Listening and Responding to Ensure the Delivery of Efficient and Effective Services

3 November 2015

Dear Sir/Madam

A meeting of the Planning Committee will be held on Wednesday, 11 November 2015 in the New Council Chamber, Town Hall, Beeston at 7:00pm.

Should you require advice on declaring an interest in any item on the agenda, please contact the Monitoring Officer or a member of his team at your earliest convenience.

Yours faithfully

Chief Executive

To: Members of the Planning Committee, viz: Cllrs M Handley (Chair), D Bagshaw, L A Ball BEM, J S Briggs, M J Crow, H G Khaled MBE, P J Owen, G Marshall, R S Robinson, J K Marsters, R D MacRae Other members of the Council (for information)

A G E N D A

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members are requested to declare the existence and nature of any disclosable pecuniary interest and/or other interest, in any item on the agenda.

3. MINUTES PAGES 1 - 13

The Committee is asked to confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 7 October 2015.

4. NOTIFICATION OF LOBBYING

Town Hall, Foster Avenue, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 1AB

www.broxtowe.gov.uk Listening and responding to ensure the delivery of efficient and effective services

5. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

5.1 15/00508/FUL PAGES 14 - 29 Construct two detached dwellings and demolition of existing dwelling 7 Bridle Road,.Bramcote

5.2 15/00221/FUL PAGES 30 - 52 Demolish former Police Station, Construct 19 No. apartments and convert The Grange into 5 No. apartments

5.3 15/00018/REG3 PAGES 53 - 66 Enhanced drainage/biodiversity attenuation storage infrastructure works related to application reference 15/00010/FUL to ensure direct downstream discharge of surface water from the new proposed development to the existing watercourse Land off Thorn Drive and west of The Pastures, Giltbrook NG16 2UF

5.4 15/00010/FUL PAGES 67 - 87 Construct 67 No. dwellings (revised scheme – 92/00730/FUL) Land off Acorn Avenue, Giltbrook NG16 2UF

5.5 15/00011/FUL PAGES 88 - 109 Construct 55 dwellings Land at Gin Close Way, Awsworth NG16 2WH

5.6 15/00515/FUL PAGES 110 - 119 Land adjacent 4 Grangelea Gardens, Bramcote NG9 3HR Construct dwelling with garage

5.7 15/00617/FUL PAGES 120 - 124 Retain first floor rear extension 19 Grange View, Eastwood NG16 3DE

5.8 15/00525/FUL Change of use of agricultural land to 17mw PV solar PAGES 125 - 142 farm and associated infrastructure (revised scheme) Land off Long Lane, Watnall

5.9 15/00101/LBC and 15/00115/FUL PAGES 143 - 171 Beauvale Abbey Farm, New Road, Geasley NG16 2AA

5.10 15/00420/FUL PAGES 172 - 190 Construct side extension to provide ground and mezzanine floorspace, relocation of service yard and creation of below ground attenuation facility in place of existing attenuation feature Next, 2 Giltbrook Retail Park, Ikea Way, Giltbrook NG16 2RP

5.11 15/00269/FUL PAGES 191 - 192 Appeal Reference APP/J3015/W/15/3133491 Change use of public house (Class A4) to retail (Class A1) with alterations including part demolition, two storey side and single storey rear extension and conversion of first floor apartment to create two apartments, car park and landscaping New White Bull, 519 Nottingham Road, Giltbrook NG16 2GS

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

6.2 Delegated Decisions PAGES 193 - 199

PLANNING COMMITTEE

7 OCTOBER 2015

Present: Councillor M Handley, Chair

Councillors: D Bagshaw R D McRae L A Ball BEM G Marshall J S Briggs J K Marsters M J Crow P J Owen R I Jackson R S Robinson H G Khaled MBE

An apology for absence was received from Councillor M Radulovic MBE.

21. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

22. MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 September 2015 were confirmed and signed.

23. NOTIFICATION OF LOBBYING

The Committee received notifications of lobbying in respect of the planning applications subject to consideration at the meeting.

24. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

24.1 15/00583/FUL Change of use from dwelling house (Class C3) to children’s home (Class 2) (resubmission) 1A Roland Avenue, Nuthall, Nottinghamshire NG16 1BB

The application, which proposed change of use from a dwelling to a children’s home, had been brought before the Committee due to the high volume of objections which had been received.

The Committee was referred to the summary of late items which included 10 responses which had been received in objection to the application, one letter of support and one letter of comment from the owner of the property.

Mr Russell Foley (objecting), Mr Paul Cook (applicant) and Councillor P Simpson (ward member) addressed the Committee prior to the general debate.

The application was debated and a summary of the comments made is set out below:

• The development would result in a loss of amenity to residents due to the number of visits which would be necessary to the property by multi- agency staff. • There would be an increase in traffic. • Since the proposed development was not supported by local residents this would be unfair to the young people who would occupy the home who, by the nature of their needs, deserved to reside within a supportive local community. • There had been a lack of consultation by the applicant. • The highways officer had demonstrated naivety in respect of likely traffic generation which was certain to have a big impact on the residential area in terms of increased traffic and parking and inadequate parking provision at the proposed development. • Members of the Committee commented on the emails they had received from some local residents during the lobbying process which they perceived to be intimidating.

A proposal was moved by Councillor R S Robinson and seconded by Councillor G Marshall that consideration of the matter be deferred to afford members the opportunity to compare the application with another, similar, successful application in another planning authority’s area.

The proposal, on being put to the meeting, was lost.

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused.

Reason The proposed change of use would result in the potential for noise and disturbance to surrounding residential properties as a result of a significant number of vehicular movements into and out of the site with inadequate provision for off-street parking. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims and criteria of Saved Policy RC12 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) and paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and there are no other material considerations that justify treating this proposal as an exception.

24.2 15/00454/FUL Installation and commissioning of one 500 kw wind turbine with a 50m hub height and 77m height and ancillary works Field at grid reference 450426 348082, Narrow Lane, Watnall

The application, which sought planning permission for the erection of a single wind turbine and associated works, had been referred to Committee following requests from Councillors J M Owen and M Brown and the Council’s Head of Neighbourhoods and Prosperity.

The Committee was referred to the summary of late items which included emails in support of the application and emails commenting on the application but not objecting to it. The Committee’s attention was drawn to an error in the recommendation and it was duly noted that the words ‘listed building consent’ should be replaced with the words ‘planning permission’ in the first sentence thereof.

Mr Hett (objecting), Mrs Clay (applicant) and Councillor J S Rowland (ward member) addressed the Committee prior to the general debate.

The application was debated and a summary of the comments made is set out below:

• The proposals were detrimental to the green belt and would disturb ancient hedgerows. • There was the need for transition to ‘greener’ production of energy and to refuse the application would contribute to the difficulties around climate change. • Although there was a need to reduce carbon output, the application was not a reasonable way to do this and it was not suitable in the green belt since it was considered that very special circumstances had not been sufficiently demonstrated.

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused.

Reason The proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the open character of the green belt contrary to Saved Policy E8 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) as well as the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2010) and the ‘very special circumstances’ presented are not sufficient to outweigh this harm.

24.3 15/00304/FUL Construct 1 No. dwelling Land to the rear of 29 Oak Drive, Nuthall NG16 1FJ

The application, which proposed the construction of a detached bungalow with living accommodation in the roof space, had been called in to Committee by Councillor J M Owen.

There were no late items and no public speakers.

The application was debated and a summary of the comments made is set out below:

• The site plan referred to Rowan Crescent when the development actually related to the supported living bungalows at Rowan Court. • Many of the residents were elderly with mobility issues and, having no access to garages or off street parking, had to park at the far end of Rowan Court. • The development would cause loss of amenity for residents.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the site location plan and the proposed drawings received by the Local Planning Authority on 7 August 2015.

3. No building operations shall be carried out until details of the manufacturer, type and colour of the materials to be used in facing walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall be constructed only in accordance with those details.

4. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the drive is surfaced in a hard bound material (not loose gravel) for a minimum of 5.5 metres behind the highway boundary and the access driveway is constructed with provision to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water to the public highway. The surfaced drive shall then be maintained as such for the life of the development.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no extensions to the dwelling or outbuildings shall be constructed without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons

1. To comply with S91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. For the avoidance of doubt.

3. No such details were submitted and to ensure the development presents a satisfactory standard of external appearance, in accordance with the aims of Policy H7 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004).

4. To reduce the possibility of deleterious material (e.g. loose stones etc.) and surface water being deposited on the public highway causing dangers to road users.

5. In the interests of privacy and amenity for nearby residents and in accordance with the aims of Policy H7 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004).

Note to Applicant

The Council has acted positively and proactively in the determination of this application in line with the guidance contained within paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework by keeping an open dialogue with the agent and allowing for amended plans to be submitted.

