Case Officer: Sarah Kay File No: CHE/15/00442/FUL Tel

Case Officer: Sarah Kay File No: CHE/15/00442/FUL Tel. No: (01246) 345786 Plot No: 2/322 Ctte Date: 7th December 2015

ITEM 8

DEMOLITION OF FORMER HOTEL AND CREATING NEW DWELLINGS TO REJUVENATE THE EXISTING SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS (REVISED INFORMATION RECEIVED ON 13/1/2015 AND 23/11/2015) AT POOLSBROOK HOTEL, STAVELEY ROAD, POOLSBROOK, CHESTERFIELD, DERBYSHIRE, S43 3LF FOR OBELL DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED.

Local Plan: Unallocated Ward: Middlecroft and Poolsbrook

1.0 CONSULTATIONS

DCC Highways Comments received 31/07/2015 and 26/08/2015 – see report

Environmental Services Comments received 19/08/2015 – see report

Design Services Comments received 20/08/2015 – see report

Economic Development Unit No comments received

Housing No comments received

Leisure Services No comments received

Environment Agency Comments received 19/08/2015 – see report

Yorkshire Water Services Objection received 20/08/2015 – see report

Derbyshire Constabulary Comments received 20/08/2015 – see report

DCC Strategic Infrastructure Comments received 03/09/2015 – see report

C/Field Cycle Campaign No comments received

Urban Design Officer Comments received 09/09/2015 – see report

DCC Archaeology Comments received 04/08/2015 – see report

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust Comments received 03/11/2015 and 24/11/2015 – see report

NHS / PCT No comments received

Coal Authority Comments received 11/08/2015 – see report

Staveley Town Council No comments received

Ward Members No comments received

Neighbours/Site Notice Four letters of representation received

2.0 THE SITE

2.1 The site the subject of the application comprises of The Poolsbrook Hotel, a detached two and a half storey property and the grounds within its immediate surrounding (circa 0.2ha) which are located at the south eastern corner of Poolsbrook village.

2.2 The site sits with open land uses to its northern, eastern and southern boundaries, with a small cluster of neighbouring residential properties located to the west.

3.0 RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

3.1 CHE/10/00308/OUT – Proposed demolition of Poolsbrook Hotel and redevelopment of land to provide 11 x 3 bed houses with associated parking - Resubmission of Planning Application CHE/10/00058/OUT – Refused 07/09/2010 for the following reason:

‘The development is in conflict with Policy POS 3 and CMT2 of the Replacement Chesterfield Borough Local Plan as it fails to secure funding for the upgrading and maintenance of public open space and provide contribution toward additional classroom accommodation as required by a development of this size by the policies and adopted SPD.’

3.2 CHE/10/00058/OUT – Proposed demolition of Poolsbrook Hotel and redevelopment of land to provide 12 x 3 bed houses with associated parking – Refused 01/04/2010 for the following reason:

‘In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal is unacceptable. The application fails to provide evidence that the existing public house is no longer viable or that alternative provision is available in the area in order to justify the loss of the existing facility. On this basis the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policies CMT5 and SHC1 of the Replacement Chesterfield Borough Local Plan.’

3.3 CHE/08/00517/OUT – Five residential dwellings – Approved 22/09/2008.

4.0 THE PROPOSAL

4.1 The application, which is submitted in full, proposes the demolition of the Poolsbrook Hotel and the erection of 30 no. new dwellings comprising 1 no. block of 15 no. flats and 3 no. blocks of 5 no. townhouses. The associated site layout shows the provisions of 17 no. parking spaces.

4.2 The application is supported by the submission of the following: Plans / Drawings (as revised on 13/11/2015); . Design and Access Statement (inc. Confidential Viability Addendum); . Flood Risk & Drainage Strategy; . Phase 1 Desk Study Report and Coal Mining Assessment Report; and . Bat Survey – Preliminary Roost Assessment (received on 23/11/2015).

4.3 Block A as detailed on drawing no. 020 Rev 004 comprises of the block of 15 no. flats which are set over four floors comprising 4 no. 2 bed flats to GF, FF and SF and 3 no. 2 bed flats at TF. This part of the development stands where the former Hotel building currently stands.

4.4 Block B as detailed on drawing no. 030 Rev 004 comprises of a block of 5 no. 2 bed 2 storey townhouses which are positioned parallel to and fronting Cottage Close. At ground floor the accommodation includes hallway with w.c leading to an open plan kitchen / dining / lounge area. At first floor there are 2 no double bedrooms and a bathroom.

4.5 Block C as detailed on drawing no. 035 Rev 001 comprise of a block of 5 no. 3 bed 2.5 storey townhouses which are positioned in a row with Block D behind Block A and B. At ground floor the accommodation includes hallway with w.c leading to an open plan kitchen / dining / lounge area. At first floor there are 2 no. bedrooms (1 no. double and 1 no. single) and a bathroom and in the roof space a third double bedroom.

4.6 Block D as detailed on drawing no. 040 Rev 001 comprise of a block of 5 no. 3 bed 2.5 storey townhouses which are positioned in a row with Block C behind Block A and B. At ground floor the accommodation includes hallway with w.c leading to an open plan kitchen / dining / lounge area. At first floor there are 2 no. bedrooms (1 no. double and 1 no. single) and a bathroom and in the roof space a third double bedroom.

