lifts would cause difficulties. The communal area provided are very small and unsuitable for use creating a poor quality living environment The public open space provided is slightly smaller than originally set out in the outline application due to a driveway serving the proposed dwellings to the north The open space within the development is too close to the main road. The open space should be more centrally located within the development for design reasons (in order to promote a more village appearance) and to create a safer playing environment There is no need for further housing The area is designated open space within the Tamworth Local Plan. There are few green spaces left in Tamworth. This space should be retained. Work has already commenced on the development – fencing, a portable toilet and a digger were on site recently. Site clearance works have been undertaken which have the potential to impact on protected or rare species. These works have been reported to the Police Emergency services such as the air ambulance use this site The road is heavily trafficked by a variety of vehicles and is often congested. The traffic backs up from the M42 junction beyond Malham Road. Malham Road is an accident blackspot and will be made worse by the additional traffic accesses. Serious pedestrian and vehicular accidents are commonplace. The overground foot crossing will not alleviate these incidents and should be removed from the plans The are insufficient shops, services, doctors, schools and other amenities to accommodate a development of the scale proposed (approx 400 people) The field is used for recreational purposes There is an oil pipeline which needs to be taken into account The development will affect property prices The area is designated open space within the Tamworth Local Plan. There are few green spaces left in Tamworth. This space should be retained. Concerns are raised about the provision of affordable housing potentially impacting on the tranquillity of the area How will this proposal affect infrastructure capacity given the 1100 houses on the golf course?
8 Planning Considerations
Design and Character and appearance Housing Mix and Density Amenity of neighbouring residents and prospective occupants Tree and biodiversity implications Designing out crime versus walkable communities Drainage provision Scale and Position of Open Space Other issues – Highway matters, designation as open space, commencement of works on site, insufficient amenities and schools, the oil pipeline and the golf course development implications
8.1 Design and Character and Appearance
8.1.1 The design of new developments, replacing poor design with better design and securing high quality design are amongst the main themes of the NPPF and ‘sustainable development’ overall. Guidance on the assessment of design are outlined in sections 7 of the NPPF, which seek to ensure that developments respond to local character and circumstances, create visually attractive developments and integrate new developments in to the local built environment. General design policy ENV19 of the local plan also requires new development to be well related to and make a positive contribution to its surroundings.
8.1.2 The residential estates off Pennine Way and in particular the Malham Road estate beyond represent modern post war development originating from the 1980’s and 1990’s. The proposed development in this case will sit in close proximity to the relatively modern development made up of Montley, Mossdale and Mickelton. A design constraint is also the presence of the oil pipeline, the large warehouse to the south, the public footpaths bordering the site on two sides and the pedestrian desire line through the development linking in with the footpath node to the southeast.
8.1.3 Overall the layout of the scheme is considered to respond well to its context in urban design terms. A clear frontage to Pennine Way is proposed, the scheme incorporates the pedestrian route through its centre with a focal point tree and attempts have been made to soften the dominance of the highway within the scheme through the removal of hard footpaths in various areas to promote a home zone type approach along with the use of varying materials for the roads. Moreover the form and massing of the two storey dwellings is reflective of the modern residential development which exists in the context and a good variety and mix of building styles is shown on the street scene elevations.
8.1.4 From the comments received regarding building design, the main concerns relate to the height of the apartment buildings proposed and their raised topography due to the natural ground level relative to the two storey properties in the wider locality. Officers have carefully considered this point. Of key importance is the proximity of these buildings to the warehouse beyond and the substantial landscape buffer adjacent Pennine Way. The warehouse is a significant and dominant structure which sits a considerable amount higher than the intended finished rooflines of the apartments. In envisaging the height and topography Officers have examined the 3D montage images produced for views from within the site and from Pennine Way. Such imagery demonstrates the appearance from within and outside the development is not significantly out of proportion. The appearance conveyed is effectively a stepping down from the warehouse beyond, to the two storey dwellings to the north of the site. As such in terms of character and appearance the proposal is not judged to be substantially out of keeping and is considered to accord with Tamworth Local Plan Policies ENV19 and the emphasis within the NPPF regarding appropriate design.
8.2 Housing Mix and Density
8.2.1 The NPPF contains specific advice regarding Plan formation and housing mix. In particular paragraph 50 states:
To deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, local planning authorities should:
plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes); identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations, reflecting local demand; 8.2.3 Tamworth Borough Council Development Plans state that putting tenure aside, the overall mix of unit sizes is close to Tamworth’s needs:
Required mix = 4% One Bedroom, 42% 2 bedroom, 39% 3 bedroom, 15% 4 bedroom As proposed = 4 x 1 bed (4.3%), 37 x 2 bed (39.4%), 36 x 3 bed (38.3%), 17 x 4 bed (18.1%)
8.2.4 However when tenure is taken into account the mix of affordable units is poor with no provision larger than 2 bedroom apartments, whilst the market housing is skewed towards larger dwellings when the emerging policies require a comparable mix to that required above:
Affordable - 4 x 1 bed (14.3%), 24 x 2 bed (85.7%) Market – 13 x 2 bed (19.7%), 36 x 3 bed (54.5%), 19 x 4 bed (28.8%)
8.2.5 Development Plans also acknowledge the Council does not yet have an adopted policy regarding housing mix. Indeed it is only in recent months that the re-drafted Emerging Plan included distinction between market and affordable housing mix. No such distinction existed prior to the most recent version of the plan and hence was not included with the Council’s S106 requirements on the outline approval, merely that a mix be agreed at the Reserved Matters stage. An added complication is that the emerging plan reduces the percentage of affordable housing required from 30% under the current policies to 25%. Therefore in the Officer’s view the Council must either accept that the agreed 30% (28 units) was taken from the currently adopted plan which contains no specific housing mix requirements overall. Or alternatively they should accept a lesser provision at 25% that results in a more compliant mix but less units overall (23 units).
8.2.6 When this was put to the Council’s Housing Strategy Manager the preference was indicated for more units at the two bedroom size as in his opinion this is where the majority of the need exists, and therefore would benefit the Borough more than the alternative option.
8.2.7 Bearing in mind the outline application was approved subject to a signed S.106 that requires 30% on site provision (28 units) and this was on the basis of the adopted plan with no specific mix requirements, and the overall mix of housing is in accordance with the Emerging Plan as is emphasised by the NPPF, on balance Officers are satisfied the proposal achieves a mix of housing that is appropriate for local needs and meets the requirements within the NPPF. To insist upon a strictly compliant mix would likely lead to a reduction in the overall number of affordable units provided. This is not supported by the Council’s Housing Strategy service. Thus on balancing the effect of a less compliant mix versus more units overall, Officers consider having more units but of a less compliant mix would convey more benefit to the Borough in this instance.
8.2.8 With regards density, the entire site area including open space is 3.3Ha. which equates to 28.4 dwellings per hectare. The net density, excluding the open space (approx 0.3Ha), is 31.3 dwellings per hectare. As part of the Plan formation process rough densities of urban areas were calculated (these include open spaces and roads etc). For Malham Road (22dph), for north of Pennymoor Road (28dph), for south Pennymoor Road (25dph) and for wider Stoneydelph (27dph). Therefore on the basis of the entire site area, the density of 28.4dph is comparable with Pennymoor Road and wider Stonydelph such that the proposal is considered appropriate for the context.
8.3 Amenity implications for neighbouring and prospective residents
8.3.1 The nearest potentially affected neighbours are those which back on to the site to the east served by Montley and Mossdale. Also potentially affected are the dwellings on Ravenstone but these properties exist on the opposite side of Pennine Way, close to the open space proposed. As such a separation distance of 60m is apparent from the properties on Ravenstone and no significant impacts will therefore result in a residential amenity sense.
8.3.2 With regard to overlooking and loss of privacy for the dwellings to the east, Officers note the majority of the new properties are orientated facing away from existing neighbouring dwellings such that intervisibility between facing windows is not a concern. The only properties where intervisibility could have been an issue was on plots 65 and 66 which face towards No’s 19 and 20 Montley. However typical modern facing elevation separation distances are expected to be 23m plus 2m for every 1m rise in ground level. This was the standard within the Tamworth Interim Planning Guidance document and is comparable to similar standards used in Warwick (22m) and Bromsgrove (21m) for example. There is in excess of 35m between plots 65 and 66 and 19 - 20 Montley and there is a substantial vegetation screen. Consequently no significant impacts are judged to result and no overlooking will result for 18 Montley or 29-32 Mossdale as a consequence of the orientation of the new dwellings. Similarly there are judged to be no adverse effect in terms of overbearing or overshadowing to nearby dwellings.
8.3.3 The implications for 28 Mossdale have also been carefully considered. Plots 63 and 64 are broadly orientated away from the property itself and have potential views only of a driveway area to the front of the property. In addition views would only be possible from a first floor bedroom window and at a distance in exceedance of 14m, over the existing vegetation and public footpath. 12.5m would be a typical minimum separation expected between squarely facing elevations, and thus the relationship in this case is well within an acceptable standard such that adequate privacy is retained.
8.3.4 The impact of the surrounding environment (such as the main road and the nearby warehouse) on prospective residents is also a material consideration. Conditions were included on the outline approval to address these matters. Environmental Protection suggest the same conditions be included once more on the Reserved Matters decision. This is not judged necessary as it is governed by the Outline approval already. Therefore such matters are considered to have been effectively dealt with.
8.3.5 Noise arising during the construction process is also a relevant issue. The Environmental Protection Service states that the Council has no formally adopted construction hours of operation. They confirm that construction works during normal working hours (Monday to Friday: 7.30am to 6pm, Saturday: 8am to 1pm, Sunday and Bank Holidays: no working) would not normally be a concern. Any significantly noisy construction works outside of these hours will normally require an application for prior consent under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Such a matter is typically administered by Environmental Protection Service. Members will also be aware that approval of a planning application does not absolve the applicant from complying with other legislation such as statutory nuisance legislation.
8.4 Tree and Biodiversity Implications
8.4.1 A total of 46 No. individual trees, 4 No. groups and 1 hedge were recorded in the arboricultural report submitted. A total of 5 individual category C trees are proposed to be removed, along with Groups 1 (large number of young self set trees) and Group 2 (young Hawthorn and Holly) and the partial clearance of Group 3 and Hedge 1 in accordance with the submitted tree protection plan. An updated report has also been received which, following a meeting with Officers and the Council’s Tree Officer, seeks to retain two mature trees (reducing the individual trees removed to 3) and offers a more significant justification for the removal of a TPO Ash tree to the north of the site (Tree No. 23).
8.4.2 All trees to be removed are classified as either category ‘U’ (should be removed for sound arboricultural reasons) or category ‘C’ trees meaning the trees are of low quality and low amenity value. Officers have walked over the site to examine the trees and appraise the assumptions underpinning the categorisations. Officers raise no objections to the classifications given within the report. Given the further detail provided within the update report Officers raise no objections to the justification for the removals proposed.
8.4.3 Specifically the removal of the TPO Ash tree is worthy of note. The Ash is a large tree and does have some public amenity contribution being located adjacent to the footpath. However the tree is Ivy clad, suppressed by the tree adjacent biasing it to the west, the entire crown contains die back with large pieces of dead wood within the scaffold along with epicormic growth throughout the tree. However most significantly fungal fruiting bodies consistent in appearance with Inonotus hispidis (Fungus commonly known as ‘Shaggy Bracket’) are present. Such a fungus commonly attacks Ash trees causing brittle fractures. Evidence of shed limbs is already apparent but can also cause the main trunk to fail. In the Arboriculturist’s opinion ‘given the extent of the die back and the location of the fungal brackets, it is likely the infection is extensive in this tree and that it is therefore structurally compromised.’ Given the position of the tree adjacent a public footpath and private drive to a proposed residential dwelling, Officers and the Tree Officer accept the justification for removal. Replacement planting has been included as part of the landscaping scheme to offset the loss.
8.4.4 Regarding ecology and the potential implications for protected species, this matter was carefully considered as part of the outline application. The submitted reports by a Chartered Ecologist accompanying the outline application confirmed the site ‘is an undeveloped parcel of land in an otherwise entirely urban setting surrounded by housing, a busy main road and a large factory … These developments effectively break connectivity to natural and semi-natural habitats in the wider area.’ Overall the report concluded ‘the application site has limited wildlife value and re-development would not have a significant upon biodiversity. No further surveys are recommended. The most valuable habitat on site is the north eastern boundary hedge and it is recommended this is retained.’ The current proposal seeks to reinforce this hedge boundary with additional planting, and aside from the removal of the TPO Ash with fungal infection, is to be retained.
8.4.5 The principle of the development on the site has already been approved and on the recommendation of the ecological survey on the grounds of limited biodiversity potential, no further conditions were added to reassess the ecological merits of the site. Consequently Officers consider the opportunity to reconsider ecological matters is limited, and confined to the circumstances which may have changed since the grant of the outline application. Officers note that the site has regenerated since the grant of the outline planning permission to some extent but nevertheless is still dominated by course grasses (said to be ‘Species Poor’) but more young self set Ash trees (group 1 within the tree report) are apparent within a large area on the southern boundary. Aside from this, little else has changed from when the original ecological surveys and conclusions regarding the ecological implications of the development were made. As such Officers do not consider resisting the development on the grounds of biodiversity implications would be proportionate or reasonable given the information available.
8.5 Designing out crime versus walkable communities
8.5.1 The Police Architectural Liaison objects to the proposal on two main grounds. The first is that the high level of pedestrian permeability (linkages) will promote crime by providing criminals with ease of access and escape and a legitimate reason to explore this neighbourhood unchallenged. No suggestions appeared to be made as to how this concern may be overcome. The second is that the rear gardens of dwellings in the southern part of the site abut an existing footpath making them vulnerable to vandalism and burglary. It is suggested that this design concern could be overcome by fronting properties southwards onto the footpath to ensure greater natural surveillance results.
8.5.2 Whilst Officers understand the concerns raised, they are not easily overcome and are not within the applicant’s control. Indeed similar matters regarding permeability concerns were raised within the outline application. There is a well documented tension between the Home Office advocated approach to limit permeability of neighbourhoods on the basis of crime reduction and the DCLG advocated approach of developing walkable communities. It is the tension between these two ideals which must be considered when addressing the first point.
8.5.3 Regarding reducing the permeability of the site, there are two links within the amended scheme into the footpath network around the site. These links sit on established desire lines created by existing pedestrian movements. A third adjacent the apartments and footpath was considered but omitted due to insufficient overlooking and construction difficulties due to levels differences. Such links make it possible to walk to employment areas, to local shops and to dwellings in the local area. Such links promote healthy living, outside play, cycling and the use of local facilities. To the contrary these links can also be viewed as escape routes which make it easier for criminal behaviour to occur and for perpetrators to vanish into the network of paths. Officers consider the presence of existing desire lines at the site indicates the usage of the links presently. The scheme from inception at the outline stage cited a central pedestrian line to link into the existing footpath network and the application incorporates only two links overall. These links have been designed to direct users along established road frontages within the development such that natural surveillance is maximised. The officer considers the scheme therefore has done as much as is feasible to attempt to overcome the negative aspects of incorporating the linkages whilst also balancing the competing desire to promote sustainable walkable communities.
8.5.4 The second concern raised relates to residential perimeter boundaries of prospective residents backing onto the southern footpath. The dwellings to the south of the site could be designed with frontages facing southwards onto the footpath as is the approach adopted at the northern end of the site. However Officers are of the view the living environment created by such an approach would be dominated by the large warehouse in an elevated position to the south of the site. The approach put forward by the applicant is a target hardened boundary to the rear with a robust 1.8m fence topped by trellis with defensive planting to the interior of the garden. Officers did explore whether the partially vacant verge adjacent the footpath to the south could be reinforced with defensive planting funded by the applicant. This land is in the ownership of Staffordshire County Council. Unfortunately due to the requirement for future maintenance, the County Council were not receptive to this approach. Nevertheless with the target hardening measures identified, Officers are satisfied the applicant has done as much as is reasonable when balancing the crime prevention with conveying an appropriate outlook and living environment to prospective residents.