24.4 13/00350/FUL & 13/00571/LBC Hybrid planning application comprising full application for change of use of The Oasts, Maltings and the Tower to form heritage, crafts and business centre comprising various uses. Construct four storey building comprising 39 apartments and ground floor to be used as part of the proposed heritage crafts and business centre. Outline application for the construction of 114 dwellings (class 3) including layout, access and scale Kimberley Brewery Site, Hardy Street, Kimberley NG16 2NS And 13/00571/LBC Listed building consent to demolish warehouse, brew house, maltings 2 and loading docks for maltings 1 Hardy & Hansons PLC, Kimberley Brewery, Hardy Street, Kimberley

The application had been brought to Committee since changes were proposed to details of a resolution to grant planning permission and listed building consent which had been resolved by the Committee on 8 October 2014.

There were no late items and no public speakers. The Committee debated the application and a summary of the comments made is set out below:

• Condition 11 should remain unaltered and as previously resolved by the Development Control Committee on 8 October 2014. • The traffic scheme needed to be in place when the properties were built. • Members were keen to see the scheme proceed without delay to arrest deterioration of the listed buildings. • Reassurances were sought regarding demolition issues. • Concern that protections should be in place to prevent the applicants from ‘cherry picking’ the more viable parts of the site

• Members requested that the Notes to Applicant included in the planning permission decision notice should, for the sake of clarity, list the buildings which should be retained and not demolished.

A proposal was moved by Councillor M Crow and seconded by Councillor P J Owen that Condition 11 on page 73 of the agenda be rejected and that the original Condition 11, approved by the Development Control Committee on 8 October 2014, be retained to read: ‘There shall be no occupation of the residential units until such time as a scheme of traffic calming proposals on Hardy Street have been fully constructed in accordance with details to be submitted for approval.’

The proposal, on being put to the meeting, was carried.

RESOLVED that the granting of planning permission incorporates the amendments to the wording of conditions as proposed in the appendix to the report, save that Condition 11 on page 73 of the agenda be rejected and replaced with the original Condition 11 which was approved by the Development Control Committee on 8 October 2014, the reinstatement to read: ‘There shall be no occupation of the residential units until such time as a scheme of traffic calming proposals on Hardy Street have been fully constructed in accordance with details to be submitted for approval.’

Note to applicant

The Council has acted positively and proactively in the determination of this application in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The Council has given due and positive consideration to the benefits of the application set out by the applicant and concluded that they outweigh any harm to the character or special interest of the listed building.

24.5 15/00420/FUL Construct side extension to provide ground and mezzanine floorspace, relocation of service yard and creation of below ground attenuation facility in place of existing attenuation feature Next 2, Giltbrook Retail Park, Ikea Way, Giltbrook NG16 2RP

The application, which proposed the construction of a side extension to Unit 2 of Giltbrook Retail Park, had been referred to Committee by the Head of Neighbourhoods and Prosperity due to a difference of opinion between the Environment Agency and Nottinghamshire County Council as Lead Flood Authority.

The Committee was referred to the summary of late items which included comments on the proposed wording of Reasons for Conditions.

A proposal was moved by Councillor P J Owen and seconded by Councillor H G Khaled MBE that the matter be deferred so that the applicant could be

invited to address the concerns of the Environment Agency with amended information as required.

The proposal, on being put to the meeting, was carried.

RESOLVED that consideration of the matter be deferred in accordance with the aforementioned proposal.

24.6 15/00512/FUL Construct 5 apartments over a semi-basement parking level (resubmission) Land north west of Hall Gardens, Moss Drive, Bramcote

The application, which proposed the construction of a three storey apartment block, had been called in to Committee by Councillor J Goold.

The Committee was referred to the summary of late items which included letters and emails of objection to the application.

Nina Domansky (objecting) and David Bardens (applicant) addressed the Committee prior to the general debate.

The Committee debated the matter and a summary of comments made is set out below:

• There was evidence of fly tipping and anti-social behaviour on the application site which some members considered would be mitigated if the application was granted approval. • The application site was well used by dog walkers and was in a green belt and conservation area. • It was considered to be premature to remove the site from the green belt so close to the green belt review consultation.

RESOLVED that permission be refused for the following reasons:

1. The site lies within the Nottinghamshire Green Belt, within which there is a strong presumption against inappropriate development except in very special circumstances, none of which, on the basis of the information provided, apply here. The proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the open character of the Green Belt, contrary to Saved Policy E8 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) as well as the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the open and undeveloped nature of the site which would conflict with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy 16 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy and its status as a Prominent Area for Special Protection referred to in saved Policy E13 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004).

3. The proposed development is considered to be harmful to the significance and the woodland character and appearance of the designated Mature Landscape Area which is key to the historic character and appearance of Bramcote conservation area. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to saved policy E14 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004), Policy 11 of the Aligned Core Strategy as well as the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Note to applicant

The decision has been reached taking into account the guidance in paragraphs 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The Council has tried to act positively and proactively in this instance however the applicant was informed at pre-application stage that the policy constraints on the site were unlikely to be overcome and has subsequently received one refusal of planning permission. Despite a positive approach, the Council concluded that the harm caused by the development could not be overcome by amendments, nor is it outweighed by any significant public benefit, and therefore feels it has no option but to issue this refusal of planning permission. ,

24.7 15/00508/FUL Construct two dwellings including garages and demolition of existing dwelling 7 Bridle Road, Bramcote NF9 3DH

The original application had been refused permission by the Committee on 17 June 2015.

The Committee was referred to the summary of late items which included an email objecting to the application.

Dr Gurvinder Sahota (objecting) and Mr Swan (applicant) addressed the Committee prior to the general debate.

A proposal was moved by Councillor P J Owen and seconded by Councillor R I Jackson that the matter be deferred so that a revised site plan accurately reflecting the neighbour’s extensions could be considered.

The proposal, on being put to the meeting, was carried.

RESOLVED that consideration of the matter be deferred in accordance with the aforementioned proposal.

24.8 15/00369/FUL Alterations to roof including raising ridge height, construction front and rear dormers including Juliet balcony, hip to gable roof extension and construct single storey front extension 67 Nottingham Road, Trowell NG9 3PJ

The application had been called in by Councillor K E Rigby.

The Committee was referred to the summary of late items which included a statement from the applicant’s agent.

Mr M Rowe (objecting) and Councillor K E Rigby (ward member) addressed the Committee prior to the general debate.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings numbered 14.07.61-04e ‘Proposed First Floor’ and 14.07.61-05d ‘Proposed Elevations’ received by the Local Planning Authority on 19 June 2015.

3. The development to which this planning permission relates shall not be implemented if works have commenced on any further extensions to the original dwelling from the point the dwelling stood on 27 July 2015. Following implementation of this planning permission, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1 and Classes A to E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order amending or re- enacting that order with or without modification), no further extensions or additions to the dwelling, nor the provision of any additional building within its curtilage, shall be constructed.

Reasons

1. To comply with S91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. For the avoidance of doubt.

3. The implementation of the planning permission in addition to the construction of extensions allowed using permitted development rights would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt which would be contrary to Policy E8 of the Broxtowe Local Plan and to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Notes to Applicant

1. The Council has acted positively and proactively in the determination of this application in line with the guidance contained within paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework through conducting an early site visit and through ongoing discussions with the agent for the application.

2. The type of development hereby approved has the potential to have an impact on roosting bats should they be using the existing roofspace. Bat specifies are statutorily protected from reckless killing, injuring and disturbance, and damage and obstruction to roost sites by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). If bats are encountered work must stop immediately and the Bat Conservation Trust should be contacted on 0845 1300228 for further advice.

3. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area which may contain unrecorded coal mining related hazards. If any coal mining feature is encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to The Coal Authority on 01623 646 333.

Further information is also available on The Coal Authority website at www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-coal-authority

Property specific summary information on past, current and future coal mining activity can be obtained from The Coal Authority's Property Search Service at www.groundstability.com

24.9 15/00506/FUL Construct one pair of demi-detached houses Land adjacent 20 Elm Avenue, Attenborough NG9 6BH

The development, if approved, would constitute a material departure from policy.

The Committee was referred to the summary of late items which included an email from the agent clarifying certain details and dimensions.

Mr Neil Fletcher (objecting) and Councillor E Kerry (ward member) addressed the Committee prior to the general debate.

The Committee debated the application and a summary of the comments made is set out below:

• Concerns about the capacity of the sewerage system to cope with the proposed development.

• Members were not opposed to development on the site but did not consider the proposals to be appropriate and would prefer to see something less overbearing.

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused and the reasons for refusal be agreed by the Head of Neighbourhoods and Prosperity in consultation with the Chair.