4.7 In accordance with the revised site layout plan (received on 13/11/2015) vehicular access to the site is taken from the corner of Staveley Road and Cottage Close leading around Block A into a central parking court located between the 2 no. parallel rows of development. 17 no. parking spaces are shown to be accommodated.

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Planning Policy Background

5.1.1 The site is situated within the built settlement of Poolsbrook in an area predominantly residential in nature. Having regard to the nature of the application proposals policies CS1 (Spatial Strategy), CS2 (Location of Development), CS3 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development), CS4 (Infrastructure Delivery), CS6 (Sustainable Design), CS7 (Management of the Water Cycle), CS8 (Environmental Quality), CS9 (Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity), CS10 (Flexibility in delivery of Housing),CS11 (Range of Housing), CS18 (Design), CS19 (Historic Environment) and CS20 (Demand For Travel) of the Core Strategy and the wider National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) apply.

5.1.2 In addition the Councils Supplementary Planning Document on Housing Layout and Design ‘Successful Places’ is also a material consideration.

5.2 Principle of Development

5.2.1 The application site is situated within the existing built settlement of Poolsbrook and is previously developed / brownfield land having regard to its last land use which comprises of a public house/hotel.

5.2.2 Having regard to the policy back ground set out above, the previous land use and the fact the site is concluded to be brownfield, the principle of its redevelopment for residential purposes accords with the development plan policies CS1, CS2, CS3 and CS10 and the wider aspirations of the NPPF and is acceptable. Furthermore the site is situated within one of the named eastern villages where the Core Strategy makes reference to the priority for new housing.

5.3 Design / Appearance Issues

Use

5.3.1 Whilst Poolsbrook is identified in the Chesterfield Local Plan: Core Strategy (2013) as one of the Eastern Villages where additional residential development is proposed, proposals would result in the loss of the current facility and this would need to be weighed against the benefits of the redevelopment of the site.

Amount

5.3.2 The site occupies an area of 0.23ha and the application proposes 30 no. residential units (15 no. houses and 15 no. flats) therefore this equates to a net residential density of 130 dwellings per hectare.

5.3.3 Whilst it is noted that this is a very high density of development for a village setting the amount of development sought is justified on the basis of the need to achieve a viable scheme in a location where land values and demand are challenging. A number of development options have been tested, although only this mix of houses and flats has been shown to achieve a viable form of development which is likely to be able to be implemented. As such, the amount of development is appropriate, given the overall improvement to the site that would result from the proposal and the fact the density does not comprise the amenity of any adjacent neighbouring properties.

Layout

5.3.4 The layout comprises two rows of houses/flats separated by a central parking court (as revised 23/11/2015). The site frontage with the neighbouring houses on Cottage Close proposes a continuation of the streetscene by introducing a row of 5 terraced houses with an apartment building on the corner with Staveley Road. This is considered to be an appropriate response and reintroduces a built edge along this frontage. This also provides additional overlooking towards the playing field. To the rear is a modest parking court with a further terrace of 10 dwellings (in two groups of 5 houses) situated in line with the existing neighbouring dwellings.

5.3.5 As a result of the revised site layout 17 no. dedicated parking spaces are provided for the development proposals with additional parking expected to be accommodated on-street within the public highway. It is noted that the land immediately east of the proposed flats is owned by the Borough Council and comprises an area of hardstanding which has historically also been used for parking and is likely to continue to be used as such.

5.3.6 The Borough’s standards for domestic garden sizes are set out within the Successful Places residential design guidance (2013) and whilst it is noted the majority of the proposed dwellings include gardens that fall below these thresholds these would reflect the character of the locality and all gardens would benefit from a south facing aspect. Although the flats are without any external private outdoor space, the site is situated directly opposite the playing field and as such would benefit from an open aspect and access to recreational open space.

5.3.7 The layout proposes a rear access path to enable occupants to access their rear gardens without the need to pass through the house. Whilst this results in a long unobserved path to the rear 10 no. houses that would pose a potential security risk in terms of affording rear access into rear gardens this will allow bins to be stored in rear gardens (rather than in advance of the property frontage). It will be necessary to require demonstration in a more detail site layout of the proposed finish to these paths and fences to ensure they are fit for purpose. No external bin storage appears to be shown to serve the flats and therefore this will also need to be addressed by the same condition.

Scale and Massing

5.3.8 The proposals seek to provide two-storey housing on the frontage with Cottage Close (Block B) of a size and scale that is compatible with the neighbouring dwelling. The ten houses to the rear are proposed to be 2.5 storeys in height with rear facing dormer windows and roof lights on the front roof slope. Block B which lies adjacent to Croft Cottage will introduce a built form adjacent the gable end of this neighbour where there are 3 no. window openings and a doorway in situ. A telephone conversation with the occupier of this property confirmed that these windows served a GF w.c, GF playroom and FF bedroom (although this window is secondary to one also in situ in the rear elevation). Given the secondary nature to all these rooms it is not considered that the impact of introducing a built form in close proximity to the secondary windows could justify refusal of planning permission on the grounds of overbearing.