8.6 Drainage Provision
8.6.1 The application proposes a drainage route to the east of the site down to an existing foul and surface water sewer in Malham Road. As a foul drainage solution is feasible in engineering terms and is to be adopted under S.104 of the Water Industry Act 1991 as set out in the submitted drawings, Officers raise no concerns around the solution proposed. S.104 requires new sewers meet a Mandatory Build Standard regarding design and construction such that their longevity and functionality is ensured.
8.6.2 With regards surface water drainage, on site SUDS solutions are normal practice. The applicant in this case proposes a swale type solution (a depression in the ground capable of water storage as necessary). The swale proposed will be located within the open space to the north of the site. The feature is not intended to be wet year round. The swale effectively serves as an overflow from the existing system to buffer (slow down) rainwater run off to main drains in order to reduce the potential for surface water flooding elsewhere. The cubic capacity within the swale is fixed at a level such that the capacity of the entire system will accommodate a 1 in 100 year flood event plus an amount for climate change as stated within the Environment Agency comments received. This is the best practice approach when planning to mitigate surface water run off.
8.6.3 Comments on the amended plans from the Council’s Head of Environmental Management raises no objections to the principle of a swale drainage solution but cautions the Council’s commuted maintenance sum written into the S.106 did not include a swale type solution thus a further maintenance sum should be sought.
8.6.4 Comments on the amended plans from the Staffordshire Lead Local Flood Authority have not been received at the time of the production of this report. However the conditions on the outline approval require the submission and agreement of the surface water drainage solution, Officer consider this matter can be dealt with under the discharge of conditions process. If further comments are received these comments will be made available to Planning Committee.
8.7 Open Space – Scale and Location
8.7.1 The scale of the open space is raised as a concern and it is suggested the development has reduced the amount to be provided from that indicated at the outline stage. As is common for outline applications, the plans submitted were indicative documents only and in accordance with the Council the process allows for changes to be made to layout, scale and landscaping to which the current application relates. Officers consider the area of open space is nevertheless broadly similar to that originally shown at the outline stage. As such no significant concerns are raised.
8.7.2 Concerns are also raised that the location of the open space is not appropriate given the proximity to the highway and that a more centrally located open area should be included. Officers acknowledge the proximity of open space to a highway is a material consideration and recall this was a point for discussion within the previous outline submission.
8.7.3 The Council’s own open space is located within the area to the north of the site adjacent to the public footpath and cycleway. The new area as proposed will abut this space and is set to be adopted by the Council if the Reserved Matters Application is approved and development commences. Grouping areas of open space together is logical from a maintenance point of view and from a usability perspective. Officers did explore whether erecting fencing along the highway boundary could have been a feasible way of combating these concerns. The Council’s Head of Environmental Management points out that a purpose built play facility exists on the opposite side of the road and further play space further to the north and that contributions have been provided to maintain and enhance this area. In her view fencing in this small sloping area would create an unnecessary maintenance burden with limited recreational opportunities for residents when contrasted against the purpose built facilities nearby. Moreover it is pointed out that the adjoining Council owned area has no such fencing and is not currently considered to be a good example useable public open space in itself. Even with the areas combined, the functional use of the area for active recreation is questioned. Given this situation the Head of Environmental Management would prefer single low timber posts consistent with those on the Council’s land to prevent unauthorised access by vehicles.
8.7.4 Given the observations from the Head of Environmental Management, officers conclude the location of the open space as proposed is acceptable. Adequate play facilities exist nearby and monies are made available for enhancement as per the S.106. Whilst an alternative central solution may be feasible as pointed out by some respondents, there is a preference of a grouped solution for maintenance reasons. It is not for the Council to speculate about what the applicant could have submitted without a significant and justifiable reason to reject that proposed.
8.8 Other Issues
8.8.1 Highway Matters
A number of respondents raise concerns relating to highway safety as a consequence of the formation of the junction to Pennine Way and also the capacity of the local road network, particularly in light of discussions around the development of the golf course. Highway safety matters were considered in detail at the Outline Application. With regards traffic generation from the site, the effect of the 94 dwellings on the highway network was deemed acceptable and benefits from approval. Although the golf course development has since emerged, this is not an adopted allocation at this time and it would be for any future development such as the golf course to justify the effect on the highway network taking into account any approved schemes or those currently under construction. With regards junction design, the Council already has approved the manner in which the site will be accessed. It is judged these matters cannot be revisited within this Reserved Matters submission. The main highway matters to be assessed relate to ensuring suitable internal access arrangements and layouts.
Staffordshire County Council Highways Authority initially raised concerns regarding technical matters within the development. Discussions with the Highway Officer prior to submission of the amended plans indicated a solution was feasible subject to provision of formal amendments. These changes have been incorporated into the amended plans. An updated highway comment is expected before Planning Committee and will be set out in a formal Planning Committee update paper.
8.8.2 Unauthorised Commencement of Works
Respondents raise concerns that works on site have already commenced. Officers have visited the site on a number of occasions to assess whether this was the case. In all instances the works carried out were judged to be permitted development (erection of fencing around site) or were not development under S.55 of the 1990 Act (vegetation clearance). No TPO trees or protected hedgerows were affected by the works carried out and no breaches in planning control were observed.
8.8.3 Insufficient amenities and schools
The site is located within an established urban area, is in close proximity to local centres and is accessible to the town centre and wider region by various means of transport. As such the amenities available to the prospective residents of the 94 dwellings were judged acceptable at the outline stage. With regards education provision, the S106 on the outline approval required the provision of monies to support the provision of education for future residents. The comments from the Staffordshire County Council Education consultee state that in accordance with their formulae the development could potentially add 20 primary aged children, 14 secondary aged children and 3 sixth form aged children. An education contribution of £220,620 (index linked) is therefore sought in total with 50% on commencement and 50% on the building of the 50th dwelling.
8.8.4 Site designated as Open Space precludes development
The considerations surrounding the status of the land and the related evidence regarding the availability of open space in the vicinity was a complex and key consideration within the outline application. A detailed analysis of this issue was provided in the Officers report accompanying 0349/2012 and in light of these considerations the application was approved. Thus the principle of residential development on the site is no longer up for discussion.
8.8.5 Oil Pipeline
British Pipelines are responsible for the ensuring the integrity of the pipeline network. Officers understand the applicant has been in discussions with British Pipelines for some time regarding the site and manner which works will have to be managed to ensure the integrity of the line remains. In layout terms the development is designed to ensure the pipeline is on the public side of properties for maintenance long term. It is also intended double wrap the pipeline and install a concrete slab along the length of the pipeline within the site along with cathodic protection. Such construction techniques have not been formally agreed at this time as no formal layout has been agreed. However British Pipeline Engineers accept a solution is feasible. Officers consider it would be appropriate to condition the provision of a construction method statement and risk assessment to ensure the proposed safety measures are considered in the wider context of the residential development from the Council’s perspective.
9. Conclusion
9.1.1 The application proposes the construction of 94 dwellings on a triangular piece of land off Pennine Way. In terms of its design merits the layout of the scheme is considered to respond well to its context in urban design terms. A clear frontage to Pennine Way is proposed, the scheme incorporates pedestrian linkages into the surrounding network, makes the central access road a focal point through the development and attempts have been made to soften the dominance of the highway within the scheme. The density, form and massing of the two storey dwellings is reflective of the modern residential development which exists in the context and a good variety and mix of building styles is shown on the street scene elevations. Although the scale and massing of the apartment blocks relative to the proposed two storey dwellings is questioned by some respondents, the peripheral position of these building and proximity to the much higher warehouse building beyond is a key factor in why officers judge the scale of the buildings is compatible with the setting of the area and does not harm the design successes within the wider scheme.
9.1.2 The outline approval was issued subject to a S.106 that requires 30% on site affordable housing provision equating to 28 units. Although the emerging policies would require a comparable mix of affordable housing to that required overall, the Council does not yet have an adopted policy regarding affordable housing mix. Indeed it is only in recent months that the re-drafted Emerging Plan included distinction between market and affordable housing mix. It is also noted the emerging plan reduces the percentage of affordable housing required from 30% under the current policies to 25%. Therefore the Council must either accept the agreed 30% (28 units) with no specific mix under the current plan or alternatively they should accept a lesser provision at 25% (23 units) with a specified mix. Setting aside the legalities of the S.106 having already been signed at 30%, of the two options the Housing Strategy Manager favours the provision of more affordable housing overall. Consequently given the lack of an adopted policy and that overall the mix of housing is in compliance with the housing needs evidence as emphasised by the NPPF, the proposal achieves a mix of housing that is appropriate to meet local needs and the requirements within the NPPF.
9.1.3 The detailed amenity implications for neighbouring properties such as overlooking, overbearing and overshadowing have been carefully assessed as part of the application process. In all cases the separation distances apparent surpass typical standards used by Local Planning Authorities and no other overbearing or overshadowing impacts result. The living environment for prospective residents is a relevant consideration but the outline approval requires further survey to assess and mitigate the noise from the highway and nearby warehouse development such that no further conditions are required.
9.1.4 The previously submitted reports by a Chartered Ecologist accompanying the outline application confirmed the site ‘is an undeveloped parcel of land in an otherwise entirely urban setting surrounded by housing, a busy main road and a large factory … These developments effectively break connectivity to natural and semi-natural habitats in the wider area.’ Overall the report concluded ‘the application site has limited wildlife value and re-development would not have a significant upon biodiversity. No further surveys are recommended. The most valuable habitat on site is the north eastern boundary hedge and it is recommended this is retained.’ The current proposal seeks to reinforce this hedge boundary with additional planting, and aside from the removal of the TPO Ash justified on the basis of a fungal infection, is to be retained. As such the application is considered to meet the requirements of Tamworth Local Plan Policies ENV7, ENV8 and ENV9.
9.1.5 Concerns are raised by the Police Architectural Liaison on the basis that the pedestrian permeability (linkages) incorporated into the scheme will promote crime by providing criminals with ease of access and escape and that the proximity of property boundaries to the footpath to the south is a concern. Whilst Officers understand the concerns raised, these must be balanced against DCLG objectives of promoting walkable and sustainable communities. Such links make it possible to walk to employment areas, to local shops and to dwellings in the local area. Such links promote healthy living, outside play, cycling and the use of local facilities. With regard the two linkages proposed, these are sited along existing desire lines and are designed such to provide access through the development along street frontages maximising natural surveillance. With regards boundary security, these concerns relate to the south of the site where the existing footpath abuts gardens to dwellings. Putting aside this is a common arrangement within the wider context of the development, the applicant has opted to include robust fencing topped with trellis (2.1m overall) backed by defensive spikey planting. Therefore with regards both concerns raised, Officers consider these matters must be balanced against wider planning objectives and where possible the applicant has taken reasonable steps to attempt to overcome the matters such that the development is considered acceptable.
9.1.6 At the time of writing this report comments from the Lead Local Flood Authority regarding the proposed surface water drainage solution and the full extent of the swale within the proposed open space have not been received. As such existing conditions on the outline requiring the submission and agreement will remain. Comments have also not been provided from the Highways Authority regarding the internal road layout and functionality. However discussions with the Highway Officer prior to submission of the amended plans indicated a solution was feasible subject to amendments. These changes have been incorporated into the amended plans. An updated highway comment is expected before Planning Committee and will be set out in a formal Planning Committee update paper.
9.1.7 Taking into account all of the above matters and those raised in the submitted representations, for the above reasons the application is considered to comply with Tamworth Local Plan Policies TRA3, HSG5, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV14, ENV19 and Paragraph 7 of the NPPF. Conditions / Reasons
1. The Reserved Matters consent hereby issued grants approval of the siting, design and external appearance of buildings, the means of access to the buildings and the landscaping of the site referred to as the reserved matters under condition 1 of Planning Approval Notice 0349/2012 subject to the conditions within that consent and the conditions hereby enclosed. This consent does not discharge or otherwise grant approval of details relating to any other condition attached to 0349/2014 and in particular further details will still be required to discharge the requirements of conditions 5-14 of Planning Approval 0349/2014 and the conditions hereby enclosed. Reason: For clarity and the avoidance of doubt regarding the approved details.
2. The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance with the application form and submitted details including the Amended Design Statement 1633 DS01 Rev A, detailed Landscaping drawings 5367 LM01 Rev B and 5367 PP02 to 06 Rev C and the supporting standard details, the submitted Tree Schedule and Arboricultural Method statement 5367 FE AMS 01 Rev B dated January 2015 and addendum dated 21 November 2014 and the following drawings: 001 Rev B - Site Plan 006 Rev B – Street Scene 007 Rev B – 3D visuals 010 Rev B – Enclosures Plans 015 Rev B – Materials Plans 041 Rev B – Proposed Finished Floor Levels Building Types and Garages – A to L 120 Rev A – Swale Storage 121 Rev A – Swale Storage Cross Sections 1005104 Rev A – Section 104 Drainage Plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To define the permission.
3. The tree removals hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Tree Schedule and Arboricultural Method statement 5367 FE AMS 01 Rev B dated January 2015 and the submitted Addendum dated November 2014. The tree protection measures shown on Tree Protection Plan 5278 FE TPP 02 dated 5 January 2015 shall be implemented from the commencement of development works on site and shall be left in situ until the construction phase of the development has been completed. Reason: In the interests of protecting retained trees during the course of the construction phase of the development in accordance with the submitted details and Tamworth Local Plan Policy ENV9.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed construction method statement and risk assessment which considers the presence of the high pressure oil pipeline and any special construction measures utilized during the course of the development, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved method statement shall be adhered to for the duration of the construction phase of the development. Reason: In the interests of public safety, the character and appearance of the development and the structural integrity of the national high pressure oil pipeline.
Informative Note(s)
1. The applicant should note conditions 5-8, 10, 11 and 13 on Planning Approval 0349/2012 and condition 4 on this planning approval are prior to commencement of development conditions which require formal discharge before any on site development as defined under S.55 of the 1990 Act commences.
2. The applicant is advised to note and act upon as necessary the comments of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer in his letter dated the 6th November 2014.
3. The applicant is advised to note and act upon as necessary the comments of Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service in their letter dated the 3rd November 2014.
4. This planning consent should be read in conjunction with a S106 agreement accompanying application 0349/2012.
Application Number: 0401/2014
Development: Construction of 5 buildings comprising of 12 light industrial units and associated access parking and refuse areas.
Location: Land off Glascote Road (B5000), Stonydelph, Tamworth
1 Introduction
1.1 This site has been subject to a previous planning application for an identical proposal. The earlier application (referenced 0227/2013) was deferred on 2 occasions, once due to the receipt of late information which needed to be assessed and on the second occasion to allow members of the Planning Committee to undertake a site visit. The application was refused at the third meeting for the following reason:
The development by virtue of the fact that there is a likelihood of disturbing a protected species living within close proximity to the site, or adversely affecting a protected species foraging territory or links between them, would therefore be contrary to policies ENV7 and ENV8 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 and the provisions of the NPPF.
1.2 The applicant subsequently appealed the decision of the Planning Committee. The appeal was heard by way of an Informal Hearing held at Marmion House on the 29th July 2014. The hearing was attended by some members of the Planning Committee and other interested Councillors.
The Planning Inspectorate dismissed the appeal and a copy of this decision is attached for members’ information at Appendix A.