Pursuant to the meeting, and in accordance with the above resolution, the reasons were agreed as set out below:

Reasons

The proposed dwellings, due to their scale and height, would result in an overbearing impact and unacceptable loss of amenity for the occupiers of the neighbouring properties. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the aims of Policy H7 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) and Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014) and there are no other material considerations of compelling weight that would justify treating the proposal as an exception to these policies.

Note to applicant

The Council has acted positively and proactively in the determination of this application in line with the guidance contained within paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework by communicating with the agent throughout the course of the planning application.

24.10 15/00509.REG4 Proposed replacement of existing curtain walling and refurbishment of the lobby to provide secure automatic access Lombardy Lodge, Portland Road, Toton NG9 6EE

The application had been submitted by the Council’s Directorate of Environment for works to a Council run and owned retirement living property.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings numbered CW15:011:001, CW16:011:004 and CW16:011:003 received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 July 2015.

3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out using the materials as specified in the application form and on drawing number CW16:011:004 received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 July 2015.

Reasons

1. To comply with S91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. For the avoidance of doubt. 3. To ensure the development presents a satisfactory standard of external appearance and in accordance with Policy 10 of the Aligned Core Strategy (2014).

Note to Applicant

The Council has acted positively and proactively in the determination of this application in line with the guidance contained within paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) by communicating with the application throughout the course of the application.

24.11 15/00513/REG4 Erect cladding to the walls along the side of the entrance area and curtail wall replacement Richmond Court, Richmond Drive, Chilwell NG9 4EG

The application was for a development by the Borough Council.

RESOLVED that permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years beginning with the date of the permission.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings numbered: CW16:008:03 ‘Cladding – The Front’ received by the Local Planning Authority on 22 July 2015 and CW16:008:04 ‘Cladding – The Back’ received by the Local Planning Authority on 8 September 2015.

Reasons

1. To comply with S91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. For the avoidance of doubt.

Notes to applicant

1. The Council has acted positively and proactively in the determination of this application in line with the guidance contained within paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, by communicating with the applicant throughout the course of the application.

2. Due to the proximity to residential properties best practicable means should be used to ensure that disturbance from the building works is kept to a minimum and building works should not take place during unsociable hours.

24.12 15/00221/FUL Demolish former police station, construct 19 No. apartments and convert The Grange into 5 No. apartments Beeston Police Station, Chilwell Road, Beeston

The application had been called in by Councillor J C Patrick.

The Committee was referred to the summary of late items which included an email reiterating objections previously made.

Mr Ian Draper (objecting), Mr Andrew Aldred (applicant) and Councillor J C Patrick (ward member) addressed the Committee prior to the general debate.

A proposal was moved by Councillor G Marshall and seconded by Councillor R S Robinson that the matter be deferred so that the developer could be asked to address concerns regarding the neighbour’s amenity.

The proposal, on being put to the meeting, was carried.

RESOLVED that consideration of the matter be deferred in accordance with the aforementioned proposal.

25. INFORMATION ITEMS

25.1 Appeal Decision

The Committee noted the report.

25.2 Delegated Decisions

The Committee noted the planning applications determined by the Development Control Manager between 6 August and 19 September 2015.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

Report of the Director of Legal and Planning Services

15/00508/FUL CONSTRUCT TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS AND DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING 7 BRIDLE ROAD BRAMCOTE

1.0 Purpose of report

1.1 The application was originally brought to the Planning Committee on 7 October 2015. Following discussions and concerns raised by the owner of number 9 Bridle Road, who spoke at the Committee regarding the inaccuracies of the submitted site plan, it was resolved to defer the application to allow the applicant to submit revised plans.

1.2 Although the submitted site plan was taken directly from Ordnance Survey and was identical to the mapping data that the Council had on its Geographical Information System, it is acknowledged that it is not a true reflection of the existing situation. Since the last Committee, the applicant has undertaken a site survey of the neighbouring property and has submitted a revised plan which accurately reflects the relationship between the proposal and number 9.

Recommendation

The Committee is asked to RESOLVE that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings numbered: 14-136-100, 14-136-101, 14-136-102, 14-136,103, 14-136- 104, 14-136-105, 14-136-106, 14-136-107 and 14-136-108 received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 July 2015.

3. No building operations shall be carried out until details of the manufacturer, type and colour of the materials to be used in the facing walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall be constructed only in accordance with those details.

4. None of the dwellings constructed pursuant to this permission shall be occupied until the visibility splays shown on drawing no.14-136-16E are provided. The area within the visibility splays referred to in this condition shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions, structures. 5. No development shall take place until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include the following details:

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

(a) trees, hedges and shrubs to be retained and measures for their protection during the course of development

(b) numbers, types, sizes and positions of proposed trees and shrubs

(d) planting, seeding/turfing of other soft landscape areas

(e) proposed retaining walls or similar structures and boundary treatments.

The approved scheme shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details.

6. The approved landscaping shall be carried out not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development and any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years, die, are removed or have become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with ones of similar size and species to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, unless written consent has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority for a variation.

7. No development shall take place until details of ground and finished floor levels of all the buildings permitted as part of this application have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

8. None of the dwellings constructed pursuant to this permission shall be first occupied until the driveways, parking, turning and servicing areas have been constructed in a hard bound material (not loose gravel) and so as to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water therefrom onto the public highway. Details shall first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The provision to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water to the public highway shall then be retained for the life of the development.

Reasons

1. To comply with S91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. For the avoidance of doubt.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

3. No such details were submitted, in the interests of the appearance of the development and in accordance with the aims of Policy H9 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) and Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Draft Aligned Core Strategy. The requirement is to be satisfied before new construction begins in order that potentially abortive work is avoided, if unacceptable materials are used.

4. In the interests of pedestrian and highway safety and in accordance with the aims of Policy H7 and T11 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004).

5. No such details were submitted and to ensure that the details are satisfactory in the interests of the appearance of the area and in accordance with the aims of Policy H7 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) and Policy 10 of the Aligned Core Strategy (2014). The requirement is to be satisfied before new construction begins in order that potentially abortive works are avoided and to ensure that any important tree or plant species are adequately protected.

6. No such details were submitted and to ensure that the details are satisfactory in the interests of the appearance of the area and in accordance with the aims of Policy H7 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) and Policy 10 of the Aligned Core Strategy (2014).

7. To protect neighbouring properties from loss of privacy in accordance with Policy H7 of the Broxtowe Local Plan and Policy 10 of the Aligned Core Strategy (2014). The requirement is to be satisfied before new construction begins in order that potentially abortive work is avoided, if unacceptable levels are used.

8. To ensure that deleterious materials and surface water from the site is not deposited on the public highway, in the interests of highway safety.

Notes to applicant

1. Vegetation clearance should be avoided during the bird breeding season of March-August inclusive.

2. It is an offence under S148 and S151 of the Highways Act 1980 to deposit mud on the public highway and as such you should undertake every effort to prevent it occurring.

3. The Coal Authority Act 1994 states that any intrusive activities, including initial investigation boreholes and/or any subsequent treatment of coal mine workings/coal mine entries for ground stability purposes require the prior written permission of the Coal Authority, since such activities can have serious public health and safety implications. Failure to obtain permission will result in trespass, with the potential for court action. Application forms for Coal Authority permission and further guidance can be obtained from The Coal Authority at http://coal.decc.gov.uk/en/coal/cms/services/permits/permits.aspx

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

4. The decision has been reached taking into account the guidance in paragraphs 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, with the Council entering into negotiations with the applicant and requesting the provision of additional information to ensure that the development is satisfactory.

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

APPENDIX Report of the Director of Legal and Planning Services

15/00508/FUL CONSTRUCT TWO DWELLINGS INCLUDING GARAGES AND DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING 7 BRIDLE ROAD BRAMCOTE NOTTINGHAM NG9 3DH

The original application was brought to the committee on 17 June 2015. Therefore the Development Control Manager requested that this revised application should also be determined by the Committee.

1. Details of the application

1.1 The application seeks planning permission for two detached dwellings with associated garages and parking. The existing bungalow within the plot will be demolished and one of the proposed dwellings will be located to the front of the site in a similar position to this existing dwelling and a further property will be located towards the rear of the plot.

1.2 The existing access from Bridle Road will be retained and this will serve both properties with an access driveway along the northern boundary of the site, adjacent to the rear boundaries of properties on Derby Road.

1.3 The proposed dwellings will offer 4 bed and 5 bed accommodation over two floors. Plot 1 is proposed to have an integral garage and plot 2 a hipped roof detached garage, to the front of the property 1.25m from the shared boundary with the neighbouring property at 9 Bridle Road.

2. Site and surroundings

2.1 The site is situated within Bramcote, outside of the Conservation Area and is surrounded by a mix of residential properties, including bungalows and detached and semi-detached two storey dwellings.

Existing bungalow Garden area

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

2.2 The site currently consists of a hipped roof detached bungalow and a flat roof garage/store to the side of the property, with a rear garden in excess of 50 metres.