5.3.9 It is accepted that Block C plot 6 has a tight relationship with No. 7 Co-operate Cottages immediately to the west, with only a narrow gap between the two buildings and first and second floor windows affording some views towards the rear garden area of this neighbouring property however this relationship is not considered to be dissimilar to that No. 7 already shares with its other neighbour and therefore permission could not be refused on this basis.

5.3.10 Block A would be located in a similar position to the existing hotel and although the overall height of Block A is shown as the same height as the existing chimneys of the Hotel building, the proposal is for a four storey building to be provided. The scale of the new development is able to be achieved by using lower floor to ceiling heights relative to the higher proportions utilised within the existing hotel and whilst the overall square form and scale of the apartments creates a building of considerable bulk and mass relative to the existing hotel its relative bulk and mass, the corner position of the building and its open aspect provide scope to accommodate such a building of greater scale without adversely impacting on the character or appearance of area. Essentially, Block A would substitute the existing hotel as a local landmark with a new building of note in the locale. However, this is considered to be at the upper limit of acceptability in respect to scale and massing impact.

Landscaping

5.3.11 Landscaping proposals are not set out in detail at this stage, although the proposed site plans indicate areas of hard and soft landscape. In the event that planning permission is granted, details should be required by condition together with triggers for their proposed implementation.

Appearance

5.3.12 The development has a contemporary appearance. Although the terraced houses are shown in a traditional form under pitched roofs, they have a contemporary arrangement and interpretation of the materials used in the local housing.

5.3.13 The most striking element of the scheme is Block A. This four storey and building has a flat roof and the appearance of a contemporary apartment building. This will appear somewhat incongruous within the context of Poolsbrook which, in general terms, has a very consistent appearance born out of its origins as a former mining settlement. Nevertheless, the building would provide a replacement landmark to the existing hotel. The selection of materials and the architectural language between the proposed houses and the flats would also assist in tying both these elements together and echo the palette of local materials found elsewhere within the village (particularly brick and render used in combination). The top floor of Block A is set back to help moderate the visual impact and scale of the building. In addition, the use of timber cladding is also proposed to assist in giving the flats a more lightweight appearance, which to some extent, helps counter the massing of the apartment building.

Access

5.3.14 The existing access is from Staveley Road and comprises a short stub of highway off the main loop. DCC Highways has commented in more detail on the suitability of the access and this is considered in more detail in section 5.4 below.

Conclusion

5.3.15 Overall the scheme would provide a generally positive street frontage onto Cottage Close and redevelop a currently neglected site. However, the amount of development sought results in a number of impacts, in terms of a shortage of managed parking provision, reduced amounts of private amenity space (relative to normal requirements), poor rear access and bin storage arrangements and a relatively tight relationship with neighbouring dwellings. In addition, the scale and design of Block A is a very contemporary approach at this edge of village setting. Notwithstanding this it is considered that the development proposals are of an acceptable design, siting, scale and mass. In respect of policies CS2 and CS18 of the Core Strategy and the Councils Housing Layout and Design guide the design of the development is considered on balance to be acceptable. Appropriate conditions can be imposed to ensure that materials, construction finishes and landscaping (hard and soft) are agreed.

5.4 Highways Issues

5.4.1 The application has been reviewed by the Local Highways Authority (LHA) who has offered the following comments / observations:

‘The details submitted to this office demonstrate development of 20 no. 2 bedroom and 10 no. 3 bedroom residential units served by 10 no. off street parking spaces.

As has been stated previously, the LHA always seeks to ensure that development are served by adequate off street parking spaces. The proposals are severely deficient in this respect i.e being some 50 no spaces short of the recommended provision of 2 no. spaces per 2/3bedroom unit.

The LHAs pre-application advice highlighted the potential issues of severely substandard parking provisions i.e on street parking should not be relied upon as space cannot be secured and future developments in the area could affect availability or road status etc. Overspill parking may result in the carriageway of Staveley Road / Cottage Close being reduced to single vehicle width over considerable distances with consequential over-running / degradation of verges, obstruction of access bend / free flow of traffic etc as well as obstruction of footways leading to pedestrians being forced into the carriageway.

Whilst it is appreciated that there is an existing area of bound surfacing (some within the control of the highway) adjacent the development site that may currently accommodate parked vehicle clear of the main carriageway, this is of course outside of the applicants control and should not be relied upon.

It has been suggested that the applicant may wish to investigate the stopping up of this area as it is unlikely the LHA would raise objections although it should be noted that the stopping up would revert the ownership to the owner of the subsoil.

Notwithstanding the above it is considered that off street parking provision should be maximised within land in control of the applicant. Furthermore consideration should be given to the distance of some dwellings beyond 25m of the highway and this may present issues for deliveries / refuse collection.

When taking into consideration the potential obstruction and adverse maintenance implications the LHA cannot condone proposed development of this site comprising 30 no dwellings served by only 10 no. parking spaces. That said due to current perceived use of the fronting roads it is unlikely that severe harm to safe operation of the highway could be demonstrated and as such an objection on highway grounds would be likely to prove unsustainable.

Therefore should the LPA be minded to approve these proposals it is recommended that the applicant submit a revised layout to maximise parking and conditions as follows be imposed: 1. Detailed designs of proposed access and footway improvements to be submitted. 2. Construction site compound provided. 3. Parking provided prior to any occupation. 4. Parking to be provided solely for the use by vehicles (no other use permitted). 5. Details of bin storage and collection storage to be provided.’