1.3 The Inspector considered the main issue to be the effect of the development proposed on protected species, specifically bats and badgers. She acknowledged that the existing trees to the southern boundary of the site could be classified as having low potential to support roosting bats, due to their relatively small canopy and dense coverage in ivy, and concluded (in agreement with Natural England) that these trees could adequately be surveyed though a climbing inspection before any works to the trees were carried out.
However, she also noted that there were a number of mature trees that overhang the north western corner of the site (adjacent to the Golf Course). Whilst these trees are outside of the site the development proposed some minor works to these trees such as raising of canopies. These trees were not surveyed as part of the application and as such the presence of bat roosts, or not, had not been established. The Inspector considered that in the absence of such information there was insufficient information to indicate that the development would not be harmful to bats which may be roosting in these mature trees and that the development should not be allowed on this ground.
1.4 It was established at the appeal and during the site visit that the outlier badger set identified within the site was not in active use. However, it was agreed that the site was used by badgers as an area for foraging with evidence of snuffle holes and badger tracks apparent at the site. The inspector detailed within her decision that no specific mitigation measures relating to badgers had been submitted and as such the development would affect the ability of badgers to continue to use the site, and this could impact the existing biodiversity network. The Inspector concluded that further survey work of the site was justified in order to establish the effects of the proposal on badgers, as would a detailed badger mitigation strategy.
1.5 In terms of other matters the Inspector stated:
“The proposal would incorporate some biodiversity mitigation and enhancement measures which would be of some environmental benefit. Additional jobs would be created both during the construction and operational phase of the industrial units proposed. I also understand that the proposed units would complement the appellant’s existing portfolio, offering accommodation for companies to grow their business. This would clearly be of economic and social benefit to the area.
Section 1 of the Framework does emphasise the importance of building a strong and prosperous economy. However one of the Framework’s core planning principles also states that planning should contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment (paragraph 17). Additionally, the presence of a protected species which may be adversely affected by a development proposal is a matter which carries significant weight. Therefore whilst the benefits of the proposal are recognised, I consider that they do not outweigh the harm that I have identified”.
2 Site and Surroundings
2.1 The application site is located to the east of the Borough and lies directly adjacent to the Boroughs administrative boundary with North Warwickshire Borough Council. This triangular site is an undeveloped parcel of greenfield land, which is characterised by trees (some of which are protected by Tree Preservation Order No1 1972) to its boundaries, the central area of the site was previously characterised by small trees and overgrown areas of brambles, bracken and hawthorn but the site was cleared in February 2014 and has been maintained as such ever since. The site is not identified within the adopted local plan for any specific land use and does not benefit from any environmental or open space designations or protection.
2.2 The site is bound to the south by the B5000 (Glascote Road), this boundary is characterised by a large number of mainly oak trees, and large areas of smaller trees and bushes. Beyond the B5000 and a large earth bund which has been heavily planted is the Chiltern Road residential estate with the dwellings on Cheviot and Correen. The distance between the site and the nearest residential curtilage is 31 metres with 6 Correen being the closest building. The western boundary of the site is currently formed by a green palisade fence beyond which lies the existing Amington Employment Area (AEA), which comprises a mix of sizes of industrial units. Tamworth Golf Course lies to the north west of the site beyond a copse of oak trees and a ditch. To the north east (within North Warwickshire) lie agricultural fields, which have been used to hold Bank Holiday car boot sales in the past, and the Priory Farm karting track. Footpath T95 follows the northern boundary of the site to its north western corner where it follows the boundaries of the golf course to the north.
3 Proposal
3.1 The application proposes the development of the site for industrial/business use though the erection of 5 buildings to provide 12 units for use as B1 (c) light industrial purposes, the site extends to 0.69ha with a total floor space proposed of 1570 sq.m. Vehicular access to the site is proposed to the centre of the site from the Glascote Road (B5000) 80m to the east of the vehicular access to Chiltern Road.
3.2 The vehicular access effectively splits the site in half with the internal access road running along the northern boundary of the site. To the east of the site access two detached units are proposed (243 sq.m and 155 sq.m), with an area identified on the plan as an ‘area for biodiversity’ proposed to the easternmost corner of the site. To the west of the site access three blocks each containing three units are proposed (between 132 sq.m and 107 sq.m). The units are sited close to the southern boundary of the site with the B5000.
All of the units are interspersed with car parking, bin storage and landscaped areas. A gated maintenance/security access point is shown from the existing industrial estate to the western boundary of the site.
3.3 The scale, layout, and design of the site has not changed since the planning appeal referred to above. However, updated ecological reports, management and enhancement plans, and a tree survey and bat emergence survey have been prepared. The following documentation has been submitted in support of the application (all are available for inspection on the Councils website at www.tamworth.gov.uk);
Design & Access Statement; Transportation Statement; Phase 1 Ecological Survey (revised December 2014) Tree survey for potential bat roosts and bat emergence survey Landscape Design Consultant comments; Ecological Management and Enhancement Plan; Landscape concept; and Tree Survey;
4 Key Issues
4.1 The key issues in assessing the merits of this scheme are considered to be the following;
. Principle of development / Economic role; . Ecology and biodiversity; . Trees; . Siting and Design of the proposed development; and . Highway safety;
5 Conclusion
5.1 The need for new economic development is acknowledged as a priority, and the benefits of the development in this respect have been given significant weight in assessing whether the current proposal is acceptable.
5.2 In principle the development of the site for employment purposes, whilst on a greenfield site is considered to be acceptable in supporting new economic development. The layout and siting of the buildings and internal access roads will ensure that the impact of the development on the protected and unprotected visually important trees on the boundaries of the site, and the landscape scheme and management proposals will retain the importance of these boundary features in ensuring the development preserves the overall character of the area.
5.3 The proposed buildings are designed to a high standard for small industrial units, which coupled with the proposed landscaping scheme will fit comfortably with this urban edge location. The site and its surrounding features have been suitably and adequately surveyed and investigations have been completed that conclude that the development of the site, subject to the identified mitigation measures would not detrimentally impact on any protected species (particularly bats and badgers) or biodiversity in general.
5.4 The development has been subject to a detailed assessment of the highway safety implications of the proposed site access and it has been concluded that the proposed development will not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, and would not exceed the highway capacity of the road network.
Recommendation
Approve subject to conditions
0401/2014
C LO SE
Issues
GLASCOTE ROAD
D
A
RO
RN
E
T
L
Y
CHI
E
RL
E CRIGDON
B B IOT A V CORREEN CHE EN CORRE
D
T IO V E H C DA T RN VIO BR E O CH O AMIC K OMBE
LE MDA CRO
N
W
O
Y
D B
K S
C A
A E L
L
C
B
DON BREN
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright.
6 Consultation Responses
6.1 Tamworth Borough Council - Development Plans
Considering the employment needs set out in the evidence base for the draft local plan and the most up to date monitoring records, it is evident that there is still a high need for new employment land across the Borough. Because of the low amount of suitable brownfield sites for employment development and the constrained nature of the Borough, greenfield sites will still be required.
Subject to the findings of any ecology studies carried out, this site would contribute to meeting the employment needs of Tamworth and provide economic benefits. However the development should take into account the environmental impacts it could have. Impacts could be mitigated through good design which should also take into account the location of the site and its surroundings.
6.2 Tamworth Borough Council - Environmental Health
No objections to the proposed development as there is considered to be sufficient distance afforded by the road and current sound embankment for protection of residents of the Chiltern Road estate.
6.3 Tamworth Borough Council – Waste Management
Each business is legally responsible for the waste they produce. Each commercial unit is likely to require at least two containers. The layout of the site has been amended to provide bin storage areas for each of the buildings.
6.4 Tamworth Borough Council – (Tree Officer)
No objections to the proposed scheme, the concerns regarding trees within the site have been addressed and additional planting has been proposed to increase the depth of vegetation along the boundary of the site with the B5000.
The proposed tree works are supported and will improve the health, safety and long term retention of these currently neglected trees.
6.5 Tamworth Borough Council – Economic Development
Support the application for the following reasons;
It would create new, quality units close to an existing employment area; The development would potentially lead to the creation and sustainment of new jobs and new businesses; It would add to the portfolio of business units in Tamworth, giving existing businesses the opportunity to grow, move or expand into newer premises.
6.6 Staffordshire County Council – The Highway Authority
No objections subject to conditions relating to the submission of a details of various highway works, the provision of visibility splays, surfacing of the access and parking areas, drainage, provision of cycle storage areas, and the emergency vehicle/pedestrian link between the existing industrial development at Mica Close and the development site.
A detailed explanation of this recommendation has been provided by the Highway Authority within the highway safety section below.
6.7 Staffordshire Police
No response received at the time of writing this report. However, the following comments were made on the previous application: No objections but note that it is important that a high level of physical security is incorporated in to the proposals.
6.8 Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service
No response received at the time of writing this report. However, the following comments were made on the previous application: No objection in principle to the revised scheme which removes the vehicular access to the site from the existing estate to the west.
6.9 Severn Trent Water
No objection to the scheme subject to a condition requiring the submission of a drainage scheme for foul and surface waters.
6.10 Environment Agency
No response received at the time of writing this report. However, the following comments were made on the previous application: Do not with to make any comments on the application. It is noted that the site is not located within an area at risk from or constrained by flooding.
6.11 Staffordshire Wildlife Trust
No response received at the time of writing this report. However, the following comments were made on the previous application: The trust commented that they did not have time to comment on the application as they are full with higher priority cases.
6.12 North Warwickshire Borough Council
No objections as this proposal would assist in meeting Tamworth’s employment needs with little impact on North Warwickshire.
6.13 Natural England
Acknowledge that the site is in close proximity (over 1km) to the Alvecote Pools Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) but are satisfied that the development of this site would not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been designated. This SSSI does not represent a constraint to the development.
Natural England comment that they have not assessed the application or submitted documents for their impacts on protected species as the Standing Advice should be used in this respect. The comments on the previous application provided by Natural England are noted and they advise that the development should adhere to this advice. The advice previously provided stated that:
The information and clarification provided by the applicant’s ecologist should give reasonable clarity that bat roosts will not be affected. It is agreed by Natural England that the timing of the works will be key and this should be secured by condition, in addition to securing that the development is undertaken in accordance with the ecological management and enhancement plan, tree survey and ecological survey.
Natural England expect the local planning authority (LPA) to assess and consider other possible impacts of the development on local sites, local landscape character, and local or national biodiversity priority habitat species.
This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features in the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird next boxes. Securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site should be secured by condition.
6.14 Staffordshire Badger Conservation Group
Have considered the submitted information and agree entirely with the findings and recommendations. Badger gates can be installed in the security fence to allow access to the site for the badgers, the gates should be placed over an established badger path and the ecologists will know how to install these.
We know that badgers use the site for foraging and we found an outlier sett which was not in use, it is clear that the site is not now being used but as a precaution a badger survey should be undertaken prior to the commencement of any works to ensure that no badgers have moved on to the site in between the survey and commencement of development.
It is not considered that the site is essential to badgers for foraging for food, as there will be an abundance of earthworms on the golf course and other areas of woodland around the golf course which provides feeding opportunities.
7 Additional Representations
7.1 A total of 20 letters of objection have been received in respect of the application, the salient points raised relate to the following:
7.2 Principle / Need
There are so many far more suitable sites to build industrial sites than on the doorsteps of homes. We will be deprived of another piece of our precious countryside. Many estates are empty and unused. Decisions should be made on the basis of need: ‘The owners may need more profit but Tamworth does not need further burden on the already overloaded road systems of our dear little market town. There is no need for an additional 12 unit to be built, which will destroy our countryside. Why aren’t the existing empty units converted in to smaller units? The local plan does not identify this area as an area for industrial use. There would be preferable sites on the recently closed Golf Course. Some of the applicant’s existing units whilst not vacant are underused. There is little or no demand for new light industrial units in Tamworth. Lack of population growth in Tamworth to support the development
7.3 Traffic
Congestion caused from traffic turning right, access should be from Sandy Way and the existing Darwell Park site. Chiltern Road is a bus route, obstructions on Chiltern Road will cause problems for local residents. Parking is a nightmare, where will contactors park during construction? There have already been a number of accidents on the B5000 near Chiltern Road this will become more dangerous. Since the alterations to junction 10 of the A5 traffic has been diverting through Polesworth which causes delays. This development would increase delays for residents of the Acorn Ridge estate and Cheviot. An up to date rush hour survey should be undertaken. Should the Council still wish to proceed with this application they should make it a planning condition that a road be built through this estate from the golf course development to the B5000, with an island at the B5000 to aid traffic flow. This will make access on to the B5000 safer from Chiltern Road, Darwell Park and golf course development. The survey should take in to account the 2000 – 2500 cars from the proposed golf course site. The traffic survey is seriously flawed, it is two years out of date and the survey was not taken prior to the B5000 and Chiltern Road junction where the issues arise from the use of this junction. People will inevitably start parking on Chiltern Road. What if HGV’s start using the road? The ‘Bank Holiday Market’ blocks the roads already! A formal request that the Council contact the Tamworth Police Chief Inspector Harvey to determine concerns over safety at the proposed junction, and concern at likelihood of serious accidents.
7.4 Biodiversity / Protected Species
What has happened to the bats and badgers on the site? The destruction of wildlife living on the proposed site would be a tragedy and lost forever. Have you prosecuted the firm who ripped out the woodland without permission destroying wildlife habitat. Concern that the protected species information does not correspond with the Golf course survey. How can the developers be trusted after bulldozing the site? The survey is flawed, only certain trees were included within the survey. The ecology report is not accurate, nor up to date, and a reason for refusal could be justified on these grounds. Lack of accuracy within the report including referring to the wrong compass bearings. The tree inspection does not include the trees missed from the site frontage. The survey was undertaken by a cherry picker, which would not have been able to access all sides of all of the trees. The bat detector survey was undertaken at the same time as the survey of the trees, which suggests that the surveys were not undertaken with the diligence that would be expected. No dawn survey was undertaken, which is a shortfall. The number of detectors used was 2, but the report does not mention the other person undertaking the survey and surveyors need to be highly skilled. No monitoring of bat activity was undertaken on the site frontage. The applicant has failed to update the ecological ground report to take account of the changes that have taken place in 2014. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that they have fully overcome the appeal inspectors concerns relating to prevention of harm to bats a protected species as indicated in the appeal decision.
7.5 Impact on Amenity
Increased noise Increase in pollution Loss of views Noise during construction What kind of units are these going to be?
7.6 Footpath
Concern at the impassability of the public footpath due to the rapid bracken growth. There is concern that the footpath is not being maintained by the County Council, and this bracken is a wildlife refuge. The proposed fencing along the footpath boundary would be likely to discourage use of the footpath. The proposals do not include a new crossing facility across the B5000 and the route into the future Golf Course development would be tortuous and dangerous due to volumes of traffic. The existing ‘unofficial’ footpath is well used by the public and has been for many years.
7.7 Other
Why when a planning application has been dismissed are Sibson Mill being allowed to resubmit a similar proposal? Tamworth Council need to consider the people that have lived here for may years and if they are like myself they are very disappointed with such a pig headed Council – I have no doubt the Council will choose to ignore the residents that have to use this area and give in. Increase risk of flooding on the roundabout of the B5000. I have the impression that the Council is cash hungry at the expense of their residents. Sibson Mill Properties have a relative on the Planning Committee - Councillor Evelyn Rowe - she is in a privileged and influential position and she must be banned from having access to or any involvement with this application. Loss of footpath. The development offers nothing new and the lack of communication with the local community is disappointing. The vacant units would be a magnet for criminals. Devaluation of property. Loss of open space Impact on water pressure. The golf course is now set to be developed - is nothing sacred in and around Tamworth? There are no train stations nearby, but the site is served by two bus services at hourly intervals during the working day. No workers at the site would use the bus and this is a justifiable reason for refusal. The proposal fails to encourage sustainable modes of transport in accordance with the guidance given in the NPPF to encourage walking and cycling. The tree survey is missing 15 trees from the site survey, and does not comply with the Council’s validation requirements and this is a justifiable reason for refusal. Works have been carried out to TPO trees without permission, mainly the tree overhanging the unofficial footpath and this issue has not been rectified.