View towards rear of Derby rd properties View towards access to A52 (one way)

View from no.9 towards no. 19 Bridle Rd.

2.3 The site slopes down from its frontage on Bridle Road to the rear boundary by over 4 metres and this appears to be generally consistent with its immediate neighbours, with properties on Derby Road stepping down in levels from west to east.

2.4 There are a number of similar developments along Bridle Road, with developments to the rear of 39, 17 and 25 and an infill development at the top of the road (south entrance from Cow Lane).

3. Relevant planning history

3.1 An application for two dwellings and the demolition of the existing bungalow was refused planning permission in the June committee of this year. The reason for refusal was as follows:

The proposed development, by virtue of its size and positioning, would be out of character and would have a significant impact upon the amenity of nearby residents on Bridle Road and Derby Road contrary to saved Policy H7 of the Broxtowe Local Plan 2004, Policy 10 of the Aligned Core Strategies 2014 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 and there are no other material considerations that justify treating this proposal as an exception.

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

3.2 An application for three dwellings and the demolition of the existing bungalow was refused planning permission in 2014 for reasons relating to the creation and positioning of an existing access, density and amenity (ref. 14/00400/FUL).

4. Policy Context

4.1 National policy

4.1.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012, contains a general presumption in favour of sustainable development whereby planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of permitting the development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific policies in the framework indicate development should be restricted. It outlines 12 core planning principles which should underpin the planning system including that planning should be plan-led, sustainable economic development should be proactively driven and supported, high quality design and a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants should be secured, full account should be taken of flood risk, heritage assets should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, the natural environment should be conserved and enhanced, developments should be located in sustainable locations and effective use of brownfield land should be made.

4.1.2 In relation to assessing the highway impacts of a proposal, the NPPF states that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts are severe.

4.2 Core Strategy

4.2.1 The Council adopted the Core Strategy on 17 September 2014 and the overall strategy of this document is “urban concentration with regeneration”. Following the adoption of the Core Strategy the Council is able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites in accordance with the NPPF.

4.2.2 ‘Policy 2: The Spatial Strategy’ sets the overarching strategy for how growth in Greater Nottingham will be accommodated and distributed. It sets the required number of homes for Greater Nottingham (GN) between 2011 and 2028 (6,150 in the Broxtowe Borough part of GN, of which 3,800 are in or adjoining the existing built up area of Nottingham) and outlines a settlement hierarchy.

4.2.3 Policy 8: Housing Mix and Choice sets out the approach to ensuring that new housing development includes an appropriate mix of housing types, sizes and tenures.

4.2.4 Policy 10: Design and Enhancing Local Identity, sets design and layout principles to be applied to new development and looks to ensure that valued local characteristics are reinforced.

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

4.3 Saved Policies of the Broxtowe Local Plan

4.3.1 As the Core Strategy contains broad policies, a Development Management Policies Document will be developed in due course. In the meantime, Appendix E of the Core Strategy confirms which Local Plan policies are saved. Relevant saved policies are as follows.

4.3.2 Policy H7: residential development in built-up areas will be permitted providing there is no significant impact on the amenity of nearby residents and that the occupiers of the new dwellings would have a satisfactory degree of privacy and amenity. The development should not have an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area and satisfactory arrangements for parking and access need to be made.

4.3.3 Policy H6 provides density requirements for residential development: where development is within 400m walking distance of frequent public transport services a minimum density of 40 dwellings per hectare is required (or 45 dwellings per hectare where there is a choice of public transport modes) and if the distance is beyond 400m, 35 dwellings per hectare.

4.3.4 Policy T11 and appendix 4 require satisfactory provision of vehicle parking and servicing, in accordance with the latest standards.

5. Consultations

5.1 Nottinghamshire County Council as Highway Authority have no concerns to the proposal subject to conditions relating to the visibility splays and surfacing.

5.2 To publicise the application, 12 residential properties were consulted on the application and a site notice has been posted at the entrance to the site. Responses have been received from four residential properties. One resident supports the application and considers the development will enhance the appearance of the streetscene. The remaining three object to the proposal. The objections include:

- Loss of privacy/overlooking request for a wall along northern boundary - Traffic generation/reduced safety on narrow road leading to A52/ inadequacies of surface on Bridle Road - Insufficient parking - Overcrowded (one dwelling would be more sufficient)/ ‘blocked’ in/enclosure/ overbearing - Amended proposal for plot 2 has a larger footprint. - Garage is even higher - Loss of light/reduced used of garden (amenity) - Loss of vegetation/damage to trees - Fails to respect design and scale of existing house - Garages poorly designed – large and ugly - Increases in noise

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

- Detrimental effect on the character and appearance of Bramcote village - Would set a precedence for building in back gardens on Bridle Road - Loss of security - Contrary to Policies E1, H7 and H9 of the Broxtowe Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

6. Appraisal

6.1 The main factor relevant to the determination of the application are whether the amendments the applicant has submitted address the concerns of the committee as regards the impact of the residential development on existing residents with regard to loss of light, outlook, privacy and general amenity. The main alterations to the previous refusal are:

- the dwelling type on plot 2 has been replaced from a 5 bedroomed house type to one which is more in keeping with the height and scale of the dwelling type which is proposed at plot 1. - The eaves height of this dwelling proposed at plot 2 will be reduced from 4.8m to 3.23m (a reduction of 1.57m) and the ridge height will be reduced from 8.89m to 6.87m (a reduction of 2.02m). - The rear facing elevation of the amended dwelling at plot 2 (towards 19 and 21 Bridle Road) will include 2 bedroom windows as opposed to 3. - Roof lights have been inserted on the side elevations of the dwelling proposed for plot 2 to allow additional light to the bedrooms (the roof lights are positioned at 1800mm above floor level). - Roof lights have been inserted to each of the bedrooms in the dwelling proposed on plot 1 to add additional light (again at 1800mm).

Highway considerations, such as safe access to and from the site and any further matters, such as design are also a consideration.

6.1.2 The proposal includes the demolition of a relatively low-lying bungalow of little architectural merit. This will be replaced by two similarly designed two-storey dwellings, the first of which will be located in a similar position to the bungalow it replaces and a further property will be positioned to the rear. The plot measures over 80 metres from the front to the rear and as such it is not considered that the redevelopment would result in a cramped form of development as there is sufficient space around both the proposed dwellings to offer a high level of amenity to future occupiers.

6.1.3 Bridle Road contains a mix of property types and forms, with both single and two storey dwellings on plots of varying shapes and sizes. There have been a number of ‘infill’ developments carried out to the east of the site (05/00012/FUL - Construct two new houses (Revised Scheme), 03/00734/FUL - Construct 4 new dwellings) which further adds to the mix of properties in the surrounding area.

6.1.4 Having regard to this pattern of development it is considered that the proposal would be of a form that would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area.

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

6.2 Amenity

6.2.1 Plot one sits slightly forward of its immediate neighbour at 9 Bridle Road by approximately 1 metre and extends just beyond the rear wall. Whilst the proposed dwelling will be higher than this neighbouring property, the roof will slope away from this shared boundary and so the full height will not be achieved until it is some way from this neighbour. The bulk of the property is also alongside the side elevation of number 9 and it is not considered that the minimal projections beyond the front and rear of this neighbour would have any significant detriment to its occupants, having regard also to the gap of 1.7 metres to the boundary.

6.2.2 The door in the side elevation will have no impact on the occupants of number 9 through any loss of amenity. There are no other openings affecting this property.

6.2.3 The property is over 4 metres from the boundary with properties on Derby Road, and, having regard to this distance, the garden depth of these properties (over 30 metres) and the fact that these are ground floor openings only, there will be no significant loss of privacy or amenity for these neighbours.

6.2.4 The garden depth of just short of 12 metres is considered to provide an acceptable standard of amenity for future occupants of the property and ensure that there would be an acceptable facing distance between the two new builds.

6.2.5 The site slopes significantly west to east, with a level difference of over 4 metres. The applicants have provided additional information to demonstrate the impact that these level differences will have on the acceptability of the scheme in terms of the proposed dwellings’ overall impact on the occupants of neighbouring properties, this is particularly important in the assessment of plot 2.

6.2.6 Following the previous refusal, the 5 bedroomed house type has been substituted in favour of a more modestly sized house type more in keeping with the dwelling proposed for plot 1. The proposed dwelling at plot 2 is slightly larger in terms of footprint but has a significant reduction in height by accommodating the first floor within the roof void. The amended dwelling has a maximum ridge height of 6.89m almost 2m below the height of the dwelling at plot 2 of the refused planning permission. The level differences between this and the neighbour at 9 Bridle Road is estimated to be in excess of 3.5 metres. It is considered that due to a combination of the reduction in height and the existing level differences on the site, the impact on the occupiers of number 9 Bridle Road is significantly reduced. The first floor windows in the front-facing elevation of this property have been positioned a significant distance with this neighbour (5 metres) to further reduce any impact, with a facing distance from the rear of number 9 to the front of this property of over 25 metres. It is considered that this relationship is acceptable and would not

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

result in any significant loss of amenity which would be unacceptable to either occupant.