5.4.2 As a result of the comments received above further discussions were held with the applicant to consider where the site layout could be reviewed to maximise parking provision on the site. As a result a revised layout was prepared showing the provision of 17 no. off street parking spaces on land within the application site boundary. The layout also detailed the solid bound area of land adjacent to the Hotel building which has historically also been used for parking, which is unaffected by the development proposals.

5.4.3 Having regard to the revised site layout and the obvious availability of off street parking within the existing highway it is clear that a refusal on the level of parking provision proposed could not be sustained on appeal in this case. Furthermore there have been numerous examples where the LPA has permitted development with low levels of parking provisions or indeed without the provisions of off road parking at all where a site is accessible by other means. In this case the village is served by a bus route and the surrounding network (Erin Road) has just been upgraded with a shared cycle / footway to allow direct access to the nearby Staveley Town Centre and Markham Vale employment site.

5.4.4. Overall it is clear from the LHAs comments above that the application cannot be resisted on the grounds of its proposed parking levels (which have increased by 7 no. spaces since the LHAs original comments) and therefore the development does not present any adverse highway safety concerns. The application site is considered to be sustainably located with access easily available to the surrounding highway network to access bus routes, cycle paths and upgraded footways. Parking which has to place off site is unlikely to create any highways impact and the impacts are certainly not likely to be severe. Compliance with policies CS1 and CS2 is demonstrated and it is considered that the conditions requested by the LHA are reasonable and these can be imposed on any subsequent permission issued.

5.5 Heritage

5.5.1 The application proposals include the demolition of the Poolsbrook Hotel, a building which is identified as one with certain aspects with local significance / importance by the Derby and Derbyshire County Archaeologist as follows:

‘Poolsbrook Hotel forms part of a site on the Derbyshire Historic Environment Record (HER 13056), relating to Poolsbrook Model Village, a complex of industrial workers’ housing and amenities constructed in the 1890s by the Staveley Coal and Iron Company to house workers at Ireland Colliery. The Poolsbrook Hotel is one of very few surviving buildings from the 1890s Model Village, in addition to a truncated row of two cottages, a Methodist Chapel and the Mission Church. Albeit undesignated, the Hotel is consequently a heritage asset (sensu NPPF chapter 12) of some local significance and rarity in relation to the coal mining history of Poolsbrook and Staveley.

NPPF para 128 requires that planning applicants establish the significance of heritage assets and the proposed impacts thereon, to enable the local planning authority to weigh harms against benefits as required (for undesignated assets) by NPPF para 135. The applicant has provided no heritage information or statement of development benefits as part of an outweighing argument, and the application does not therefore meet the information requirements at NPPF para 128.

In order to address this omission, I recommend that the applicant be required to submit a statement of significance and impact in relation to the undesignated heritage asset, with the input of a suitable heritage professional. This should establish the significance of the remaining Poolsbrook Model Village buildings in the context of other regional sites and comparators. The applicant may also wish to consider providing a detailed assessment of development benefits to enable the local planning authority to perform the planning balance at NPPF para 135.’

5.5.2 Notwithstanding the comments of the County Archaeologist above, the site the subject of the application has in the past been the subject of 2 no. previous planning applications for similar development which resulted in the loss of the Hotel building and neither of the applications deemed the loss of the building as significant / harmful.

5.5.3 It has previously been concluded that the building proposed for demolition is not worthy of statutory protection, by means of listing. Furthermore as a building outside of a conservation area and not listed it could be demolished following a simple process of prior notification of demolition to the Local Planning Authority where there would be no regards to the buildings suggested historic interest. It is therefore not considered reasonable to delay the application whist a survey of the buildings ‘significance’ is carried out. It is considered that a condition could be placed on any consent granted requiring that an assessment of the building including a photographic record be carried out by suitably qualified and experienced building archaeologist/architect in order that the historic significance of the building and the site is recorded. In the context of paragraph 128 and 135 of the NPPF it is considered that this suggested conditional approach is ‘proportionate’ to the limited significance of the building, particularly given the details of the building which appear to already be well known (and quoted) by the County Archaeologist above. It is considered in the context of para. 135 of the NPPF on balance the positive environmental, economic and social benefits of the development as set out in this report outweigh the loss of the building.

5.6 Flood Risk / Drainage

5.6.1 The application is supported by the preparation of a Flood Risk and Drainage Strategy (the Strategy) which has been reviewed by the Council’s Design Services (DS) team and Yorkshire Water Services (YWS). The Lead Local Flood Authority has not commented.

5.6.2 As a result of the responses received from the DS team and from YWS it is clear that Drainage Strategy requires some degree of amendment / review and both parties have raised concerns. The DS team has some reservations over the position of proposed soakaways and attenuation tanks and have sought clarification on their design. YWS has commented that the Strategy should consider a hierarchy for surface water disposal comprising soakaways, a water course and thereafter to the existing system. The Strategy only considers soakaways and a connection to the existing system, therefore YWS consider the watercourse option should also be considered as an intermediate solution.

5.6.3 In respect of the comments / observations which have been raised it is not considered that the drainage issues raised are insurmountable, and accordingly it is considered that the requirement to submit a revised Drainage Strategy which is acceptable to both parties could be the subject of a standard pre- commencement planning condition which is compliance with the provisions of policy CS7 of the Core Strategy.