7.8 Whilst every endeavour has been made to adequately summarise all responses received all representations received are available for inspection on the Councils website at www.tamworth.gov.uk
8 Planning Considerations
8.1 The main issues for consideration in determining the acceptability of the proposed development are considered to be;
. Principle of development / Economic role; . Ecology and biodiversity; . Trees; . Siting and Design of the proposed development; . Highway safety; and . Other Issues.
As members will be aware the starting point in determining the acceptability of development proposals is the Local Plan, where the policies are consistent with the NPPF. In saving the local plan polices in 2009 only two of the employment polices were saved. These polices relate to development within established employment areas and working from home. As the proposal does not fall within these categories the starting point in assessing the principle of development is therefore the NPPF taking in to account the evidence base underpinning the draft local plan in terms of the need for new economic development within the Borough. Existing local plan policies relating to habitats, protected species, trees, design and traffic remain in place and will be considered in the relevant sections below.
The overarching aim of the NPPF is to achieve and support sustainable development, with a presumption in favour of supporting new development where this is achieved. The NPPF outlines the three dimensions to sustainable development and the role of the planning system;
an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy.
a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities; and
an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment.
An assessment of the acceptability of this proposal needs to be considered as a balance between these roles/dimensions. The NPPF states that where the development plan is silent (i.e. no relevant policies exist) planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.
8.2 Principle of development / Economic role
8.2.1 National policy is heavily weighted towards the promotion of the economy, enterprise and the creation of new jobs, of which industrial development is an important part. There have been a significant number of recent appeal decisions nationally and locally where considerable weight is given to new economic development / employment proposals.
8.2.2 Tamworth Borough Council supports this approach and this view is confirmed by the Councils Economic Development Team (ED). The response from ED highlights the positive impact the development would have through the creation of new, quality units close to an existing employment area. The creation and sustainment of new jobs and new businesses; and that this development would add to the portfolio of business units in Tamworth, giving existing businesses the opportunity to grow, move or expand into newer premises.
8.2.3 There is an encouragement within the NPPF to ensure the effective use and re-use of land is undertaken, and a number of representations have been received that comment that there are more suitable brownfield sites available for development within the Borough and that the site is not allocated within the local plan for development and is not needed. However, there is no policy requirement for new economic development to be provided on a brownfield first basis, or assessed on a supply basis as with new housing proposals, but rather to approve new development as the market requires and as new development is proposed.
8.2.4 Whilst this greenfield extension to the employment area is not the subject of an allocation in the existing local plan or the draft local plan this application needs to be determined on its merits as it would be a flawed decision in planning law to refuse the application based on it prematurely coming forward before the adoption of a new local plan. The evidence base underpinning the draft local plan is the most relevant up to date evidence in assessing the need for new employment development within the Borough (Contained within Policy EC6:Sustainable Economic Growth). This policy sets out that allocations amounting to 18ha of employment land to meet an overall need of 32ha will be delivered in Tamworth over the plan period. This leaves an unmet need of 14ha of employment land which is to be delivered outside of the borough boundaries.
8.2.5 This site would bring forward 0.69ha of new employment land, extending the AEA. The rate of new employment development completions in Tamworth has slowed significantly in recent years. As often acknowledged due to the constrained nature of the Borough there is a need for some of the employment land requirements to be met through the development of greenfield sites. It therefore needs to be assessed where the most appropriate of these greenfield sites are. Brownfield development and redevelopment will contribute to meeting the overall need, however the supply of brownfield land is low in comparison to greenfield land which is suitable for employment development.
8.2.6 The application site directly adjoins the existing AEA, and represents an opportunity to provide an extension to the current area, which would benefit from the current services (electricity, water, transport) available and would not constitute new unassimilated or isolated development which being with the urban area of the Borough is considered to be sustainable in general terms. This is as a result of access to sustainable modes of transport and access to relevant services and amenities within the Borough.
8.2.7 Whilst there has been no assessment of the actual job creation or an assessment of existing facilities within the Borough, (such as a need/demand for this type of development), which would have helped support the case for the proposal, there is an acknowledgement within the NPPF that investment in businesses should not be over-burdened by planning policy expectations. Overall the principle of developing the site for employment / economic development is considered to be acceptable and would represent a natural extension to the AEA, which would aid in meeting the employment needs of the Borough. However, this acceptability needs to be balanced with the issues considered below.
8.3 Ecology and biodiversity
8.3.1 The site has been subject to a Phase 1 Habitat Survey carried out in May 2013, and updated in December 2014, a Tree Survey for potential bat roosts and bat emergence survey carried out in August 2014 and updated in October 2014 with an Ecological Management and Enhancement Plan Report dated October 2013 and revised on August 2014 submitted in support of the application and following the Inspectors decision to dismiss the appeal.
8.3.2 The site is not subject to any formal national or local nature conservation designations. The closest national site being the Alvecote Pools Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is located beyond the golf course to the north. The closest Local Nature Reserves are located over 500m away from the site (the Tameside and Hodge Lane LNR’s). None of these designated sites represent a constraint to the development of the site. However the undeveloped and greenfield site has the potential to support important flora and fauna. 8.3.3 Biodiversity and ecology benefits from strong policy and legislative support. Policy ENV7 of the local plan requires all major applications to submit an ecological survey to take into account the potential effects on habitats and biodiversity; this is particularly important where the ecological value of a site is not known. If development is to be permitted proposals must avoid or minimise any adverse effects by safeguarding features with major importance to wildlife. Further to ENV7, policy ENV8 requires that development which would have an adverse impact on a legally protected species should not normally be permitted.
8.3.4 There are various characteristics that can be used to identify ecological resources or features likely to be important in terms of biodiversity. These include; animal or plant species, subspecies or varieties that are rare or uncommon, either internationally, nationally or more locally; ecosystems and their component parts, which provide the habitats required by the above species, populations and/or assemblages; endemic species or locally distinct sub-populations of a species; habitat diversity, connectivity and/or synergistic associations (e.g. networks of hedges such as those surrounding the site); notably large populations of animals or concentrations of animals considered uncommon or threatened in a wider context; plant communities (and their associated animals) that are considered to be typical of valued natural/semi-natural vegetation types; and species-rich assemblages of plants or animals;
8.3.5 The site consists of bracken, and improved grassland which has been colonised by scrub vegetation, with a mix of hedgerows and mature and semi-mature trees within but mainly to the southern and northern boundaries of the site. The site is located within the urban classification of the Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan, which identifies important habitats and priority areas which should be afforded protection. The primary objective for this action plan is to provide semi-natural habitats within and around urban centres including open mosaic on previously developed land, native woodland dan lowland meadow, with the priority for Tamworth being the river and floodplain grazing marsh. All habitats recorded are common, and typical of an overgrown greenfield site and the site does not contain any notable flora species which would warrant protection or would prevent the site being developed. This is confirmed by the lack of any Biodiversity Action Plan habitats or species being located within or close to the site.
8.3.6 The features of ecological value are the mature trees to the sites boundaries and the overgrown hedgerows. The surveys submitted recommend the protection of these features and the enhancement of the hedgerows though the planting of mixed native hedges and the introduction of wildflowers within these areas. The development of the site needs to ensure the long term protection of these notable features, which can be secured and improved though the submission of a landscaping scheme and management plan.
8.3.7 Bats: As detailed above within the introduction and as apparent from the appeal decision, a major area of concern has been the impact of developing the site and the proposed tree works on bats. A Tree Survey for potential bat roosts and bat emergence survey has been undertaken, which has assessed the site and trees within and adjacent to the site for signs of bats, to determine whether any trees are used as roosts or have the potential to be used, to assess the value of the site for the foraging, feeding and commuting or bats, and make recommendations for working on the site and any mitigation required.
8.3.8 Even prior to this survey being carried out it was confirmed by the Planning Inspector that it would be appropriate to undertake a climbing survey of each of the trees to assess each of the limbs proposed for removal for bat roosts, with any limbs with roosts or likely bat roosts retained. However, the concern raised at the appeal was the potential for the trees to the north western corner of the site to support bat roosts. The undertaken survey comprised three main elements:
A daytime visual assessment of the trees (including classification as to potential to support roosts). A daytime visual climbing assessment of the trees. An evening activity/roost emergence survey.
8.3.9 The assessments involves the use of extendable ladders, a cherry picker and an endoscope to investigate cavities and fissures within the trees. All trees on and adjacent to the site have been thoroughly investigated and the inspections showed no evidence of use by bats. The evening emergence/activity survey was carried out on the 20th August between 19:45 and 22:30 (by two Natural England licensed surveyors), and recorded evidence of bats commuting through and foraging within the site but no evidence of bats emerging from any trees within the site or resting in any trees. Due to the high potential of an Oak tree to the north of the site (T10) one of the surveyors was assigned to watch this tree (the only tree within or adjacent to the site with a high potential to support a bat roost) as the survey was undertaken in the peak bat activity season, with the results of the survey were clear and unequivocal in finding no signs of bat roosts in any trees within the site. The report concludes that the site provides a connective feature for bats moving from their roosts to a high quality foraging area (not the site itself as this is considered to represent a sub-optimal foraging opportunity). The proposed trees works are considered to be acceptable, with the exception of a large Oak tree to the north west of the site due to its potential to support bat roosts, Works to this tree are to be limited to the removal of dead wood and overhanging branches which do not contain suitable features, with the main cavity unaffected. Following this survey and the inspections carried out it is considered that there is certainty that there are no bats present within the site. Mitigation measures proposed include the retention of the mature boundaries to the site, wildlife friendly planting, and the installation of 6 bat boxes. These measures are considered to be acceptable.
8.3.10 Badgers: When considering the previous application concern was raised about an ‘outlier’ sett being present on the site. This sett was identified during a number of site visits, along with a number of other mammal pathways within the site, which could be attributed to any number of larger mammals such as domestic cats, rabbits, foxes and badgers. Following the site clearance in February 2014 (which did not require planning permission) and subsequent surveys of the site it can be accepted that there are no active badger sets on the site.
8.3.11 However, the site is used by badgers for sporadic foraging activity which is evident from paths and badger hairs being found on fences on the sites northern boundary. To this end the Ecological Management and Enhancement Plan identifies a number of mitigation measures to support future badger activity ofn the site, these include
precautions to be taken during construction works (including covering trenches or the provision of ramps to allow animals a means of escape, and capping any temporarily exposed pipes); the provision of 3 badger gates (specifications of which have been provided) to be installed within the proposed fencing along the northern boundary, which would be located as closely as possible to existing mammal trackways in to the site and to run in to vegetated areas to encourage foraging; and the provision of suitable planting within the landscaping scheme to enhance foraging for badgers (the proposed species include fruiting and berry bearing species).
These requirements are considered to be appropriate by the Staffordshire Badger Conservation Group who have raised no objections to the application
8.3.12 Whilst a number of comments have been received questioning the abilities/diligence/integrity of the surveyor who has undertaken the ecological and protected species appraisals for the site it can be confirmed that the applicants’ ecologist is a full chartered member of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management and has a duty to comply with the institutes code of conduct in respect of carrying out surveys and reports.
8.3.13 In conclusion it is considered that the features have been suitably and adequately surveyed and investigations have been completed that conclude that the development of the site, subject to the identified mitigation measures would not detrimentally impact on any protected species (particularly bats and badgers) or biodiversity in general. As a result the proposed development of the site is considered to comply with the requirements of policies ENV7 and ENV8 of the local plan, section 11 of the NPPF, and the guidance provided by Natural England in relation to assessing the impact of new development on biodiversity.
8.4 Trees
8.4.1 The site benefits from significant tree cover to its northern and southern boundaries, which includes four protected Oak trees and two protected Ash trees (the subject of Tree Preservation Order No1:1972), and a substantial number of unprotected but significant trees. Local plan policy ENV9 requires the Council to resist new development that would involve the loss of any tree, woodland or hedgerow which contributes significantly to the character of the landscape and its surroundings. Unless the need for development is sufficient to warrant the loss and loss cannot be mitigated by appropriate siting or design.
8.4.2 A number of tree surveys have been submitted since the first application for the development of the site, with the layout of the site altered in order to overcome concerns related to the close proximity of the units, parking areas, bin and cycle storage, and internal access road to trees surrounding the site on the site. And the resultant impact of this on the root protection areas of the trees and their likely long term retention and health. The comments of an objector relating to trees missing on the submitted survey are noted, and there appears to be a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a tree. Officers are content that the submitted survey is accurate and certain areas are identified on the survey as being bushed/small trees (Area 37)
8.4.3 The submitted plans are considered to provide sufficient protection for the root protection areas of the important trees within and adjacent to the site, with the root protection areas included as areas for soft landscaping with only small areas of car parking spaces and parts of the internal access road within root protection areas. Parts of the access road are proposed with a ‘no dig construction’, which raises the ground level around 30cm within the root protection area with sand, 3D cellular confinement filled with pea gravel and topped with porous tarmac. This kind of road construction distributes the weight of vehicles to reduce any impacts on tree roots it has been confirmed that the proposed construction would accommodate a 35 tonne vehicle without impacting on the roots below. The Councils Tree Officer is satisfied the technique will provide adequate weight dispersal to avoid root compaction of the tree or disturbance.
8.4.4 A landscape concept plan and supporting statement has been submitted in support of the revised scheme, with the intention of retaining a mature edge to the development, improving the landscape screening with new planting and providing increased depth of planting incorporating native species. An area dedicated to biodiversity improvements is indicated for the eastern part of the site.
8.4.5 The application proposes the removal of two small cherry trees on the site frontage to facilitate the provision of visibility splays across the existing grass verge, whilst their removal is not welcomed the value of the trees individually to the landscape is not significant in the context of the overall setting of the site and no objection is raised to their removal.
8.4.6 The substantial tree belt to the southern boundary of the site and the north western corner, contribute significantly to the character of the surrounding area. These trees (and hedging) form part of a mature linear woodland belt that does not appear to have been subject to any management in the past. Consequently, it has a pleasant natural appearance that is valued by local residents who have raised concerns in respect of the trees on the site. The trees constitute an important component of the landscape in this urban fringe location and need to be retained, protected and managed in a positive manner which the revised proposals achieve a view confirmed by the Councils Tree Officer.
8.5 Siting and Design
8.5.1 Development proposals are expected to achieve a high standard of design, which needs to be based on an analysis of the physical context and constraints of the site and its surroundings. Policy ENV19 requires development to make a positive contribution to its surroundings and landform through its siting, mass, scale, proportion and appearance. The site is located in close proximity to an existing residential area, open fields, a golf course, the existing AEA and is also an important gateway location into the Borough when entering Tamworth from Warwickshire.
8.5.2 Taking the design of the proposed buildings in isolation it is considered that the design solution to developing this green location at the edge of the Borough is successful. The buildings are proposed primarily in brick with feature brick piers, entrance features, a high proportion of glazing and imitation tiles roof tiles. It is considered that these building could sit comfortably within the landscape at this entrance in to the Borough. The application details that the buildings have been designed to allow for future expansion of the units through the installation of mezzanine floors or the removal of internal walls to combine units, which is considered to be a positive feature to the development which would allow for the flexible use of the buildings in the future.