6.2.7 The two neighbours at 19 and 21 Bridle Road are positioned at an angle away from the proposed dwelling, approximately 15 and 27 metres away. Whilst set at a lower level, due to this positioning in relation to the proposed dwelling it is not considered that there would be any significant loss of amenity through any overbearing impact or loss of privacy.

6.2.8 The proposed detached garage is the same area and height as in the previous application. Having regard to the level differences and distances and the fact that the garage is designed with a hipped roof which will increase in height away from this shared boundary there will be no significant detrimental impact on the occupants of this nearest neighbouring property.

6.2.9 The access road is proposed to run along the rear boundary of properties on Derby Road. This access will serve one property, with all parking for plot one being to the front of the site. Whilst this would increase the traffic currently experienced, having regard to the depth of the gardens of these properties and the ability of the current owner to form an access along this route without any further permissions from the Local Planning Authority, it is considered that this relationship would be acceptable without causing any significant detriment to the occupants of these existing properties.

6.3 Design

6.3.1 The proposal consists of two two-storey dwellings of similar designs, plot 1 is positioned towards the front of the site and plot 2 is positioned 21.5m from the rear boundary. Both dwellings have a double fronted gable with a steep roof pitch and rooms in this roof space to create a first floor. Plot 2 has been altered from the previous application in order to address the amenity issues which led to the refusal of the previous scheme. The result is a pair of dwellings which complement each other in terms of design and style.

6.3.2 Plot 1 measures a total of 6.89 metres to the ridge and 3.23 metres to the eaves. It has a large sloping roof and two gables to the front and rear which provide sufficient headroom to accommodate a first floor.

6.3.3 The fenestration detailing and articulation on the front elevation, by way of the two projecting gables and ground floor bay window, results in an interesting design, with a balanced symmetry to it.

6.3.4 It has a depth of 11.8 metres and a relatively blank gable to the south, excepting a doorway leading to the utility. To the north-facing side elevation there is more detailing at ground floor level consisting of a single storey gable feature which provides a secondary elevation onto the internal access way which will ensure that the views of the property from the public highway are aesthetically pleasing by the creation of a more interesting side elevation.

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

6.3.5 The property would have an integral garage with two further off-street parking places to the front and a turning head. A small garden area is also proposed to this elevation with a private rear amenity space to a depth of almost 12 metres.

6.3.6 Plot 2 measures a total of 6.87 metres to the ridge and 3.23 metres to the eaves. The roof and gable design and fenestration detail are similar to that of plot 1.

6.3.7 It has a depth of 12.7m metres and a relatively blank gable to the south, excepting a doorway leading to the utility. To the north-facing side elevation there is less detailing at ground floor level than at plot 2 however this is not a significant concern as this elevation will not be visually prominent from the public highway. There are a number of rooflights on both side elevations however this are of a modest size and discreetly positioned and therefore not considered to have a significant impact on the overall design of the proposal.

6.3.8 It is proposed that the property will have a private rear garden in excess of 21 metres, with one parking space to the side of the property. A small path and garden area is proposed to the front with a turning area and a double detached garage.

6.3.9 The square garage will have a length and width of 6.54m, 4.74 metres to the ridge and 2.1 metres to the eaves. It will have a hipped roof and have two separately opening garage doors to the front elevation, which give it a balanced appearance and helps to break up the proportions of the garage openings. The design is modest and acceptable.

6.4 Highways

6.4.1 The plans show the access to be relocated to the middle of the site which improves the current visibility. The Highways Officer considers that this offers betterment on the existing access arrangements and is satisfied that, whilst the visibility splays are shown to be reduced from what would normally be required, having regard to the narrow nature of the road, where vehicles are traveling at slow speeds, the provision proposed is sufficient to ensure that the proposal would not result in any detriment to highway safety.

6.5 Conclusion

6.5.1 In conclusion, and having regard to all comments received and the relevant national and local plan policy, this proposal is considered to be an acceptable use of the site. It is considered, having regard to all material considerations, that the scheme is acceptable in regard to its design, scale and layout and that there would be no detriment to the prevailing character of development in the area, nor significant loss of privacy for existing residents that would lead to any alternative conclusion.

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

Recommendation

The Committee is asked to RESOLVE that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings numbered: 14-136-100, 14-136-102, 14-136,103, 14-136- 104, 14-136-105, 14-136-106 and 14-136-107 received by the Local Planning Authority on 17 July 2015 and 14-136-101B and 14-136-108A received by the Local Planning Authority on 10 September 2015. 3. No building operations shall be carried out until details of the manufacturer, type and colour of the materials to be used in the facing walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall be constructed only in accordance with those details. 4. None of the dwellings constructed pursuant to this permission shall be occupied until the visibility splays shown on drawing no.14-136-16E are provided. The area within the visibility splays referred to in this condition shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions, structures. 5. No development shall take place until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include the following details:

(a) trees, hedges and shrubs to be retained and measures for their protection during the course of development (b) numbers, types, sizes and positions of proposed trees and shrubs (c) proposed hard surfacing treatment (d) planting, seeding/turfing of other soft landscape areas (e) proposed retaining walls or similar structures and boundary treatments.

The approved scheme shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details.

7. None of the dwellings constructed pursuant to this permission shall be first occupied until the driveways, parking, turning and servicing areas have been constructed in a hard bound material (not loose gravel) and so as to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water therefrom onto the public highway. Details shall first submitted to and approved in

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

writing by the Local Planning Authority. The provision to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water to the public highway shall then be retained for the life of the development. Reasons

1. To comply with S91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. For the avoidance of doubt. 3. No such details were submitted, in the interests of the appearance of the development and in accordance with the aims of Policy H9 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) and Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Draft Aligned Core Strategy. The requirement is to be satisfied before new construction begins in order that potentially abortive work is avoided, if unacceptable materials are used. 4. In the interests of pedestrian and highway safety and in accordance with the aims of Policy H7 and T11 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004). 5. No such details were submitted and to ensure that the details are satisfactory in the interests of the appearance of the area and in accordance with the aims of Policy H7 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) and Policy 10 of the Aligned Core Strategy (2014). The requirement is to be satisfied before new construction begins in order that potentially abortive works are avoided and to ensure that any important tree or plant species are adequately protected. 6. No such details were submitted and to ensure that the details are satisfactory in the interests of the appearance of the area and in accordance with the aims of Policy H7 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) and Policy 10 of the Aligned Core Strategy (2014). 7. To protect neighbouring properties from loss of privacy in accordance with Policy H7 of the Broxtowe Local Plan and Policy 10 of the Aligned Core Strategy (2014). The requirement is to be satisfied before new construction begins in order that potentially abortive work is avoided, if unacceptable levels are used. 8. To ensure that deleterious materials and surface water from the site is not deposited on the public highway, in the interests of highway safety.

Notes to applicant

1. Vegetation clearance should be avoided during the bird breeding season of March-August inclusive. 2. It is an offence under S148 and S151 of the Highways Act 1980 to deposit mud on the public highway and as such you should undertake every effort to prevent it occurring. 3. The Coal Authority Act 1994 states that any intrusive activities, including initial investigation boreholes and/or any subsequent treatment of coal mine workings/coal mine entries for ground stability purposes require the prior written permission of the Coal Authority, since such activities can have serious public health and safety implications. Failure to obtain permission will result in trespass, with the potential for court action. Application forms for Coal Authority permission and further guidance can be obtained from The Coal Authority at

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

http://coal.decc.gov.uk/en/coal/cms/services/permits/permits.aspx 4. The decision has been reached taking into account the guidance in paragraphs 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, with the Council entering into negotiations with the applicant and requesting the provision of additional information to ensure that the development is satisfactory.

Background papers Application case file

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

Photos

7 Bridle Road, Bramcote Construct two detached dwellings including garage and demolition of existing dwelling

Planning Committee 7 October 2015 Scale: 1: 1,250

Directorate of Legal and Planning Services

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

Report of the Director of Legal and Planning Services

15/00221/FUL DEMOLISH FORMER POLICE STATION, CONSTRUCT 19 NO. APARTMENTS AND CONVERT THE GRANGE INTO 5 NO APARTMENTS

This report is prepared as an addendum to the report to 7 October 2015 Planning Committee for the above referenced application and following discussion by, and resolution of, that Committee.