5.7 Ecology

5.7.1 The existing hotel building (the subject of proposed demolition) exhibits characteristics that indicate a moderate probability of protected species being present (bats) and so relevant EU and UK legislation, DEFRA and Natural England protected species guidance and planning practice guidance require an assessment of the site by competent persons. The LPA’s specialist advisors (Derbyshire Wildlife Trust) has also recommended that a bat survey(s) are carried out.

5.7.2 No such survey work was initially submitted with the application, however upon request the applicant commissioned a preliminary bat roost assessment which was submitted to the LPA on 23/11/2015 and was reviewed by DWT on the 24/11/2015 as follows:

‘The report presents the results of a daytime inspection of the two buildings proposed for demolition carried out on 11th November 2015. We would advise that the Preliminary Assessment, which has been carried out to a sufficiently thorough standard, has identified both of the buildings as having moderate potential to support roosting bats. The assessment also identified former evidence of nesting birds, including house martins, in the buildings. It will therefore be necessary to prepare a suitable mitigation strategy for nesting birds both to avoid harm to nesting birds during demolition and provide replacement nesting opportunities for the species concerned as part of the new development. Due to the potential to support roosting bats, the report has rightly recommended the undertaking of further bat surveys as set out in Table 5 of the report in line with current best practice guidance contained in the Bat Conservation Trust’s Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines 2nd edition 2012. It is essential that the results of the further bat survey work are provided prior to the determination of the application in order that any required mitigation, based upon the results of the further survey work, can be secured by the permission. Guidance to local planning authorities in the Circular 06/2005 is clear regarding protected species in that “It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision. The need to ensure ecological surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances, with the result that the surveys are carried out after planning permission has been granted”.’

5.7.3 Notwithstanding the comments of DWT above turning to the LPAs consideration of the proposal development, as pointed out by DWT, UK and EU law and also national planning policy and guidance requires that every LPA shall have regard to the requirements of the EU Habitats Directive in making planning decisions. The LPA must be satisfied that the tests of the EU Habitats Directive have been met before granting planning permission otherwise they risk contravening EU and UK law. The Habitats Directive in this case is to be considered in the context of there being potential for bat roosts on the site, these roosts being for an EU protected species.

5.7.4 Given that there is potential for bat roosts to be destroyed during demolition, the proposed development must meet a purpose of ‘’preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment’’. In addition the LPA must be satisfied that, (a) ‘’that there is no satisfactory alternative’’ and (b) ‘’that the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range’’.

5.7.5 In respect of the above it is considered that a development which accords with the Development Plan and delivers its aims and objectives would be an imperative reason for development with an inherent public interest being served. Furthermore, in balancing the benefits of the development against any adverse impact on the protected species it may be that the public interest served by the benefits of the development (and the imperative reason for the development) override the inherent interest in conservation of retaining the bat roosts. In effect a balancing judgement.

5.7.6 It is considered that the benefits of the development which are imperative and in the public interest are twofold. Firstly the facilitation of new housing that would be constructed under modern Building Regulations, ensuring in the long term a significantly more energy efficient building than that replaced. The consequence would be reduced carbon emissions and energy use, both of which are important aims of UK and EU environmental policies. Secondly facilitating new more secure (given the condition of the hotel and pressures for development) habitat creation on the site for EU protected species in particular bats. Given current planning policy the mitigation should secure provision for more than one roost on the site. The benefits are long term.

5.7.7 In considering whether or not these are overriding the following impacts on the protected species must be taken into account: 1. Alternative roosts can be erected in suitable locations prior to destruction of the buildings. 2. Destruction of the roost can be timed to specific months to minimise disturbance to the bat species identified as using the site. 3. Demolition can be undertaken in such a way that prevents harm to bats found in the property. 4. The species impacted upon has a wider distribution across the UK and the development following mitigation and new habitat creation is likely to increase the number of suitable habitats available and therefore have a positive long term impact on the maintenance of the protected species population at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. The DWT confirm that the species should be maintained at a favourable conservation status provided the mitigation proposed is applied.

5.7.8 On this basis it is considered that the public interest is met by the development which would be overriding despite the potential for harm to individual bats and that beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment will result from the increase in suitable and more secure bat habitats as a result of the development.

5.7.9 With regard to the consideration of alternatives there are clearly other deliverable housing sites in the Borough as demonstrated by the most recent Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment but not enough to provide a five year supply. Small sites such as the one under consideration are acknowledged in the SHLAA and Development Plan as providing an important part of housing supply in the Borough, giving flexibility and a source of completions when larger sites are not coming forward for construction. The Development Plan clearly sees such sites as being necessary to meet the wider public interest in the Borough. In this respect it is considered that there is no satisfactory alternative having regard to the impact on the species and benefits arising from the development. Secondly the retention of the existing building on the site would prevent the developments potential contribution to climate change mitigation and this would not achieve the appropriate balance between biodiversity conservation and the reduction of carbon emissions and energy consumption considered to be in the public interest. Given the carbon and energy implications of demolition and construction, the balance only swings in favour of the development over the longer term. Consequently the Council has adequate information to carry out the correct balancing exercise required under the EU Habitats Directive.