8.5.3 A revised landscape concept plan has been developed in consultation with the applicant’s arboriculturalist, which includes the provision of 2.4 metre high powder coated metal bar type railings to north and west (adjacent to the public footpath and existing industrial estate), with the southern boundary to Glascote Road proposed with post and wire fencing carefully positioned to mitigate any damage to established hedgerow and trees.
8.5.4 Overall the design of the buildings coupled with the revised tree protection and landscape management scheme will ensure that the development be well integrated with its surroundings retaining the importance of the sites boundary features in ensuring the development preserves the overall character of this urban fringe location. 8.6 Highway safety and accessibility.
8.6.1 Traffic generation: The submitted development proposes 1570m² of B1(c) Light Industrial Use floor space. In order to assess the likely impact of the development on the highway network reference is made to the nationally recognised TRICS Database. TRICS is a traffic survey data set containing details of vehicular arrivals and departures from existing sites throughout the UK which are similar in scale and location to the current proposal at Darwell Park. Accepted procedure is to assess the traffic generation of the development during the peak hours on the network 08:00-09:00 and 17:00- 18:00 when a commercial development would be likely to generate most traffic movements. TRICS data submitted to the highway authority (HA) predicts that the development proposal will generate approximately 31 arrivals and 5 departures during the 08:00-09:00 Network Peak with a further 28 departures and 5 arrivals generated between 17:00 and 18:00. As stated in Section 4.5 of the submitted Transport Statement the development is a small self contained business park with no vehicle connections to serve the wider existing industrial areas off Mica Close. The proposed floor areas and the associated traffic generation confirm that the development generates a limited amount of traffic during the network peaks. For this reason capacity analysis is restricted to the site access itself. The survey indicates that the B5000 accommodates in excess of 1000 vehicles during the AM and PM periods. In itself the development is not a material intensification in the use of the link.
8.6.2 With regard to the scope of the Transport Statement in terms of traffic modelling undertaken the assessment is in full accordance with the DfT Transport Assessment Guidance for a development of this size and nature which requests that a Transport Statement is provided with the submitted planning application taking in the site access itself.
8.6.3 Traffic distribution: Having ascertained the predicted traffic movements for the development using TRICS as discussed above, standard procedure is to predict likely direction of traffic travelling to and from the development. In order to determine the likely direction of traffic entering and leaving the site it would appear reasonable to use the existing traffic flows on the B5000 to be a predictor of the traffic distribution to and from the proposed development. Traffic routeing to and from the development is likely to distribute in the same way as that of the existing flows on the road network at this location. To this end the traffic flows recorded during the week long speed and volume count carried out in January 2013 within the vicinity of the site access have been used to determine the traffic distribution. 43% travelled in an eastbound direction with 57% travelling in a westbound direction. In the PM Network Peak 59% of traffic is travelling in an eastbound direction with 41% travelling in a westbound direction.
8.6.4 Junction capacity analysis: For robustness the HA has requested that the developer undertakes a capacity analysis on the site access to demonstrate that it is not likely to lead to unacceptable queuing at the site access for vehicles egressing the site or turning right into the site. The developer has used the industry standard PICADY software for capacity modelling. For robustness the programme takes the busiest traffic periods for both the development and the highway network in the AM and PM network peaks to ascertain whether vehicles turning out of the development onto the B5000 will be able to find and accept a suitable gap in the traffic flows. The PICADY output proves that for the predicted traffic flows associated with the development there will be adequate opportunity for traffic exiting the site access or turning right into the access to find and accept a gap in the prevailing traffic flows with minimal queuing with no queuing predicted by the model.
8.6.5 To confirm the submitted PICADY analysis models the proposed site access to the development and not existing junctions. The queuing produced by this analysis takes the proposed traffic generation for a development of this size and type and superimposes it onto the traffic volumes surveyed at the location. The survey equipment was located on the B5000 adjacent to the proposed site access in order to assess both traffic speed and volume in the vicinity of the site access subject to the analysis in the Transport Statement.
8.6.6 Visibility for vehicles egressing from the site access: In order to ensure that adequate visibility splays could be provided for vehicles egressing from the proposed site access, the applicant has provided a speed survey for vehicles travelling along the B5000 in the vicinity of the site access. In order to provide this data a week long speed survey was carried out to provide a sufficient sample of traffic speeds in free flow condition. In accordance with the guidance contained in the Manual for Streets publication the 85th percentile wet weather speed was derived. The 85th percentile speeds were thereafter used as the basis for defining the minimum Sight Stopping Distance (SSD) or visibility splay lengths to be provided either side of the site access. The recorded speeds are provided in the table below.
Traffic Direction 85th percentile wet weather speed Eastbound 42.3mph Westbound 44.5mph
Taking the recorded 85th percentile speeds given above using Manual for Streets it can be concluded that a visibility splay length of 111m needs to be provided to the west of the access and 120m to the east of the site access, visibility splay lengths of 4.5 x 140m are proposed either side of the site access. The visibility splays provided are therefore in excess of the required lengths providing a more than adequate margin of safety in terms of the length of sight lines available to drivers egressing from the site access.
8.6.7 Transport Sustainability: As well as considering vehicular trips to the development the HA has also considered to what extent the development can be feasibly and safely reached by sustainable mode. The site is within walking distance of bus services travelling between Tamworth and Polesworth calling at the bus stops on Chiltern Road. In order to facilitate use of the existing bus services for accessing the development a new length of standard width footway is to be provided along the northern side of the B5000 between the site access and the existing footway. An advisory pedestrian crossing facility is also to be provided.
8.6.8. Access Geometry: The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges advises that in cases such as the current application that where development gives rise to less than 300 average annual daily movements and in which ahead movements on the network are less than 13000 then it is acceptable to provide a simple priority junction of adequate geometry to accommodate the swept path movements of the traffic likely to be using the new junction on a regular basis. The proposed site access is identical in form to the other junctions found along this length of the B5000 namely a priority junction with give-way markings. It is noted that the junction of Robey’s Lane along with the junction of Chiltern Road with the B5000 take the form of simple priority junctions. In the case of Chiltern Road these junctions serve a sizeable existing residential development without cause for concern. The size and nature of the development would indicate that it is unlikely for the largest of the HGV’s on the UK highway network to regularly visit the site. It is more likely that smaller rigid vehicles 7-10m in length will be serving the units as detailed in the submitted reports. Notwithstanding this, as part of its assessment of the scheme, the HA has undertaken a swept path analysis of the site access and the access road to ensure that in the event of a 16.5m articulated lorry entering the site its can do so and egress in a forward gear with minimal encroachment onto the opposite side of the B5000.
8.6.9 Accident Analysis: The DfT Guidance on Transport Assessments advises that accident data for the relevant stretch of road is provided for at least the last 3 years prior to the submission of the application. The applicant has provided 5 years of data for the B5000 within the vicinity of the site access. As part of its assessment of the development proposal the HA has examined available accident data between the B5000 roundabout junction with Pennine Way and the easterly most junction of Chiltern Road with the B5000 and concur with the conclusions reached by the applicant in Section 7.0 of the submitted Transport Statement. The majority of the accidents were slight in nature arising from driver error.
8.6.10 Parking: The parking provision within the site is provided close to each of the units, interspersed with nominal new tree planting and landscaping. The application proposes between 4 and 8 spaces for each of the units dependent on size which is generally consistent with the indicative requirements of the HA and the Council and overall the level of car parking is considered to be acceptable. Whilst the comments of a number of objectors raise concerns that parking would occur within Chiltern Road, the level of parking is considered to be appropriate for the type of units proposed and it would be unreasonable to request that the developer provide a financial contribution toward a Traffic Regulation Order for an arbitrarily chosen off-site location such as Chiltern Road.
8.6.11 Overall the submitted information demonstrates to the satisfaction of the HA and the Council that proposed development will not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, would not exceed the highway capacity of the road network there by complying with the requirements of local plan policy TRA3 and the guidance contained within the NPPF.
8.7 Other issues
8.7.1 Concerns have been raised about the impact of the development on residential amenity, for clarification use class B1 (c), which is the use proposed for the units is a light industrial use which by its definition within the use classes order may hypothetically be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area. The definition of this use is considered by its effects and not its innate characteristics i.e. little or no pollutants, noise or odour. The application has been considered by the Councils Environmental Protection team who consider that there is sufficient distance afforded between the site and Chiltern Road taking in to account the current sound embankment.
8.7.2 Objectors have raised concerns about the relationship of the development at the proposals for development on the golf course. Proposals to develop the golf course are contained within the emerging Tamworth Local Plan 2006-2031, but these have yet to be subject to examination. Policy HSG2: Sustainable Urban Extensions, identifies the golf course as a possible site for at least 1100 dwellings and indicates that the development must establish two points of vehicular access onto Mercian Way. The existing access to the golf course along Eagle Drive is considered to be suitable for one, with a second point of access coming directly onto Mercian Way south of the Woodland Road – Mercian Way roundabout. No planning application has been submitted for the redevelopment of the golf course. 8.7.3 Public footpath T 95 extends along the sites northern boundary from its eastern point to its north western corner where it extends north along the boundary of the golf course. Currently the footpath in its entirety is inaccessible except for during the winter and a path has been trodden along the western boundary of the site, which links in to the footpath and too appears not to be frequently used. The development offers the opportunity to improve the usability and management of this footpath. However, as discussed above the impact of the proposed roadway construction could impact upon this being achievable.
8.7.4 The issue of the site flooding has been raised following re-consultation on the application. The site is located in Flood Zone 1 which is an area at the lowest risk of flooding. However, the need to ensure that the site is drained in a sustainable manner is considered necessary and as requested by Severn Trent Water a drainage scheme is required to be submitted to ensure that the drainage provided at the site is appropriate.
8.7.5 The comments of various neighbours in respect of the site being located within the green belt and an area of open space are incorrect. The site is not identified as being part of the Boroughs open space network as identified in policy ENV13. Neither is the site within the Green Belt, the only areas of the Borough identified as green belt are those areas to the south of Gorsey Bank Road, Hedging Lane and to the south and west of Dosthill.
8.7.6 The concerns of objectors are noted in relation to impact on property prices and construction. However, impact on house values as members are aware is not a material planning consideration. Any disturbance to local residents during the construction is considered to be of a temporary nature, as with all new developments there is likely to be a degree of disturbance during construction, and this reason alone is not considered to be a justifiable reason for refusal. Any other issues raised are not considered to be of sufficient material weight to alter the main conclusions below.
8.7.7 The comment received concerned about the impact of the development on water pressure is noted. However, given the responses of the statutory water bodies, it is considered that with the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure that appropriate drainage facilities are provided the proposals would not increase the risk of flooding and adequate drainage can be accommodated.
9 Conclusion
9.1 The need for new economic development is acknowledged as a priority, and the benefits of the development in this respect have been given significant weight in assessing whether the current proposal is acceptable.
9.2 In principle the development of the site for employment purposes, whilst on a greenfield site is considered to be acceptable in supporting new economic development. The layout and siting of the buildings and internal access roads will ensure that the impact of the development on the protected and non protected visually important trees on the boundaries of the site, and the landscape scheme and management proposals will retain the importance of these boundary features in ensuring the development preserves the overall character of the area.
9.3 The proposed buildings are designed to a high standard for small industrial units, which coupled with the proposed landscaping scheme will fit comfortably with this urban edge location. The site and its surrounding features have been suitably and adequately surveyed and investigations have been completed that conclude that the development of the site, subject to the identified mitigation measures would not detrimentally impact on any protected species (particularly bats and badgers) or biodiversity in general.
9.4 The development has been subject to a detailed assessment of the highway safety implications of the proposed site access and it has been concluded that the proposed development will not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, and would not exceed the highway capacity of the road network.
9.5 The development is therefore considered to comply with the requirements of Polices ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV19 and TRA3 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 and the provision of the NPPF. Conditions / Reasons
1. The development shall be started within three years of the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).
2. The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance with the application form, and the following documents including the recommendations, methods of working and mitigation therein: Phase 1 Ecological Survey (May 2013 Revised December 2014) Ecological Management and Enhancement Plan (1st October 2013, revised 21st August 2014) Design and Access Statement (Sept 14 Rev A) Letter from Martin F. Holland dated the 22nd November 2013 and drawing numbers; FEB’13 DRG No 1 Revision C 12829/100G 12829/101 7140.150 Revision L 7140.151 Revision D 7140.152 Revision D 7140.151 Revision C LANDSCAPE CONCEPT 7140.152 Revision C LANDSCAPE CONCEPT 7140.153 Revision A 7140.250 7140.251 7140.252 Revision A 7140.253 7140.254 Revision A 7140.255
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To define the permission.
3. Notwithstanding the submitted details shown on submitted Drawing Number 7140.150 Revision L no development shall commence until revised details of parking spaces for Unit 3 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning Authority showing a 6.0m aisle width rear of the parking bays to Unit 3. Reason: As recommended by the highway authority and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy TRA3 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of all materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance to the development in accordance with Policy ENV19 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011.
5. Prior to the commencement of development precise details of all walls, fences and other means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and such walls, fences and other means of enclosure as approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be erected prior to the first use of the development hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of the visual appearance of the development and to secure the privacy of the residents in accordance with Policy ENV19 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2001- 2011.
6. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed landscaping scheme and landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before occupation of the development or any phase of the development, whichever is the sooner. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved. The landscaping scheme shall include areas of hard landscaping including details of the surfacing of the turning and parking areas. Reason: In the interests of the setting and visual appearance of the development and in accordance with Policy ENV19 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011.
7. Prior to the commencement of development details of all external lighting of the building and car parking area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved lighting shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details and not altered or replaced without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the setting and visual appearance of the development and the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with Policy ENV19 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011.
8. Prior to the commencement of development details of site levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the setting and visual appearance of the development in accordance with Policy ENV19 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011.
9. Prior to the commencement of development and notwithstanding the approved plans broadly indicated on Drawing Number 1289/100G details shall be submitted are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailing the following; (i) new site access; (ii) new footway length along the northern side of the B5000 between the site access and existing footway; (iii) new pedestrian advisory crossing facility;
The off site highway works shall thereafter be provided in accordance with the approved details and be completed prior to first use of the proposed development. Reason: As recommended by the highway authority and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy TRA3 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011.
10. Prior to the commencement of development details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning Authority indicating provision of secure, lit, conveniently located weather-proof cycle parking areas which shall thereafter be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to first use of the proposed development. Reason: As recommended by the highway authority and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy TRA3 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011.
11. Prior to the commencement of development details of 4.5m x 120m visibility splays either side of the site access shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the first use of the development the visibility splays shall be provided with nothing placed or retained forward of the splays exceeding 600mm in height above the level of the adjacent carriageway and shall include a 2.0m clearance above the ground from the tree canopy. Reason: As recommended by the highway authority and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy TRA3 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011.
12. Prior to the commencement of development precise details of the ‘no dig’ construction for the parking spaces adjacent to Units 1, 5 and 6 within the root protection area of trees to the southern boundary of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the health and wellbeing of trees adjacent to the site in accordance with Policy ENV9 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011.
13. Prior to the commencement of any building works on site a site clearance wildlife survey shall be carried out, and the results of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any construction works commencing on site. Reason: In the interests of protected species in accordance with Polices ENV7 and ENV8 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011.
14. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the parking and turning areas indicated on submitted Drawing No. 7140.150 Revision L have been surfaced in a porous bound material with the individual parking bays clearly delineated and retained for those purposes only for the life of the development hereby permitted. Reason: As recommended by the highway authority and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy TRA3 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011.
15. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until details of the surface and foul water drainage including outfall has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning Authority. The drainage works shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the development first being brought into use.
16. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping and boundary treatment approved pursuant to condition 6 above shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of the setting and visual appearance of the development, in accordance with Policy ENV19 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011.