1.0 Background

1.1 The Officer’s original recommendation can be found on the 7 October 2015 report which is attached as an appendix. Although it expressed concern regarding the heritage impact of the proposals, it was concluded by Committee that the main matter of concern was that of the impact of the proposal on the occupiers of no.17 Chilwell Road. Committee resolved to defer the matter to allow the applicant to amend the scheme in light of the concerns expressed by members which appeared to focus on the matters of privacy and general amenity.

1.2 The amendments to the scheme include a moving of the rear central section of the proposed new building at first and second floor levels an additional 3.5m away from the shared boundary with no.17. The internal layout of the building has been reconfigured which moves living rooms to the northern face of the building. The first and second floor windows to the south facing side looking towards no.17 Chilwell Road would either be box oriel windows with a solid outer face in the cases of apartments no.4 and no.7, and in the case of apartments 6, 9, 14, 16, 17 and 19, the windows would be high level and would serve bedrooms or be secondary windows to living spaces.

1.3 In addition, the north west corner section of the proposed new building at second storey level forming part of apartment no.7 has been moved away from the shared boundary with no.17 Chilwell Road by approximately 2.8m. The three storey section would be 9.7m from the shared boundary. The two storey section remains approximately 6.7m.

1.4 The occupiers of no.17 Chilwell Road have commented on the latest plans. They note and appreciate the amendments made, in particular the rearrangement of apartment layouts and change in window design impacting upon their privacy, and also the setting away of the two storey section closest to their boundary. Nevertheless, they comment that the two storey section remains only 6m from their boundary which would have a significant impact on their primary living space in terms of appearing as an intrusive structure. They request consideration be given to moving the planned building back 3m from the current position in order to relieve the impact on their primary living/eating area and also allowing the listed Grange building to retain its prominent visual position.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

1.5 In terms of the matters of privacy, the original report on the original proposals commented that the issue was finely balanced. By moving a section of building away from the shared boundary and redesigning the apartments so that the windows facing towards no.17 at first and second storey level would all be high level or box oriel with a solid outer face would ensure that the occupiers of no.17 would enjoy acceptable levels of privacy to their rear garden and property.

1.6 It is evident from the written representations made by the occupiers of no.17 Chilwell Road that there is neighbour concern regarding the bulk and proximity of the building when viewed from their front kitchen/living area, particularly compared to the existing police station building which is of a materially smaller scale. Although there was no clear comment from Committee regarding whether this matter was of significant concern, the applicant has moved the third storey section of the nearmost corner of the building away from no.17 Chilwell Road in order to lessen the visual impact and immediate bulk of the proposal.

1.7 The original report was of the view that the impact on the neighbour in terms of this particular matter was acceptable on the original plans and the amendments appear as an improvement to the visual immediacy of the higher section of the building when viewed from no.17 Chilwell Road. It is therefore considered that the visual impact in terms of the proposal being overbearing, overshadowing or overwhelming when viewed from the kitchen/sitting area of no.17 Chilwell Road and the immediate outdoor area onto which it spills out, is acceptable in planning terms.

1.8 The amendments do result in a changed appearance in the new apartment buildings from that originally put before Committee, however it is still concluded that the design quality when viewed from all angles is still unacceptable for this prominent location within a conservation area and within the setting of a listed building.

1.9 Noting that the officer’s views on the impact of the development on the Listed Building and Conservation issues remain as per the original 7 October 2015 Committee report, should the amendments as set out above and shown on the latest plans be viewed as acceptable by Committee and that in all matters it is concluded that the scheme is acceptable, it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the signing of a S.106 agreement covering matters of a public open space contribution and education contribution, and subject to the conditions as set out below.

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of approval. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings amended drawings 1863-34D (Proposed Site Plan), 1863-40F (Proposed Elevations), 1863 37J (Proposed Plans) dated as received 23 October 2015, amended drawings 1863/38B (New Apartments Section), 1863/36B (The Grange Proposed Elevations), 1863/35C dated as received 6 August 2015 by the Local Planning Authority. 3. Before any development is commenced, detailed drawings setting out a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the following details: 31

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

(a) Trees, hedges and shrubs to be retained and measures for their protection during the course of their development. Such proposals shall include retention of the trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order and no development shall take place until the agreed protection measures are in place. (b) Proposed hard surfacing treatment (including any marked pedestrian routes within the site) (c) Planting, seeding/turfing or other soft landscaping areas (d) Proposed lighting details (e) Details of any new boundary treatments and/or alterations of any existing boundary treatments

4. The approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development and any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years, die, are removed or have become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with ones of similar size and species to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, unless written consent has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority for a variation. 5. No part of the development hereby approved shall be commenced until an investigative survey of the site has been carried out and a report submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The survey must have regard for any potential ground and water contamination, the potential for gas emissions and any associated risk to the public, buildings and/or the environment. The report shall include details of any necessary remedial measures to be taken to address any contamination or other identified problems. 6. No building to be erected pursuant to this permission shall be first occupied or brought into use until: i) all the necessary remedial measures identified as required by the approved report submitted pursuant to condition 5, have been completed in accordance with the approved details, unless an alternative has first been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; and ii) it has been certified to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the necessary remedial measures have been implemented in full and that they have rendered the site free from risk to human health from the contaminants identified, unless an alternative has first been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a scheme of sound insulation shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and the works shall be completed in accordance with the approved details, and retained for the duration of the use. The scheme shall include details of a scheme limiting the transmission of noise between each residential unit of accommodation and/or any other part of the building which is not exclusively used as a unit of accommodation. 8. No development in relation to the external rendering of the Grange shall take place until details and specification of the materials to be used have been 32

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

submitted to and approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include a sample specifying the proposed texture and colour of the proposed finish. A plan illustrating the areas of the building to be faced with external render shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall take place in accordance with the approved drawings and details. 9. The rooflights to the Grange building, approved by way of this permission, shall not be installed until such time as their details, specification and materials, as well as a section drawing showing their depth of projection from the external face of the roofslope, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall take place strictly in accordance with the approved details. 10. No above ground level works shall take place in relation to the new build apartments until such time as details, including samples, of the materials to be used in external walls and roofs, and a plan indicating the parts of the building to which each facing material would apply, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details. 11. No above ground level works shall take place in relation to the new build apartments until such time as details of the windows (including a section drawing showing their depth of recess which shall be a minimum of 150mm), doors, rainwater goods, meter boxes and their location, a section drawing of the ‘dummy window panels’ to the south facing elevation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details. 12. No above ground level works shall take place in relation to the new build apartments until such time as the finished floor level of the apartments have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The finished floor level shall be given in relation to a known datum point. 13. Apartments 4 or 7 shall not be first occupied until such time as the box oriel windows as shown on the approved plans have been constructed and finished in their entirety and in accordance with those plans. The south face of the oriel windows shall be constructed using a solid material, the details of which will have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall be retained as such for the lifetime of the development. 14. Notwithstanding details on the approved plans no bin stores shall be installed/developed on the site until such time as details including their location, elevation plans and specification of facing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall show how the bin stores can be accessed by refuse collection vehicles and they shall be in place as per the approved plans before any of the residential units hereby approved are first occupied, unless a phased approach to their installation in relation to particular residential units has first been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

15. No residential unit hereby approved shall be occupied until such time as the parking space(s) provided in connection with that unit has first been laid out and made available for use in connection with that unit. The car parking space shall be kept available for the parking of vehicles for the lifetime of the development. Reasons 1. To comply with S91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. In the interests of clarity. 3. To ensure the Council has sufficient details regarding the landscaping proposals for the scheme and in the interests of Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy. 4. To ensure the development presents a more pleasant appearance in the locality and in accordance with Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy 2014. 5. In the interest of public health and safety. 6. In the interest of public health and safety. 7. To protect occupiers from excessive noise transmission between properties. 8. To ensure that the details do not detract from the character of the Listed Building and to accord with the aims of Policy 11 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy. 9. To ensure that the details do not detract from the character of the Listed Building and to accord with the aims of Policy 11 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy. 10. To ensure the development presents a satisfactory standard of external appearance, in accordance with the aims of Policies 10 and 11 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy 2014. 11. To ensure the development presents a satisfactory standard of external appearance, in accordance with the aims of Policies 10 and 11 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy 2014. 12. To ensure the development presents a satisfactory standard of external appearance and to ensure that the amenity of neighbouring occupiers are safeguarded, in accordance with the aims of Policies 10 and 11 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy 2014. 13. In the interests of privacy and residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy 2014. 14. Insufficient and unsatisfactory details were shown on the approved drawings and to ensure that appropriate refuse facilities are in place which are accessible for service vehicles and also do not detract from the visual amenity

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

of the site or wider conservation area in accordance with Policies 10 and 11 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy. 15. To ensure satisfactory parking arrangements are made available for use by future occupiers in accordance with Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy 2014. Notes to applicant: 1. As the proposal involves demolition and building works, it is recommended that best practicable means are used to ensure that disturbance from dust and noise is kept to a minimum. Further advice can be obtained from the Council’s Environmental Health Officers.