5.7.10 It is considered that the proposal accords with policies CS1 and CS2 and Planning Practice Guidance in respect of protected species (having regard to Circular 01/06) in that if the limited degree of harm to biodiversity and sustainable development interests in the short term is overridden by the longer term benefits to the conservation of bats in their natural range and social benefits of providing a new more energy efficient building in a relatively sustainable location, and that the development cannot reasonably be located on any alternative sites that would result in less or no harm and still allow the achievement of the aims in the Development Plan in respect of housing provision.

5.7.11 Accordingly having regard to the detailed considerations set out above and the comments of the DWT, it is considered that subject to appropriate conditions being imposed to secure enhancement as the opportunity exists within/on the new building for bat and bid boxes to be provided, the development would accord with Local Plan policy CS9 and the NPPF.

5.8 Land Condition / Contamination / Noise

5.8.1 In respect of Policy CS8 of the Core Strategy the Councils Environmental Services (ES) Team has reviewed the application submission. The comments received from them raise no objections to the proposed development subject to standard construction hours conditions; a contaminated land study; and a water bowser to be on site during demolition (which should be done only during hours agreed as per above).

5.8.2 Having regard to potential Coal Mining Risk, the application submission includes a Phase 1 Desk Study Report and Coal Mining Assessment Report which has been reviewed by the Coal Authority (CA) who has recommended the following:

‘The CA concurs with the recommendations of the Phase 1 Desk Study Report and Coal Mining Assessment Report; that coal mining legacy potentially poses a risk to the proposed development and that intrusive site investigation works should be undertaken prior to development in order to establish the exact situation regarding coal mining legacy issues on the site.

The CA recommends that the LPA impose a Planning Condition should planning permission be granted for the proposed development requiring these site investigation works prior to commencement of development.

In the event that the site investigations confirm the need for remedial works to treat any areas of shallow mine workings and/or the need to incorporate specific foundation solutions to address made ground to ensure the safety and stability of the proposed development, these should also be undertaken prior to commencement of the development.

A condition should therefore require prior to the commencement of development: * The submission of a scheme of intrusive site investigations for approval; * The undertaking of that scheme of intrusive site investigations; * The submission of a report of findings arising from the intrusive site investigations; * The submission of a scheme of remedial works for approval; and * Implementation of those remedial works.

The Coal Authority considers that the content and conclusions of the Phase 1 Desk Study Report and Coal Mining Assessment Report are sufficient for the purposes of the planning system and meet the requirements of the NPPF in demonstrating that the application site is, or can be made, safe and stable for the proposed development. The CA therefore has no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of a condition to secure the above.

5.8.3 Having regard to policy CS8 an appropriate conditions can be imposed to secure the site investigation works required by the Coal Authority and the contaminated land investigations, noise and demolition controls sought by the Senior EHO above.

5.9 Other Considerations

S106 Contributions

5.9.1 Having regard to the nature of the application proposals the development triggers the application of policies CS9, CS11, CS13, CS17 and CS18 in respect of developer contributions towards open space / play provision, affordable housing, local labour, education and percent for art.

5.9.2 As a result of consultation with the relevant internal / external consultees there have been no requests / responses received indicating that the development should make contributions towards open space / play provision under policy CS9 of the Core Strategy – no response was received from Leisure Services and the site lies immediately adjacent to allocated open space / play provision in Poolsbrook village.

5.9.3 In respect of other contributions policy CS11 seeks up to 30% affordable housing; policy CS13 requires a local labour clause; policy CS17 has seen a response received from DCC seeking an education contribution of £68,394.06 providing for 6 primary school places to be provided at Poolsbrook Primary School; and policy CS18 would require major development to contribute up to 1% of the development costs for a scheme of public art.

5.9.4 In respect of the above the application is supported by the submission of confidential viability report setting out evidence and assessment (endorsed by an RCIS surveyor) which sets out the overall gross development value and calculates building costs (with a low developer profit allowance of 11.5%) and acquisition costs illustrating that the resulting site value (available for developer contributions) is incredibly low (approx. £10,000).

5.9.5 Given that there is a clear argument relating to site viability it is necessary to look in turn at each of the development contributions being sought and determine whether there is justification to accept the development without the necessary contributions being made.

5.9.6 Policy CS11 relates to the contribution towards affordable housing with a requirement existing to negotiate up to a 30% contribution. The latest evidence available to the LPA to conclude an appropriate level of contribution at this site is available via evidence prepared for the Councils forthcoming CIL charging schedule (due for introduction in April 2016). In this evidence Middlecroft and Poolsbrook ward (like many eastern villages of the Borough) are identified in the low zone for CIL and therefore there is evidence available to suggest at an ordinary site a contribution up to 10% affordable housing is potentially viable. In the case of this development that would result in the provision of 3 no. affordable units however given the lack of response from Housing Services on this particular application and knowledge of the availability of affordable units in the immediate surrounding area already it is assumed an affordable housing contribution is less of a priority.

5.9.10 Policy CS13 seeks for a commitment by any prospective developer to the provision / use of local labour and it is not considered that this requirement adversely affects viability. It will therefore be necessary to look to secure by planning condition the requirement for local labour.