Informative Note(s)
1. Condition 9 requiring off-site highway works will require a legal agreement with Staffordshire County Council and the applicant is requested to contact Staffordshire County Council in respect of securing the agreement prior to commencing work on the highway. Staffordshire County Council, Staffordshire Place 1, c/o Wedgwood Building, Tipping Street, Stafford, ST16 2LP or email [email protected]
2. Any soakaway shall be located a minimum 4.5m rear of the highway boundary.
3. The Highway Authority is mindful that public footpath No. 95 runs adjacent to the site. The route of the public footpath will need to remain unobstructed both during and upon the completion of the construction phase, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Council.
Appeal Decision Hearing held on 29 July 2014 Site visit made on 29 July 2014 by Victoria Lucas-Gosnold LLB MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 12 August 2014
Appeal Ref: APP/Z3445/A/14/2214456 Land off Glascote Road (B5000), Tamworth, B77 4DR • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Sibson Mill Properties against the decision of Tamworth Borough Council. • The application Ref 0227/2013, dated 28 June 2013, was refused by notice dated 11 February 2014. • The development proposed is construction of 5 buildings comprising of 12 light industrial units and associated access parking and refuse areas.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural Matter
2. Although both parties have referred to several policies from the Council’s Local Plan (Adopted July 2006) and the Council’s emerging/withdrawn Local Plan, I have referred only to those polices which I consider to be most relevant to the main issue.
Main Issue
3. The main issue is the effect of the development proposed on protected species, specifically bats and badgers.
Reasons
4. The appeal site is a triangular shaped piece of land. The B5000 Glascote Road runs along the southern boundary of the site. To the west lies an existing employment area which comprises a mix of industrial units. A golf course lies to the north west and agricultural fields lie to the north east. The site is bounded by hedgerows, trees and dense bracken. Several of these trees are mature and have Tree Preservation Orders in place. The site is not currently allocated for any specific purpose in the Council’s Local Plan (Adopted July 2006).
5. I understand that the appeal site was previously covered with dense bracken, brambles and undergrowth. This has since been cleared by the
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/Z3445/A/14/2214456
appellant and, whilst the vegetation is showing some signs of regeneration, the site is now largely flat and open. I appreciate that the Council and several local residents feel that the dense vegetation which previously covered the site provided useful habitat for wildlife using the site. However, the site has now been cleared and I must therefore have regard to its present condition.
6. A number of documents which evaluate the ecology of the site have been submitted by the appellant. These include a Phase 1 Ecological Survey (prepared May 2013) (‘Survey’) and an Ecological Management Enhancement Plan for Darwell Park (October 2013). The Survey was undertaken via a systematic walkover of the site by the appellant’s ecologist. The findings indicate that the most significant features on the site which provide habitat for bats, badgers and other wildlife are the trees and hedgerows which border the site.
7. In particular, the survey considered that these features would be used by bats for foraging and commuting. It also noted that a number of the mature trees to the periphery of the site have the potential to support roosting bats. Evidence of badgers using the site for foraging was also found. Additionally, badgers and a number of bat species have been recorded as being present within 2 km of the site. There is therefore evidence of these species being found in the surrounding area.
8. The plans and documents submitted with the application show that the hedgerows and trees would be retained, although some tree works are proposed to several trees on the site. It is also proposed to set aside part of the site as a biodiversity area. Other mitigation and enhancement measures include additional planting which is proposed to enhance the existing hedgerows, planting of a wildflower seed mixture and the installation of bird and bat boxes.
9. There does appear to be an omission in the Survey which states, incorrectly, that there are no non-Statutory designated sites within 2km of the appeal site. However during the hearing, the Council were not able to identify any specific ecological features of those sites which they felt would be adversely affected by the proposal. I therefore find no specific harm in this regard.
Bats
10. Documents submitted with the application show that tree works (such as crown lifting) are proposed to several of the mature trees along the periphery of the site. There is therefore the possibility that the appeal proposal may affect bats present on the site. Indeed, the consultation letter from Natural England (dated 29 October 2013) does state that documents submitted with the application indicate that there is a reasonable likelihood of protected and priority species (bats) being adversely affected within the application site.
11. No detailed bat survey was submitted with the application and this was noted in the letter from Natural England. Rather than undertake a detailed bat survey prior to the grant of any planning permission, the appellant’s ecologist suggested an alternative approach could be taken. This would comprise a climbing survey undertaken by a suitably qualified tree surgeon
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/Z3445/A/14/2214456
immediately prior to any tree works commencing at the appeal site. The tree surgeon would climb the tree having identified which limbs are to be removed and any identified as having a bat roost or a likely bat roost site would be retained. Details would also be recorded of each tree checked and work would only take place between October and the end of February to avoid disturbing roosting bats (or breeding birds).
12. During the Hearing the appellant’s ecologist was able to clarify that the majority of the trees along the periphery of the site’s southern boundary (adjacent to the B5000) can be classified as having low potential to support roosting bats. Additionally, many of those trees have a relatively small canopy with a dense network of branches and are covered in thick vegetation such as ivy. I was able to observe this during the site visit.
13. In such circumstances, I would tend to agree with the appellant’s ecologist that it would be difficult to undertake a detailed survey as it would be difficult to establish where any bats which may be roosting in the trees were emerging from due to the dense vegetation covering those trees. I also note the email from Natural England (dated 29 October) which states that the suggested approach of a climbing survey should give reasonable certainty that any bat roosts will not be affected. Based on the information before me, I am therefore satisfied that this is a matter which could be addressed via a planning condition were the appeal to succeed.
14. However, there are also a number of mature trees in the north western corner of the appeal site. Although they are outside of the site itself, several branches over hang it and tree works (minor raising of canopy) are also proposed to those trees as part of the development proposed. During the site visit, the appellant’s ecologist drew my attention to several features of those trees which he felt would suggest a high potential for the presence of bat roosts. These included extensive dead wood and possible cavities. Although the Survey refers to mature trees on the site periphery, I understand that these trees in the north western corner were not specifically surveyed as they are situated outside of the appeal site.
15. Taking this into account and, in the absence of a detailed bat survey, I cannot be certain that the presence of bats and the extent to which they may be affected by the proposal has been fully assessed in relation to the works proposed to those trees. Circular 06/2005 is clear that this is a matter which must be established prior to the grant of planning permission. In these circumstances, and in the absence of sufficient information to indicate otherwise, I must conclude that the development proposed would be harmful to bats which may be roosting in the mature trees to the north west of the appeal site.
16. I acknowledge that the documents submitted by the appellant show that a number of mitigation measures would be incorporated into the proposal, including the planting of native species, an appropriate use of external lighting and the installation of bat boxes. However, given that significant weight is attached to protected species such as bats, I consider that this would not outweigh the harm that I have identified.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/Z3445/A/14/2214456
Badgers
17. The Survey undertaken in May 2013 did not find the presence of a badger sett on the site. The survey did, however, note the presence of various holes which had been excavated by a range of mammals including foxes. During the Council’s consideration of the application, a hole was discovered which both the Staffordshire Badger Group (SBG) and the appellant’s ecologist agree had been excavated by a badger. Both also agree that this hole appears to be an outlier sett which was most likely excavated by a badger during the summer months of 2013.
18. There is some dispute between the parties and also local residents as to whether the outlier sett can be considered to be in active use by badgers. However, both the Staffordshire Badger Group (SBG) and the appellant’s ecologist have undertaken subsequent site visits and, based on their observations, both consider that this sett is not currently in active use by badgers. The SBG have also advised that the appeal site is not large enough to support a social group of badgers.
19. I appreciate that local residents and some Councillors have strong views on this issue. In particular, some individuals have spent a significant amount of time and effort in researching and investigating this. However, based on the information before me, I am satisfied that the outlier sett is not in active use at the present time.
20. There is, however, agreement between the parties that badgers use the appeal site for foraging activities, with evidence such as snuffling holes and badger tracks having been found. In this regard, the SBG have requested that a Badger Survey and a Badger Mitigation Strategy be produced prior to the commencement of any development on the appeal site.
21. The appellant has submitted several documents which set out measures to mitigate the effect of the proposal on wildlife, including badgers, using the site (paragraph 8 of my decision refers). Whilst I acknowledge that these measures would be likely to assist in mitigating some of the effects of the proposal on wildlife using the site, specific measures for badgers have not been identified.
22. This issue was discussed during the hearing and the appellant’s ecologist agreed with the Council’s suggestion that specific mitigation measures targeted at badgers could be incorporated into the design of the proposal. Whilst that may be so, such measures have not been incorporated into the design of the proposal before me. In the absence of specific information, I cannot be certain that a condition requiring badger mitigation measures to be incorporated into the design of the development would be capable of being implemented. For example, creating gaps in the proposed boundary fence may facilitate access to the site for badgers. However, this may conflict with the desirability of ensuring that boundary fences are safe and secure.
23. There is therefore little detailed information before me to assess in what way the proposal would affect the ability of badgers to continue to access and use the site and what effect this may have on the existing biodiversity networks which support the local badger population. Given that there is clear
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/Z3445/A/14/2214456
evidence of badgers actively using the appeal site, I would agree with the views of the SBG, the Council and other third parties that further survey work of the appeal site to establish the effects, if any, of the proposal on badgers would be justified as would a badger mitigation strategy.
24. For these reasons, I must have regard to paragraph 99 of Circular 06/2005 which states, among other things, that in regard to protected species the extent to which they may be affected by the proposed development should be established before planning permission is granted. In the absence of detailed information to indicate otherwise, I must therefore conclude that the development proposed would be harmful to badgers.
Overall conclusion on the main issue
25. Drawing matters together, there is a reasonable suspicion that bats are present on the appeal site. Badgers are also active on the site. I have found that, in the absence of a detailed bat survey, badger survey and badger mitigation strategy, there is insufficient information before me to assess whether the proposal would be harmful to bats or badgers. Both bats and badgers are protected species and this matter therefore attracts significant weight.
26. I appreciative that the appellant feels aggrieved by the Council’s decision to refuse permission for the proposal against the recommendation of their officer. However, Councils are not bound to follow the recommendations of their officers. The Ecological Monitoring Report (February 2014) does state that no protected species were impacted by the site clearance works. However, I understand that the purpose of that report was to specifically monitor the site clearance works. As such, it was not intended to be a formal badger or bat survey.
27. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to protected species. The proposal would therefore conflict with policies ENV7 and ENV8 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 (Adopted July 2006) which together state, among other things, that when considering development proposals outside designated sites of national or local importance, developers will be expected to submit an ecological survey and that proposals that would have an adverse impact on a statutorily protected species will not normally be permitted.
28. The proposal would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) which states that planning should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying several principles including, that if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused (paragraph 118). The proposal would also conflict with Circular 06/2005, paragraph 99.
Other Matters
29. In my consideration of this appeal, I have had regard to the Framework’s presumption in favour of sustainable development. The appeal proposal would have several benefits in this regard. The proposal would incorporate some biodiversity mitigation and enhancement measures which would be of
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/Z3445/A/14/2214456
some environmental benefit. Additional jobs would be created both during the construction and operational phase of the industrial units proposed. I also understand that the proposed units would complement the appellant’s existing portfolio, offering accommodation for companies to grow their business. This would clearly be of economic and social benefit to the area.
30. Section 1 of the Framework does emphasise the importance of building a strong and prosperous economy. However one of the Framework’s core planning principles also states that planning should contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment (paragraph 17). Additionally, the presence of a protected species which may be adversely affected by a development proposal is a matter which carries significant weight. Therefore whilst the benefits of the proposal are recognised, I consider that they do not outweigh the harm that I have identified.
Conclusion
31. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Victoria Lucas-Gosnold
INSPECTOR
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/Z3445/A/14/2214456
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Ian Ritchie R & R Architects (dip Arch RIBA, MCIAT, FRSH, DLP)
Dr S. Bodnar Appellant’s ecologist (BSc (Hons), PhD, MCIEEM)
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Richard Stewart BSc Senior Planning Officer, Tamworth (Hons), MA TP, MRTPI) Borough Council
John Gunn Development Management Manager, (DIP TP, DIP DBt, MRTPI) Tamworth Boro ugh Council Cllr Tony Madge Tamworth Borough Council Cllr Chris Cooke Tamworth Borough Council Cllr Patrick Standen Tamworth Borough Council Cllr Margaret Clarke Tamworth Borough Council
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Ken Forest 64a Foxgloves
DOCUMETS:
1. Attendance list
2. ‘Updated verbal & written statement’ by Ken Forest, dated 28 July 2014
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7
Application Number: 0405/2014
Development: Erection of 29 no dwellings and associated works. (outline: access and layout)
Location: Land off Freasley Lane Hockley Tamworth Staffordshire B77 5QP
1. Site and Surroundings
1.1 The site is located approximately 5km to the south east of the town centre, adjacent to the Boroughs boundary with North Warwickshire. The site is currently used as paddocks, with the residential development at Teign and Tamar Road to the north and west (beyond an 8m wide tree belt). Freasley Lane forms the northern and south eastern boundaries of the site with the Kettle Brook Local Nature Reserve beyond the footpath to the north, with agricultural land and the M42 within North Warwickshire to the south east. The site is at the same level as the existing residential development to the east but sits approximately 2m higher than the public footpath known as Freasley Lane.
It is worthwhile noting at this point that that land in question is located within the urban area of the borough as defied by the local plan and whilst being greenfield is not located within the green belt.
2. Proposal
2.1 Members may remember outline planning permission being granted at this committee in July 2013 for the residential development of the site also for 29 dwellings. The site extends to 1.09ha and the current application proposes to develop the site through the erection of 29 dwellings comprising a mix of 4 two bedroom dwellings, 23 three bedroom dwellings, and 2 four bedroom dwellings.
2.2 Vehicular access is provided from Overwoods Road, close to the Staffordshire / Warwickshire boarder to the south eastern end of the site, with the access drive in to and through the site aligned with the eastern boundary and Freasley Lane. The dwellings are in the main proposed fronting the access drive (facing the M42), providing active frontages to the external faces of the site. The detailed layout of the scheme and design of the dwellings have been amended during the determination period of the application.
2.3 The following documents have been submitted in support of the application (all are available for inspection on the council’s website at www.tamworth.gov.uk):
Design and Access Statement; Planning Statement; Tree Survey & Arboricultural Impact; Ecological Appraisal (including further badger, bat tree assessment and bird survey); Contaminated Lane Assessment; Flood Risk Assessment; Speed Survey; and Noise Report;
3. Key Issues
3.1 The key issues to consider in the determination of this application are considered to be; The principle of development; Siting and design; and Highway safety.
4. Conclusion
4.1 The development of this site for residential purposes is considered acceptable as this site is located within the urban area of the Borough, with outline planning permission having been granted for the residential development of the site in 2013. The layout and built form of the development as amended is considered to enhance both the character and appearance of the area, providing a well deisnged edge to Tamworth’s urban area, and would not significantly impact upon the amenity of nearby residents and would not be detrimental to highway safety.
Overall the development is considered to comply with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, and Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 Policies HSG5, HSG11 ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, and ENV19.
Recommendation
Approval subject to conditions and the applicant entering in to a suitable Section 106 Agreement prior to the 9th February 2015.
0405/2014
T A M A R R O A D
Y
E
R
A
C
RY TE OT
OT TERY
R
U
O
T
S
T E IG N
N IG E T
N IG TE
F
OV ER WO OD S RO AD
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright.
5. Relevant Site History
5.1 0081/2013: Erection of 29 no dwellings and associated works. (outline: access and layout). Approved subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement on 8th November 2013.
6. Consultation Responses
6.1 Tamworth Borough Council – Development Plans
The proposal is supported in principle by Policy HSG5 as the site is located within the defined urban area of the Borough. The development will help to meet the Boroughs housing needs as identified in the 2012 Southern Staffordshire Housing Needs Assessment and the mix of 2, 3, and 4 bedroom dwellings is considered to provide an appropriate mix in accordance with this identified need.