2. The Council has acted positively and proactively in the determination of this application in line with the guidance contained within paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework. It has worked with the applicant’s agent by identifying potential planning concerns and provided positive advice as to how they might be overcome, while allowing sufficient opportunity for improved and acceptable plans to be made during the course of the application.

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

APPENDIX Report of the Director of Legal and Planning Services

15/00221/FUL DEMOLISH FORMER POLICE STATION, CONSTRUCT 19 NO. APARTMENTS AND CONVERT THE GRANGE INTO 5 NO. APARTMENTS BEESTON POLICE STATION, CHILWELL ROAD, BEESTON, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE NG9 1EH

The application is to be determined by the Planning Committee after a request by Councillor Patrick.

1. Details of the Application

1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the change of use and works to The Grange to allow its use for 5 no. apartments. The Grange is a Grade II listed building. The application also proposes the demolition of the adjoining single storey link building and 1950s police station building to allow for the construction of a 3 storey building comprising 19 no. apartments. Landscaping works including car parking (28 parking spaces in total) and soft landscaping associated with the works are also proposed with existing highway accesses from Middle Street and Chilwell Road being retained.

1.2 Internal changes to The Grange building which would allow its conversion to residential use are assessed separately under reference 15/00223/LBC. External works include the rendering of the building, replacement of windows and insertion of rooflights.

1.3 The proposed new build apartment block would comprise 15 no. 2 bedroom apartments and 4 no. 1 bedroom apartments and be arranged over 3 storeys with a maximum height being measured at 8.9m. The building would be constructed principally with facing brick, with secondary materials being a metal clad (such as zinc) and a tertiary material being stone coloured render sections.

1.4 During the course of the application, amended drawings have been received which revised the design of the proposed apartment block, amended the design of rooflights proposed for The Grange and also included the submission of further information regarding the heritage impact of the proposal with specific focus on the demolition of the 1950s police station building.

2. Site and Surroundings

2.1 The site comprises The Grange which is a grade II listed building dated to the 1820s with a later extension constructed in the mid nineteenth century. It was originally constructed as a dwelling house and its most recent use was that of a police station until 2013 since which time it is vacant. This building occupies a prominent corner site on the corner of Chilwell Road and Middle Street. It has significant expanses of hardstanding to the front and the rear reflecting its most recent institutional uses and an unsympathetic post war dwarf wall making the 36

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

front boundary treatment. Towards the rear and south side of The Grange are a belt of mature protected trees.

2.2 To the south side of The Grange and still within the application site is a 1950s police station building constructed using brick with concrete parapet detailing and concrete window and door surrounds. It is composed of a two storey flat roof structure with single storey flat roof wings either side. A later single storey link structure was constructed between The Grange and the 1950s police station building. The police station building has been extended to the rear and the side with single storey extensions which housed kennels and a CCTV control room.

2.3 The site is situated wholly within the Beeston West End Conservation Area.

2.4 The neighbouring property to the south is no.17 Chilwell Road which is a residential property 3 storeys in scale with a domestic garden to the rear. To the rear (east) of the site is Grange Avenue which are two and a half storey Victorian properties set on a linear street pattern with views towards the site set between the two rows of residential properties.

3. Relevant Planning History

3.1 Other than application 15/00223/LBC being considered in parallel to this, there are no registered planning applications relevant to the assessment of this proposal. A full planning history of the site can be obtained from the application file.

3.1.1 Policy Context

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) contains a general presumption in favour of sustainable development whereby planning permission should be granted unless permitting the development significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits or unless specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted. It outlines 12 core planning principles which should underpin the planning system, including that planning should be plan-led, that high quality design and a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants should be secured, developments should be located in

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

sustainable locations and effective use of brownfield land should be made. The document outlines that the Government’s key housing objective is to increase significantly the delivery of new homes, and states that there should be a wide choice of high quality homes within safe and accessible environments. Applicants are encouraged to work with the local community to achieve this aim. The NPPF states that planning permission should be granted where local policies are out of date, specifically giving the example of where local planning authorities (LPAs) are unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply.

3.1.2 Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy

The Council adopted the Core Strategy (CS) on 17 September 2014, and the review of the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment published in January 2015 demonstrated a 5 year housing land supply.

3.1.3 Policy 2: The Spatial Strategy’ sets the overarching strategy for how growth in Greater Nottingham will be accommodated and distributed. It sets the required number of homes for Greater Nottingham between 2011 and 2028 (6150 in Broxtowe Borough) and outlines a settlement hierarchy.

3.1.4 ‘Policy 8: Housing Mix and Choice’ sets out the approach to ensuring that new housing development includes an appropriate mix of housing types, sizes and tenures.

3.1.5 ‘Policy 10: Design and Enhancing Local Identity’ sets design and layout principles to be applied to new development and looks to ensure that valued local characteristics are reinforced.

3.1.6 ‘Policy 11: The Historic Environment’ advises that new development should have regard to the historic environment. Proposals will be supported where heritage assets and their settings are conserved and/or enhanced in line with their interest and significance.

3.2 Broxtowe Local Plan 2004

3.2.1 As the Core Strategy contains broad policies, a Development Management Policies Document will be developed in due course. In the meantime, Appendix E of the Core Strategy confirms which Local Plan policies are saved. Relevant saved policies are as follows:

3.2.2 Policy H7 states that residential development in built up areas will be permitted providing there is no significant impact on the amenity of nearby residents and that the occupiers of the new dwellings would have a satisfactory degree of privacy and amenity. The policy goes on to state that the development should not have an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area and that satisfactory arrangements for parking and access need to be made.

3.2.3 Policy E24 states that development which would adversely affect important trees and hedgerows will not be permitted.

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

3.2.4 Policy T11 requires satisfactory provision of vehicle parking and servicing, in accordance with the latest standards.

3.2.5 Policy RC4 states that where a proposal would result in an identified need for additional capacity to be achieved in educational facilities, planning permission will not be granted until a contribution has been negotiated towards measures which assist in meeting such a need.

5. Consultations

5.1 Historic England (formerly English Heritage) objects to the original and amended applications. They set out that the demolition of the 1950s police station building will result in a degree of harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area and would recommend opportunities for alteration and enhancement of the existing 1950s building (not façade retention) with options for redevelopment of the rear extension being fully explored.

5.2 The Ancient Monuments Society objects to the original and amended application. Particular concern was expressed regarding the initial proposal to externally insulate the building and in the absence of information to the contrary felt that the removal of historic windows in The Grange would be harmful to its historic character and appearance. In terms of the new build apartments it accepts that a contemporary design might be appropriate in this location but considers that the chosen material did not appear to be contextual and the design approach appeared to be lacking in local or even regional distinctiveness.

5.3 Broxtowe Borough Council Heritage Advisor objects to the proposal. With specific reference to the demolition of the police station, he advises that the building relates to an adjacent designated heritage asset in a historically significant way and that as part of a group it would illustrate the development of the settlement in which it stands. On that basis it is advised that the police station makes a positive contribution to the conservation area and should be retained with adaptions and extensions possible including an attic storey across the rear range and would support proposals to increase the height of the single storey pavilions that flank the front range provided that they remain subservient to the central block. The heritage impact assessment report which accompanies the application is not persuasive that the demolition of the police station building would be a ‘positive change’.

5.4 As to the external works to The Grange building he comments that rooflights are often harmful features to historic buildings and should be situated on less prominent roofslopes. He argues that in this case both the rear and front elevations of The Grange are prominent.

5.5 Beeston and District Civic Society have written to support the proposal, welcoming the sensitive restoration of The Grange building, and commenting that the 1950s building is of relatively little conservation or heritage merit. Viewing the scheme as a whole and the benefits for Beeston and the sustainability of the site in general, it is viewed as acceptable to demolish the 1950s building and comments that the proposed apartment building is of a quality design and will improve the gateway to Beeston

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

5.6 Nottingham Express Transit comment that the applicant’s proposals should include confirmation that works, particularly to the front boundary wall, will take into account the land permanently required for NET Phase Two.

5.7 Broxtowe Borough Council Environmental Health Technical Officer raises no objections subject to conditions relating to contaminated land investigation and if required remediation, prevention of noise transmission between flats and a note to applicant regarding noise and dust during construction works.

5.8 Broxtowe Borough Council Tree Officer has raised no objection to the proposal, noting that the new building is situated away from the root protection area of the TPO trees on the site and recommends that a condition be attached to any planning permission requiring details of tree protection measures to be employed during demolition and construction works.

5.9 In terms of public comments, below is a summary of representations received as well as a summary of specific objections received from the occupiers of 17 Chilwell Road Beeston.