5.9.11 Policy CS17 relates to the requirement for any new development to contribute to social infrastructure including education contributions as sought by Derbyshire County Council. In response to this application it has been indicated that DCC would seek to secure additional funding for 6 primary school places equating to a financial contribution of £68,394.06. It is clear however from the site viability evidence presented that there is insufficient site value to enable the developer to offer / agree to this contribution. Similarly in respect of Policy CS18 a contribution of up to 1% of the development costs should ordinarily be sought and based upon the site viability evidence building costs lie around £2.7million and therefore a contribution of up to £27,000 would ordinarily be sought for a public art scheme at the site.

5.9.12 The viability evidence / assessment submitted indicates (with a developer profit of 11.5% accounted for) that there is only potential for a contribution of £10,000 to be offered from the development. The site is very finely balanced in terms of viability which is reflected in the developer profit margin being set very low at 11.5% (the HCA currently suggest a development profit margin of approx. 18-20% is the low) and therefore it is clear that realistically the Education and Percent for Art contributions cannot be required if the development is to go ahead. In this instance it is necessary for the LPA to consider whether the benefits of the scheme outweigh these material considerations.

5.9.13 In respect of the above the committee will be aware that the site the subject of the application has been troubled with anti-social behaviour issues for a number of years and ongoing operation of the building as a Hotel / PH is unviable. The premises are currently closed and are tarnished with a negative perception. The applicant has also indicated that there is no scope to re-open the building and they are currently burdened with ongoing arson, unauthorised entry and burglary issues. It is therefore the opinion of the LPA that there is a limited window of opportunity to promote the sites redevelopment with a viable scheme (introduction of CIL in April 2016 is likely to adversely impact upon the viability further) and therefore on balance it is considered that there are outweighing social, environmental and economic benefits for accepting the scheme without securing the full percent for art and education contributions being sought.

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 The application has been publicised by site notice on 10/08/2015; by advertisement in the local press on 06/08/2015; and seventeen neighbours were also notified by letter on 29/07/2015. As a result of the application publicity four representations have been received as follows:

A Local Resident (email address only) I agree with the DAS and support the redevelopment of this brownfield site. I feel the former Poolsbrook Hotel has not architectural interest and is in a very poor condition. Its demolition will remove an eyesore and source of antisocial behaviour.

Noted.

The Old Chapel, Cottage Close The proposed block of flats is over-dominant being 4 storey, when the existing building blends in at 2 and 2 ½ storey; The flat roof design of the block of flats is not in keeping with the pitched roof styles of the surrounding area; The design / aesthetics of the development should blend in with the existing area (materials / finishes / architectural detailing).

See design / appearance sections above.

1 Co-op Cottage, Cottage Close The new house No 6 will be tight up against my property preventing maintenance; The 4 storey design of the flat is much too high, even the existing Hotel is only 2 ½ storey and the flat roof design is not in keeping with the surrounding area. The only flat roofs locally are to single storey outbuildings / extensions; The south part of the site was filled approximately 2-3 years ago with large boulders and covered – it was proposed to be used as a caravan park.

See design / appearance sections above.

Croft Cottage, Cottage Close Firstly may I say I am in favour of the land being used for housing development; However I was assured before the application was submitted that there would only be 3 houses in line with mine and they would not be positioned as close or obstruct my light to the windows in my end gable; There are now 5 houses positioned as close to the boundary as possible and they are three storey in height. These will obstruct natural light to my house and make the view from these windows highly undesirable; and I propose they build a least 9 feet away from the boundary.

See design / appearance sections above.

7.0 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

7.1 Under the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force on 2nd October 2000, an authority must be in a position to show:

 Its action is in accordance with clearly established law  The objective is sufficiently important to justify the action taken  The decisions taken are objective and not irrational or arbitrary  The methods used are no more than are necessary to accomplish the legitimate objective  The interference impairs as little as possible the right or freedom

7.2 It is considered that the recommendation is objective and in accordance with clearly established law.

7.3 The recommended conditions are considered to be no more than necessary to control details of the development in the interests of amenity and public safety and which interfere as little as possible with the rights of the applicant.

7.4 Whilst, in the opinion of the objectors, the development affects their amenities, it is not considered that this is harmful in planning terms, such that any additional control to satisfy those concerns would go beyond that necessary to accomplish satisfactory planning control

8.0 STATEMENT OF POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE WORKING WITH APPLICANT

8.1 The following is a statement on how the Local Planning Authority (LPA) has adhered to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 in respect of decision making in line with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

8.2 Given that the proposed development does not conflict with the NPPF or with ‘up-to-date’ Development Plan policies, it is considered to be ‘sustainable development’ and there is a presumption on the LPA to seek to approve the application. The LPA has used conditions to deal with outstanding issues with the development and has been sufficiently proactive and positive in proportion to the nature and scale of the development applied for.

8.3 The applicant / agent and any objector will be provided with copy of this report informing them of the application considerations and recommendation / conclusion.

9.0 CONCLUSION

9.1 The proposed development is able to demonstrate its compliance with policies CS1, CS2, CS3 and CS4 of the Core Strategy in so far as its ability to provide connection (and where necessary improvement) to social, economic and environmental infrastructure such that the development meets the definitions of sustainable development.