The site has been identified within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (2012), which identifies the capacity within the Borough for residential development. This was identified as being deliverable within the first 5 years as it is considered to be suitable, achievable and available which highlights the importance of this site in meeting the identified housing needs of the Borough. The development would encourage an efficient use of land and the housing mix will help create sustainable mixed communities.
In addition, detailed comments have been provided relating to the site layout, mix, bin storage, and parking.
6.2 Tamworth Borough Council – Housing Strategy
The Council would support the provision of 30% affordable housing on this site. This equates to 8 affordable dwellings (from total of the proposed of 29 dwellings).
We would expect to negotiate a tenure mix of 75% affordable rent and 25% shared ownership sale (subject to discussion with Registered Provider partner(s)). For example, of the 8 units identified for affordable provision, up to 75% could be for affordable rent (=6 units) and 25% shared ownership sale (2= units).
In line with evidence and analysis of the Housing Register and updated housing needs data, the Council would seek to ensure that the affordable housing provision on this site was predominately 2 and 3 bed provision. Particular consideration should be given the provision of adequate amenity space that is suitable for use by young families / children and is accessible to residents with disabilities.
The affordable housing should be developed in partnership with one of the Councils current preferred Registered Provider (RP) partners (Bromford, Waterloo or Midland Heart) and should comply with current Homes and Communities Agency design and quality standards. Any units of shared ownership housing on the site will be developed in partnership with one of these RP partners.
6.3 Tamworth Borough Council - Environmental Protection
Having assessed the technical information provided by the developers, Environmental Protection (observing that the proposed HS2 link is close to the site) are satisfied that noise and contamination have been adequately taken in to account and suitable mitigation measures proposed. A condition is recommended requiring the testing of the development prior to occupation to ensure the noise environment for future residents is acceptable.
6.4 Tamworth Borough Council – Tree Officer
No objection to the proposed scheme and supports the findings of the submitted Tree Survey. It is considered important that all retained trees on the proposed site are adequately protected in accordance with BS 5837 ‘Trees in Relation to Construction’.
However, concerns have been raised in respect of the strip of tree planting to the east which is owned by the Council. This tree belt currently has little impact on Street Scene’s maintenance resources with a number of the residents including this area as part of their gardens. Should this development go ahead and the Council retain ownership of this land there is potential for an increase in potential liability and residents expectations will increase maintenance requirements.
6.5 Tamworth Borough Council – Waste Services
No objections to the proposal. The development should provide storage for a minimum of three wheelie bins within the curtilage of the property. On collection days these receptacles have to be left on the front boundary of the property adjacent to the adopted highway for collection.
It is noted that vehicles are not usually taken on to private drives/un-adopted roads unless indemnified. Where this is not possible and bin collection points are used there should be a pull distance of no more than 10m.
6.6 Staffordshire County Council – Lead Local Flood Authority
Have requested to be consulted on the discharge of the conditions they recommend are imposed on the permission. These conditions relate to ensuring the most appropriate drainage for the site is provided.
6.7 Staffordshire County Council – Education
The development falls within the catchment of Heathfields Infants School, Wilnecote Junior School and Wilnecote High School. A development of this size could add 4 Infant School aged pupils, 5 Junior School aged pupils, 5 High School aged pupils and 1 Sixth Form aged pupil.
The site is expected to generate 9 primary school aged pupils. We have been advised that the likely cost of delivering new primary school provision is in the region of £4 million per 1 FE (210 places). On this basis, the proportional contribution for a site of this size would be for 13.80% (9/210) of the total cost of £4 million which would be in the region of £171,600.
In addition to the primary school requirements, a contribution would be necessary to provide additional secondary school places. Based on a development of 29 including 8 RSL dwellings, the education contributions for a development of this size would be as follows:
5 secondary school places (5 x £16,622 = £83,110).
In summary, the education requirements for this site are £171,600 for 9 additional primary school places and £83,110 for 5 additional secondary school places. This gives a total request of £254,710 to be secured by a Section 106 agreement.
6.8 Staffordshire County Council (The Highway Authority)
Following discussions with the applicant and the highway authority, there are no objections to the scheme subject to conditions relating to the following; Provision of a footway link between the site and existing footpath on Overwoods Road; Provision of a reconstructed vehicular access to the site; Provision of visibility splays (2.4m x 120m); Provision and completion of parking, driveways, roadways, and footways prior to the occupation of the development; Submission of drainage details; and details of the embankment to Freasley Lane.
6.9 The Highways Agency (Responsible for the M42)
Comment that due to the scale of the proposed development there is not considered to be a significant impact on the operation or safety of the strategic road network therefore no objections are raised.
6.10 Staffordshire Fire and Rescue
Comment on the need to ensure appropriate water supplies are available for fire fighting, and vehicle access. In addition to they recommend the use of sprinkler systems within the individual dwellings.
6.11 Severn Trent Water
No objection to the proposed development subject to the submission of a drainage scheme for foul and surface water.
6.12 North Warwickshire Borough Council
No objections to the development given the recent grant of outline planning permission
6.13 Environment Agency
Comment that they will not be providing bespoke comments on developments over 1ha in Flood Zone 1 but rather provide a standard response to all such application. The environment agency recommends consultation with the LLFA, to provide support for surface water drainage. The remainder of the comments are standard comments relating to the provision of SUDS and the need to take account of climate change.
6.14 HS2 Limited
In determining the planning application we are required to have regard to the announcement of the Government’s initial preference for Phase 2 on the 28th July 2013. The Secretary of State undertook consultation between the 17th July 2013 and 31st January 2014, and HS2 Ltd is now considering the consultation responses received as well as the recommendations within Sir David Higgin’s reports (‘Hs2 Plus’ and ‘Rebalancing Britain’) in order to inform a future Government announcement on a preferred scheme. Therefore, the proposed route may be subject to change.
Given the current stage of design and the on-going consideration of consultation responses on Phase 2. HS2 Ltd would not at this stage wish to make any specific comments on the application. However, as the site is shown as being in very close proximity to the proposed route of Phase Two of HS2, it may in the future be required by HS2 Ltd to construct and/or operate the railway.
6.15 Natural England
Based upon the information provided, Natural England comments that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes. In terms of protected species the response advises that the application should be assessed based on the Natural England Standing Advice for protected species.
Natural England expect the local planning authority (LPA) to assess and consider other possible impacts of the development on local sites, local landscape character, and local or national biodiversity priority habitat species.
7. Additional Representations
A total of 6 letters of representations were received following the initial consultation period. Concerns in respect of the following have been raised;
Concern at the lost privacy and peace and quiet. Loss of views and wildlife. Appalled at the loss of two mature oak trees. Which contained bats This will be a noisy housing estate with no privacy at all. Overlooking Traffic; The time of the survey was not representative. Wildlife. Quality of life. Impact on amenity. The local area is too densely populated. Noise. This site is earmarked for HS2 phase 2, what will happen if this goes ahead? Especially if trains go past every 4 minutes. Too much new traffic on this route to Birmingham via Kingsbury. The area proposed for the access is used by walkers parking their cars. The access will be a problem when it snows. Increase in flooding Likely loss of water pressure. Following recent trends the development supports the desire of people to downsize. Due to the increased demand for affordable housing comment is made that the level of intermediate housing on the site should be increased. Comments are also made about the need to provide office space within new dwellings. The housing mix recommended by the Council is out of date, and research undertaken in May 2014 indicated an alternative mix.
Whilst every endeavour has been taken to accurately summarise the responses received full copies of the representations are available to view at www.tamworth.gov.uk
8. Planning Considerations
The main issues for consideration in determining the acceptability of the proposed development are considered to be;
Principle of Development; Siting and Design; Highway Safety; Amenity Considerations; Noise & Contamination; Trees / landscape; Ecology; Flood Risk / Drainage HS2; and Section 106 Contributions / Requirements.
8.1 Principle of Development
8.1.1 As members will be aware the starting point in determing the acceptability of development proposals is the Local Plan, where the polices are consistent with the NPPF. Policy HSG5 is the most relevant local policy in assessing residential development within the Borough which supports residential development within the urban area of the Borough. This is considered to reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained within the NPPF as development within the urban area of Tamworth is in general terms sustainable. This is as a result of access to sustainable modes of transport and access to relevant services and amenities within the Borough. Therefore it is considered that policy HSG5 is consistent with the NPPF. The application site is located wholly within the urban area of Tamworth, as defined on the proposals map and not identified for any alternative uses or identified as an area of open space or nature conservation interest and as such the development of the site is considered to be acceptable in principle.
8.1.2 The development proposed the erection of 29 dwellings comprising a mix of 4 two bedroom dwellings, 23 three bedroom dwellings, and 2 four bedroom dwellings. There is an identified significant need within the Borough for 2-3 bedroom dwellings as identified within the Southern Staffordshire District Housing Needs Study and SHMA Update 2012 (reassessed in 2014 by the Southern Staffordshire District Housing Needs study 2014 update). Whilst the mix is not entirely reflective of the precise needs of the Borough outlined in the study the housing sizes proposed are considered to be broadly consistent with the housing needs of the Borough providing much needed small family homes. One concern raised in a representation is the need for 2 bedroom dwellings over 3 bedroom dwellings due to market conditions and the apparent trends of home owners downsizing. This concern is noted however as the proposed development is generally consistent with the housing need, and is supported by the Development Plans team. The mix of housing types proposed is considered to be acceptable and accords generally with the Borough’s housing needs.
8.1.3 As the proposal exceeds the 15 dwelling threshold for the provision of affordable dwellings, the development will be required to provide for 30% of the dwellings on site to be affordable equating to 8 dwellings in this case. The affordable dwellings are proposed as 5 three bedroom dwellings and 3 two bedrooms dwellings which has been developed in consultation with Registered Providers (RPs) and the delivery of these dwellings is proposed to be secured as part of a Section 106 package, with the mix of affordable rent (75%) and intermediated (25%) housing considered to be the most appropriate by the Councils Strategic Housing Manager. Overall the principle of developing the site for as proposed is acceptable, in accordance with the provisions of the local plan policy HSG5 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
8.2 Siting and Design
8.2.1 The layout of the site has been designed primarily to provide an external facing development fronting the internal access road, which is provided along the line of Freasley Lane. A small area of open space is provided at the centre of the site where two diseased trees have been removed and are to be replaced. This area at the centre of the site provides an area of landscaped open space which will act as a focal point for the site which will enable a sense of place and character for the development to be achieved on this site at the edge of the urban area.
8.2.2 The layout of the site has been amended since its inception to provide a greater separation between each of the dwellings both to provide visual gaps to the built form and also in order to provide dedicated parking areas for each of the proposed dwellings. The layout is considered to provide well defined streets with a clear distinction between the public and private spaces, enabling a strong sense of ownership to be developed in the area. The small cul-de-sacs proposed to the north eastern end of the site are outward facing and provide overlooked parking areas and will help to create active areas within the development itself. One area that could be improved upon relates to the side elevations of Plots 25 and 26 which side on to the main access road and it is recommended that a revised elevational treatment to each of these plots is secured by condition in order improve the appearance of this part of the site and improve overlooking of the access road.
8.2.3 The dwellings are designed to take the form of traditional two-storey dwellings, which are reflective of the building tradition of the area with cill and lintol detailing. The siting and height of the dwellings have been amended slightly to provide a variation in both the building and ridge lines in order that interest is provided to the elevations and the overall form of the development.
8.2.4 In terms of the amenity space provided for the development itself with the exception of Plots 1 and 2 each of the dwellings is provided with garden lengths of between 10m and 20m and sizes of between approximately 68 sq.m and 224 sq.m, which overall are considered to be commensurate with the sizes of dwellings proposed and will ensure that suitable accommodation is provided for small families (for which there is an overriding need).
8.2.5 The site whilst not directly connected to the development at Tamar Road, does provide a new footpath link in to the existing footpath network along Overwoods Road, and at the centre of the site within the proposed area of open space down to Freasley Lane, which itself will provides easy access to the Boroughs open space network most notably the Kettle Brook Local Nature Reserve.
8.2.6 Overall it is considered that the layout, appearance and scale of the development proposed is such that the proposal will improve the character and appearance of the area creating a well considered and designed scheme taking into account the constraints at the site.
8.3 Highways Safety
8.3.1 The site is located off Overwoods Road, a 30mph road (with speeds identified as being approximately 40 mph within the speed survey undertaken) from which vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is to be retained. The access is to be widened and upgraded, with a footpath link provided along Overwoods Road and from the development site to Freasley Lane, ensuring the development connects with its surroundings where possible.
8.3.2 The road layout has been slightly amended following discussion with the Highway Authority who now raise no objection to the development subject to the provision of 2.4m x 120m visibility splays (suitable for a 40mph road), and the implementation of the parking areas and access.
8.3.3 The development proposes the provision of two external parking paces for each of the two and three bed dwellings, and three for the four bed dwelling (with additional garage spaces proposed on 11 of the 29 dwellings). This level of parking coupled with the fact that the road is a cul-de-sac is considered to be acceptable and will ensure that occupiers of the dwellings have an appropriate level of dedicated parking. Details have been provided which demonstrate that refuse vehicles and fire engines can adequately access and turn around within the site. The design of the road is such that the main road in the development will be adopted by The Highway Authority, which will ensure suitable bin collection directly outside nearly all of the dwellings. The applicant has confirmed their willingness to indemnify the Council against any damages caused though bin collection on non adopted roads (a small section to the north eastern end of the site), which is considered acceptable. Overall safe vehicular access is achievable to the site, and an appropriate level of parking is provided within the site sufficient to ensure that the development would not detrimentally impact on highway safety.
8.4 Amenity Considerations
8.4.1 The concerns of a number of residents are noted in terms of the impact of the development on their amenity through overlooking and loss of daylight and sunlight, which is understandable due to the close proximity of the development to existing dwellings. Members will remember these issues being raised by adjoining residents on the previous application. The development provides for a minimum distance of 33m in-between directly facing windows, and a minimum of 26m where a blank gable faces an existing rear elevation. Whilst the Council do not have adopted minimum separation distance standards, the Interim Planning Guidance (which whilst not a formally adopted document is commensurate with adopted standards at other Local Planning Authorities) identifies a minimum distance of 23m between facing windows and 15m where a black gable faces a rear elevation which are exceeded by the proposed development. The relationship between the existing and proposed dwellings are aided by the existing tree belt in-between them, which is approximately 8m in depth.
8.4.2 In terms of loss of daylight and sunlight, the separation distances and considered to be sufficient so as to not significantly impact upon the amount of daylight or sunlight entering either the gardens or dwellings of the nearest residential properties. As members are aware the loss of a private view is not a material planning consideration that should impact upon the determination of this application.
8.4.3 In addition, it is worthwhile noting that a number of dwellings to the north east of the development at Teign and Ottery are sited such that their rear amenity space backs on to the application site. As a result of the development the noise environment within the gardens of these properties will be improved over the existing situation.
8.4.4 Overall the layout of the proposal, its orientation, and the siting of the development is such that there would be no direct overlooking of any existing dwellings or their private amenity space from the proposed dwelling or vice-versa. Separation of the proposed dwelling from its neighbours are considered acceptable and would not give rise to an overbearing impact or result in significant loss of daylight or sunlight.
8.5 Noise and Contamination
8.5.1 As could be expected from the greenfield nature of the development site, there is a low risk of significant contaminants being present. This is confirmed in the submitted contaminated land assessment which is deemed to be acceptable by the Council’s Environmental Protection Team.
8.5.2 The site is located approximately 170m to the north-west of the M42, which as members will be aware carrys a large volume of traffic 24 hours a day with a high percentage of HGV traffic. A noise assessment was submitted in support of the original application, with assessment points along the sites boundary to Freasley Lane and Overwoods Road. The results of the assessment indicate that in order to achieve a ‘good’ noise standard the elevations of the building facing the M42 will need to provide a sound reduction of approximately 24-28db. Standard thermal double glazing provides in the region of a 33db reduction, which would provide a good standard for residential development (with ventilation for these windows provide by trickle vents in order to not reduce the noise insulation properties). Due to the siting of the majority of the dwellings with gardens to the rear of the buildings a good noise environment is achievable with acoustic walling and fencing where necessary. In order to secure that the noise levels within the proposed dwellings and private gardens is acceptable conditions are recommended to this effect as recommended by the Councils Environmental Protection Team.
8.6 Trees / landscape
8.6.1 The site is surrounded to all boundaries by trees and hedges of various sizes and levels of merit. To the centre of the site there were previously two large mature ash trees (which have now been removed due to decay), which had been designed in to the scheme. In order to maintain the layout and the open space within the centre of the site it is proposed to plant replacement trees in the same location.
8.6.2 The application includes for the retention of a number of trees to the sites boundary to Freasley Lane, with small sections of the existing hedgerow removed in order to ensure the stability of the earth bank to Freasley Lane. This area will be the subject of a detailed landscaping scheme, which will enable the site to integrate with its surroundings. The external areas of both hard and soft landscaping within the site are proposed to be managed by an independent management company to ensure their long term maintenance details of which are requested by condition.
8.6.3 The area of tree planting in-between the site and adjacent dwellings is owned by the Council, and comments have been received noting that this tree belt currently has little impact on Street Scene’s maintenance resources with a number of residents in this area including this area as part of their gardens (without the consent of the Council). Concern has been raised that approving the development would increase in potential liability from the trees and residents expectations will increase the maintenance requirements. Whilst this concern is noted, access to this area will still be achievable to the north of the development site and the fact that TBC do not currently maintain this area within their ownership and may have to, should not impact upon the acceptability of this scheme.
8.6 Ecology
8.6.1 The Kettlebrook Local Nature Reserve (LNR) is located adjacent to the northern corner of the application site and an Extended Phase I Habitat Survey has been undertaken in support of the application. Whilst the habitats on the site are not of notable importance, they may provide foraging and habitat opportunities for one or more protected species. The site has been identified as having potential to support badgers and bats, and further surveys were commissioned which concluded that there is no evidence of any badger setts on the site, with no foraging opportunities and any nearby sets which may be located nearby would not be affected by the development. There was no evidence of bats using the trees as a place of shelter, with trees retained where there is potential for opportunities for roosting, in addition, the retention of trees and boundaries (with replacements where necessary) will provide features along which bats could commute to areas such as the Kettlebrook LNR.
8.7 Flood Risk / Drainage
8.7.1 The application site is located within Flood Zone 1, which represents an area with a less than 1 in 1000 year chance of flooding. However, the site is located in close proximity to Kettle Brook and would result in an increase in the impermeable area at the site, and a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted in support of the application. As the application site is located in an area with a low chance of flooding the Environment Agency have not commented on the suitability of the FRA. However, the application has been assessed by Staffordshire County Council (acting as the Lead Local Flood Authority) who consider that conditions requiring the submission of a detailed design (including calculations) for site soak-aways, and their management would ensure that the development would not exacerbate surface water flooding in the area.
8.7.2 The comment received concerned about the impact of the development on water pressure is noted. However, given the responses of the statutory water bodies (including Severn Trent Water), it is considered that with the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure that appropriate drainage facilities are provided the proposals would not increase the risk of flooding and adequate drainage can be accommodated.
8.8 HS2
8.8.1 As members will be aware the government announced an indicative route for the proposed Phase 2 route of HS2 in 2013. As detailed above in the consultation response from HS2 due to the project being at the early stages i.e. at the initial design stage with the initial consultation responses not having been fully assessed an announcement on the preferred route is not expected until 2015. As a result, the proposed route may be subject to some change. No comments are made in terms of the current application other than to confirm that due to the proximity of the site to the proposed HS2 line the site may in the future be required by High Speed 2 Ltd to construct and/or operate the railway. An informative advising the applicant of this is recommended. Overall the HS2 proposals should not impact upon the determination of this application, which includes from a land use, noise or compensation perspective.
8.9 Section 106 Contributions / Requirements
8.9.1 As part of the application contributions are required in respect of affordable dwellings, education, and open space. The development is located in the primary school catchment area of Heathfields Infants School and Wilnecote Junior School. The School Organisation Team groups schools into clusters based on geographical location and historical pupil movement for pupil planning purposes. The site is in the primary school cluster of ‘Tamworth 4’ and schools in this area are projected to be full for the foreseeable future based on the children currently living in the area. Any residential development in the area will necessitate education contributions to accommodate the additional children generated by the development.
8.9.2 For secondary school provision, the development is located in the catchment area of Wilnecote High School. The School is projected to have insufficient places available to accommodate the number of children that would be generated by this development. The development is scheduled to provide 29 dwellings. Excluding the affordable dwellings from secondary only, a development of 29 houses including the 8 affordable dwellings could add 4 Infant School aged pupils, 5 Junior School aged pupils, 5 High School aged pupils and 1 Sixth Form aged pupil.
8.9.3 SCC School Organisation have been advised that the likely cost of delivering new primary school provision would be in the region of £4 million per 1 FE (210 places). On this basis, the proportional contribution for a site of this size would be for 13.80% (9/210) of the total cost of £4 million which would be in the region of £171,600.
8.9.4 In addition to the primary school requirements, a contribution would be necessary to provide additional secondary school places. Based on a development of 29 including 8 RSL dwellings, the education contributions for a development of this size would be 5 secondary school places (5 x £16,622 = £83,110). In summary, the education requirements for this site are £171,600 for 9 additional primary school places and £83,110 for 5 additional secondary school places. This gives a total request of £254,710.
8.9.5 It is however, noteworthy that the original outline application (0081/2013) commented that Wilnecote High School was projected to have sufficient space to accommodate the likely demand from pupils generated by the development (so no secondary contribution was requested). In addition the comments are that a development of 29 dwelling could add 3 Infant School aged pupils, 3 Junior School aged pupils, 4 High School aged pupils and 1 Sixth Form aged pupil. So an education contribution for 3 Infant School places (3 x £11,031 = £33,093), 3 Junior School places (3 x £11,031 = £33,093) resulted in a total request of £66,186 for the same scale of development. The responses are caveated that these figures may change, and an explanation has been requested for the difference in figures any response received will be reported to members by way of an update to this report.
8.9.6 As the development proposes contribution towards the provision/maintenance of open space within the vicinity of the site is required, which itself equates to a contribution of £19,250. If members are minded to approve the application planning permission should not be granted until a Section 106 Agreement has been received to this effect, which will be required before the 9th February 2014.
9. Conclusion
9.1 The development of this site for residential purposes is considered acceptable as this site is located within the urban area of the Borough, with outline planning permission having been granted for the residential development of the site in 2013. The layout and built form of the development as amended is considered to enhance both the character and appearance of the area, providing a well deisnged edge to Tamworth’s urban area, and would not significantly impact upon the amenity of nearby residents and would not be detrimental to highway safety.
9.2 No other material considerations exist (including those raised in the representations received) that override the above justification.
9.3 Subject to conditions covering matters of contamination, noise, ecological and biological matters, the development is considered to comply with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, and Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 Policies HSG5, HSG11, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, and ENV19.
Conditions / Reasons
1. The development shall be started within three years of the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with the application form, and the following documents including the recommendations, methods of working and mitigation contained therein; Design & Access Statement (AAH5243) Tree Survey & Arboricultural Impact (15th August 2014) Report on Geotechnical Design and Aspects of Contamination (AJM/21851) Flood Risk Assessment (J-B0766.00R1.0) Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (October 2014) and the following Drawing Numbers; AAH5243 01 Revision C AAH5243 05 Revision F AAH5243 07 Revision A AAH5243 08 Revision A AAH5243 09 Revision A AAH5243 10 Revision B AAH5243 11 Revision B AAH5243 12 Revision A AAH5243 13 Revision B AAH5243 14 Revision B AAH5243 15 Revision B AAH5243 16 Revision B AAH5243 17 Revision A AAH5243 18 Revision A AAH5243 19 AAH5243 20 AAH5243 21 AAH5243 21 Revision A (Visibility Splays on to Overwoods Road)
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To define the approval. 3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of all materials to be used in the construction and finish of the external surfaces of the development and in the hard landscaping shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance to the development and in the interests of the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 policies ENV19 and HSG5, and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. 4. Prior to the commencement of development a full landscaping scheme (incorporating soft and hard landscaping features including surfacing and drainage of the access and parking areas) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the setting, visual appearance of the development, and biodiversity of the site and surrounding area in accordance with the Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 policies ENV7, ENV9 and ENV19. 5. Prior to the commencement of development details of all walls, fences and other means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and such walls, fences and other means of enclosure as approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be erected prior to the occ upation of the dwellings to which they relate. Reason: In the interests of the visual appearance of the development and to secure the privacy of the residents in accordance with Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 policy ENV19. 6. Prior to the commencement of development details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority indicating the construction of all retaining structures/supporting embankments to the site boundaries which shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved drawings. Reason: In the interests of Highway Safety in accordance with Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 policy T3. 7. Prior to the commencement of development precise details of the bin storage facilities and the securing of bin collection arrangements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the site and to ensure adequate facilities are provided in accordance with Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 policies ENV19 and HSG5.
8. Prior to the commencement of development infiltration tests and soakaway design to BRE 365, or outfall details and attenuation calculations for the equivalent greenfield discharge, as detailed within Appendix D of the Flood Risk Assessment (J-B0766.00R1.0) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants as recommended by the Lead Local Flood Authority in accordance with Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 policy HSG5.
9. Prior to the commencement of development a drawing showing that exceedance flows up to the 1 in 100 years plus climate change do not result in surface water flooding of more vulnerable areas within the development site or contribute to surface water flooding of any area outside of the development site and that finished floor levels are set at least 150mm above ground level have been submitted to and agreed, in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants as recommended by the Lead Local Flood Authority in accordance with Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 policy HSG5.
10. Prior to the commencement of development the proposed maintenance regime for any sustainable drainage system proposed, including details of who will take responsibility, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The maintenance shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the agreed regime unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reason: To ensure the drainage system remains in good working order throughout its lifetime as recommended by the Lead Local Flood Authority in accordance with Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 policy HSG5.
11. Prior to the commencement of development the proposed maintenance regime for the communal parking, access and landscaping area, including details of who will take responsibility, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The maintenance shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the agreed regime unless otherwise agreed in writing Reason: In the interests of the visual appearance of the area and to ensure appropriate maintenance of the site in accordance with Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 policies ENV19 and HSG5.
12. Prior to the commencement of development precise details of the foul and surface water drainage (including details of the roadway construction and drainage) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submission shall include an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development the approved details shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any part of the development. Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with satisfac tory means of drainage and to minimise the risk of pollution in accordance with the Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 policies ENV19 and HSG5.
13. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved a scheme of sound insulation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be designed following the completion of a noise survey undertaken by a competent person. The scheme shall take account of the need to provide adequate ventilation, which may be by mechanical or passive means and shall be designed to achieve the following criteria with the ventilation operating:
Bedroom 35 dB LAeq (16 hrs) (0700 hrs – 2300 hrs) Bedrooms 30 dB LAeq (8 hrs) (2300 hrs – 0700 hrs) Bedrooms 45 dB LAmax (2300 hrs – 0700 hrs) Living rooms 35 dB LAeq (16 hrs) (0700 hrs – 2300 hrs)
All noise attenuation measures that are required to be incorporated into the design of the property shall be completed prior to the occupation of the property. On completion of construction but prior to occupation of any dwelling, the applicant shall carry out tests to demonstrate that they have complied with the above environmental noise standards, in accordance with details to be agreed with the local planning authority and shall submit a report to the local planning authority for acceptance.
(Note - it may be possible to dispense with an agreed process of testing on completion if the applicant can demonstrate that the acoustic design of the development and the quality control measures in place during the construction process are sufficiently robust to give confidence that the above environmental noise standards can be met.)
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of occupiers of the approved dwellings as recommended by the Council’s Environmental Protection Team in accordance with Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 policy HSG5.
14. Prior to the commencement of development a survey (or modelling) shall be undertaken to determine any garden areas that exceed a noise level of 55dB (A) Leq (16 hour). Any land identified as having a noise level above this level shall either be excluded for residential use or shall be subject to a noise mitigation scheme to reduce the noise to a level of 55dB (A) Leq (16 hour) or below. On completion of construction but prior to occupation of any dwelling, the applicant shall carry out tests to demonstrate that they have complied with the above environmental noise standards, in accordance with details to be agreed with the local planning authority and shall submit a report to the local planning authority for acceptance.
(Note - it may be possible to dispense with an agreed process of testing on completion if the applicant can demonstrate that the acoustic design of the development and the quality control measures in place during the construction process are sufficiently robust to give confidence that the above environmental noise standards can be met.)
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of occupiers of the approved dwellings as recommended by the Council’s Environmental Protection Team in accordance with Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 policy HSG5.
15. Prior to the commencement of development and notwithstanding the submitted plans revised elevations for the south east facing side elevations to plots 25 and 26 shall be submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance to the development and in the inte rests of the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Tamworth Local Plan 2001- 2011 policies ENV19 and HSG5, and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.
16. Prior to the first use of the development the parking and driveways to the individual dwellings, the site access roadway, footways and ramped access to Freasley Lane shall be provided in accordance with submitted Drawing Number AAH5243 05 Revision F. Reason: In the interests of highway safety as recommended by the highway authority in accordance with Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 policy T3. 17. Prior to the first use of the development the visibility splays (2.4m x 120m) to the site access shall be provided. The visibility splays shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions to visibility over a height of 600mm above the adjacent carriageway level. Reason: In the interests of highway safety as recommended by the highway authority in accordance with Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 policy T3.
18. Prior to the first use of the development the following off site highway works shall be completed in accordance with Drawing Number AAH5243 05 Revision F: i) provide a footway along Overwoods Road ii) provide a reconstructed site access to Overwoods Road Reason: In the interests of highway safety as recommended by the highway authority in accordance with Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 policy T3.
19. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping and boundary treatment approved pursuant to condition 5 above shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of the setting and visual appearance of the development, and in accordance with Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 policies ENV9 and ENV19. 20. Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B, C, D and E of Schedule 2 Part 1 of the Town and Countr y Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order), the dwelling shall not be altered or extended, and no buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling unless planning permission has been granted by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the building and the amenity of residents of the development in accordance with Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 policy HSG5.
Informative Note(s)
1. C ondition 18 above requiring off site highway works shall require a Legal Agreement with Stafford shire County Council and the applicant is therefore required to contact the County Council in respect of securing the agreement.
2. The development will require approval under Section 7 of the Staffordshire Act 1983 and any roadwa ys offered for adoption as public highway will require a Section 38 of the Highway Act 1980. Please contact Staffordshire County Council to ensure that all approvals and agreements are secured before the commencement of the works. As part of the technical approval under Section 7 details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Highway Authority indicating all road construction, street lighting and drainage including longitudinal sections and a satisfactory means of draining roads to an acceptable outfall.
3. Any soakaway shall be located a minimum 4.5m rear of the public highway / land adoptable as public h ighway.
4. The applicant is advised to note that the site is currently shown as being in close proximity to the initial preferred route of Phase Two of High Speed 2. As a result the site may in the future be required by High Speed 2 Ltd to construct and/or operate the railway.