9.2 The application submission is supported by the preparation of assessments and reports which illustrate the proposed developments ability to comply with the provisions of policies CS7, CS8, CS9, CS13, CS18, CS19 and CS20 of the Core Strategy and where necessary it is considered that any outstanding issues can be addressed in any subsequent reserved matters submission or any appropriate planning conditions being imposed.

9.3 Whilst it is noted that the application does not strictly accord with the developer contributions sought in respect of policies CS11 and CS17 of the Core Strategy sufficient viability evidence has been presented with the application submission such that it is concluded the wider social, environmental and economic benefits of the scheme outweigh the contribution requirements of these development plan policies.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION

10.1 It is therefore recommended that the application be GRANTED subject to the following:

01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason - The condition is imposed in accordance with section 51 of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004.

02. All external dimensions and elevational treatments shall be as shown on the approved plans, with the exception of any approved non material amendment.

Reason - In order to clarify the extent of the planning permission in the light of guidance set out in "Greater Flexibility for planning permissions" by CLG November 2009.

03. No development shall take place until details of the proposed means of disposal of foul and surface water drainage, including details of any balancing works and off-site works, have been submitted to and approved in writing by The Local Planning Authority.

The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on and off site.

Reason - In the interest of satisfactory and sustainable drainage.

04. There shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development prior to the completion of the approved surface water drainage works and no buildings shall be occupied or brought into use prior to completion of the approved foul drainage works.

Reason - To ensure that no foul or surface water discharges take place until proper provision has been made for their disposal.

05. Development shall not commence until a bat method statement has been prepared and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration and written approval. The method statement shall detail the exact means of demolition to be undertaken and shall not commence outside of the months of March to April or October to November (unless otherwise agreed in writing) and shall be preceded the day before by a dawn return bat survey carried out and recorded by a competent person. Demolition shall only proceed if the dawn survey finds no presence of bats in the building and should proceed in accordance with the approved Bat Method Statement. Should bats be present then development shall not commence until an appropriate relevant protected species License has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason – In the interests of biodiversity and to accord with policy CS9 of the Local Plan: Core Strategy 2011-2031 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

06. Prior to development commencing a scheme of biodiversity enhancement (namely the provision of bat and bird boxes) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the dwelling and retained thereafter in perpetuity.

Reason – In the interests of biodiversity and to accord with policy CS9 of the Local Plan: Core Strategy 2011-2031 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

07. Development shall not commence until intrusive site investigations have been carried out by the developer to establish the exact situation regarding coal mining legacy issues on the site and approval for commencement of development given in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and conclusions shall include any remedial works and mitigation measures required/proposed for the stability of the site. Only those details which receive the written approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be carried out on site.

Reason - To fully establish the presence and / or otherwise of any coal mining legacy and to ensure that site is remediated, if necessary, to an appropriate standard.

08. A. Development shall not commence until details as specified in this condition have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration and those details, or any amendments to those details as may be required, have received the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

I. A desktop study/Phase 1 report documenting the previous land use history of the site. II. A site investigation/Phase 2 report where the previous use of the site indicates contaminative use(s). The site investigation/Phase 2 report shall document the ground conditions of the site. The site investigation shall establish the full extent, depth and cross-section, nature and composition of the contamination. Ground gas, groundwater and chemical analysis, identified as being appropriate by the desktop study, shall be carried out in accordance with current guidance using UKAS accredited methods. All technical data must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. III. A detailed scheme of remedial works should the investigation reveal the presence of ground gas or other contamination. The scheme shall include a Remediation Method Statement and Risk Assessment Strategy to avoid any risk arising when the site is developed or occupied.

B. If, during remediation works any contamination is identified that has not been considered in the Remediation Method Statement, then additional remediation proposals for this material shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. Any approved proposals shall thereafter form part of the Remediation Method Statement.

C. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until a written Validation Report (pursuant to A II and A III only) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. A Validation Report is required to confirm that all remedial works have been completed and validated in accordance with the agreed Remediation Method Statement.

Reason - To protect the environment and ensure that the redeveloped site is reclaimed to an appropriate standard.

09. Prior to any works commencing on site an outline heritage assessment of the site, including a photographic survey of the building, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The assessment should be carried out by a suitably qualified and experienced buildings archaeologist/architect.

Reason - In order to record the building and its context to advance a greater understanding of the significance of the site.

10. Before construction works commence or ordering of external materials takes place, precise specifications or samples of the walling and roofing materials to be used shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration. Only those materials approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be used as part of the development unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

Reason - The condition is imposed in order to ensure that the proposed materials of construction are appropriate for use on the particular development and in the particular locality.

11. Work (inc. demolition) shall only be carried out on site between 8:00am and 6:00pm Monday to Friday, 9:00am to 5:00pm on a Saturday and no work on a Sunday or Public Holiday. The term "work" will also apply to the operation of plant, machinery and equipment.

Reason - In the interests of residential amenities.

12. Before any other operations are commenced, detailed designs shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval indicating the proposed site access modifications and raising of existing lengths of dropped kerb / footway made redundant by the development, the proposed works being completed in accordance with the approved scheme prior to the occupation of any of the proposed residential units. For the avoidance of doubt the developer will be required to enter into a S278 (Highways Act 1980) Agreement with the Local Highways Authority in order to comply with the requirements on this condition.