5.10 Objection from 17 Chilwell Road.

5.11 Two separate letters of objections have been received from the occupiers of 17 Chilwell Road. Their representations include the following.

5.12 The proposed apartment building would be significantly taller than the existing structure and be closer to no.17’s property than the existing police station and would be harmfully overbearing and block daylight from the most used habitable room of the house. The proposed building also is much longer to the rear than the existing police station building and include 14 windows (an increase of 11) and there be 8 individual apartments that would have views into their rear garden which will have a significant impact on the levels of privacy enjoyed in the garden. The three storey block would also be overbearing and should be reduced to two storeys as a maximum. Alternatively consideration should be given to relocating any new apartments so that they front onto Middle Street which would reduce the impact on neighbours and on the setting of The Grange.

5.13 In terms of appearance the proposed apartment block is not in keeping with the surrounding buildings and would represent an incongruous addition which would threaten the spacious village-like atmosphere of the conservation area and it would threaten the open setting which The Grange currently enjoys.

5.14 Concern is also expressed that the works to the listed building, in terms of render and double glazed windows would harm the historic fabric of the building.

5.15 The proposed bin store would be too prominent and harmful to the character of the conservation area and may also conflict with the existing rights of way afforded to 17 Chilwell Road through the application site.

5.16 Excessive levels of car parking provision are set out and owing to the town centre location maximum car parking standards should be implemented and cycle

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

parking facilities should be better located on the site. The proposal also fails to accord with Lifetime Homes principles owing to the absence of a lift which does not make it suitable as a lifetime home.

5.17 The Heritage Statement does not give proper regard to the stripped down neo Georgian architecture of the period of the police station building which is purposefully utilitarian and that emphasis should be put on repair and re use of an historic building rather than which option is economically more attractive from a development point of view.

5.18 Further comment is made regarding any harm to wildlife that might result from the demolition of the police station building, no submission of details relating to Building for Life or details of any land contamination surveys or investigations.

5.19 Other public comments on the originally submitted application include 18 objections opining that the new building being significantly larger than the existing and having a visually dominant effect on Grange Avenue and also harming residential privacy. The contemporary design will be out of character with its historic surroundings and the ‘village like’ atmosphere of the conservation area. Movement of cars will impact on 14 Grange Avenue as entrance/exit point is adjacent to their bedroom window. The existing building is a historic landmark and should be preserved and altered to allow development.

5.20 Objections also state that the modern building is out of character with properties on Grange Avenue and would be much closer to Grange Avenue than the existing police station building.

5.21 The modern design of the building will harm the appearance of the conservation area and listed building and the entrance/egress points are dangerous in relation to bends in the road and the tram works. Residents also do not wish to have further upheaval and disturbance in this area after the tram works.

5.22 Two letters of support have been received which include a welcoming of the demolition of the police station building which is considered unattractive.

5.23 Comments making observations queried whether there would be sufficient parking for the number of apartments as overspill parking appears to be making Grange Avenue congested. The reinstatement of trees lost by way of the tram works is urged as part of the proposals.

5.24 As part of the amended proposals 8 objection were received with residents arguing that the new building’s design should match the Georgian style of the existing police station building while another letter of objection commented that it should match the Victorian style of nearby properties within the conservation area and use late Victorian style brickwork with timber sash windows and sandstone details. The development would cause disruption to residents who have already had disruption owing to the tram works. Objections comment that the new build is of a similar architecture to the Manor Centre flats which are classed as having a ‘negative’ impact on the conservation area and that the building relates poorly to the surroundings.

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

5.25 Two letters of support setting out that the revised proposals are an improvement when viewed from Grange Avenue and that the removal of the 1950s building would be a wholly positive move forward.

6. Appraisal

6.1 The main considerations relevant to the determination of this application relate to whether the proposals would harm the special importance of The Grange and whether they would preserve or enhance the character of the Beeston St John’s Grove conservation area. To this there are two strands, firstly whether the demolition of the 1950s police station building would be acceptable and also whether the replacement building is appropriately designed for this location. In addition, the amenity impact of the development on the occupiers of 17 Chilwell Road is a key matter for consideration. The impact of the proposals on The Grange listed building also shall be assessed, including whether the proposals to convert it into apartments and the external physical works proposed to facilitate such are acceptable.

6.2 Furthermore, the report will examine whether the proposed new building would have an unacceptable visual impact on Grange Avenue and also whether the development gives rise to any significant amenity impacts on its existing residents. The impact on the protected trees on the site and whether appropriate levels of parking provision have been designed into the scheme are also relevant planning matters for this application.

7. Proposed Subdivision and External Works to The Grange

7.1 The application proposes to subdivide The Grange building into 5 no. apartments comprising 3 no. 2 bedroom apartments and 2 no. 3 bedroom apartments, arranged over the two storey building and into the roofspace. External physical works include the replacement of the existing windows, the insertion of 7 no. rooflights, and the application of a render finish to the external walls. Internal alterations are assessed separately under listed building application 15/00223/LBC which also will repeat the assessment of the impact of the external alterations on the listed building.

7.2 In terms of the principle of the subdivision the Council’s conservation advisor has commented that the subdivision of the property would lead to ‘less than substantial harm’ and although the building should ideally be kept as a single unit (eg an office unit) no objection is raised if the Council considers there is public benefit in the scheme including securing its optimum viable use.

7.3 The proposals include using the roofspace as an apartment which would be facilitated by the insertion of 7 no. rooflights across the structure as a whole. The Heritage Impact Assessment confirms that the roofspace has been historically used by The Grange with stairways leading up to it as well as images showing dormer windows (flat roofed) on the building. The roof structure itself is not original and appears to have been reconfigured in the post war years therefore it is concluded that the historic fabric and integrity of the building would not be harmed in principle by the insertion of rooflights subject to their visual impact. The proposed rooflights would have a flush frameless finish and would be

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

horizontally oriented so that from most views they would be largely if not wholly obscured by the surrounding parapet roof detail. They have also been located so as to line up with the windows below. Therefore it is concluded that the design of the rooflights has been formulated so as to minimise any harm to the appearance or special character of the listed building and as it would allow a continued use of the attic space this is seen as acceptable.

7.4 Proposed works also include the replacement of all existing external windows. The windows are timber sliding sash and single glazed. Historic England, the Ancient Monument’s Society and the Council’s conservation advisor have all comment that the full replacement of the windows is not justified and that original windows shall be, wherever possible, repaired and retained. Such comment is based on the information provided in the Heritage Impact Assessment which accompanies the application and which does not provide specific comment on the state of the existing windows or the justification of their replacement. Nevertheless, a site visit and viewing of the windows reveals that the windows are not original and are in fact post war installations and are of little if any historic significance. The principle of their replacement is therefore acceptable subject to the design of the new windows being sympathetic to the character and appearance of the listed building. In this case, it is stated that the new windows will be timber, sliding sash and have a 'slimlite' style cavity double glazed window. Subject to a condition requiring details including the depth of cavity, and depth of recess etc. the proposed replacement windows would be acceptable.

7.5 Finally the proposal includes a render finish to the building. Originally the proposal was for an insulated render finish however the proposal is now for a smooth render application to the existing external walls without the bulk of external insulation panels which would have disturbed the detailing of the building.

7.6 The current slurry paint finish is an unattractive and unsympathetic alteration to the listed building. Nevertheless, the original pattern of brickwork of The Grange is still visible through it. Although the application of a smooth render finish would hide the rough texture of the slurry paint, it would also hide the pattern of brickwork beneath. And therefore the fact that the building was originally brick faced would be lost as a visual marker of the building’s history and original construction. The benefits of a render finish is that it would provide a brighter crisper finish to a building which currently has an unsympathetic texture and colour, however the building could be uplifted by an application of a lighter paint colour to the existing building which would also allow the original brickwork to be continued to be read. The harm to the listed building would be less than substantial and therefore in accordance with the NPPF, the public benefit of the proposal should be weighed against it. No public benefit has been identified which would overcome the harm to the listed building and although the Council agrees with the applicant that the current appearance of the building could be uplifted, this could be done without losing the ability to read that the historic fabric of the building was brick facings.

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

8. Demolition of 1950s Police Station Building

8.1 The application proposes the demolition of a single storey link structure between The Grange and the 1950s former police station building. There is agreement between the applicant, heritage bodies and the Council’s officers that the single storey link construction has little historic or design merit and its demolition would be seen as a benefit to the significance of the listed building.

8.2 In terms of the 1950s building it is important to consider whether it makes a positive contribution to the conservation area in which it is situated. The conservation advisor to the Council has concluded that it does make a positive contribution in that as part of a group of buildings it ‘illustrates the development of the settlement in which it stands’ principally in that it, along with other civic buildings of the 1950s sets out how the settlement of Beeston grew as a town and it also relates to the adjacent listed building in a historically significant way. It is accepted that it has been extended to the rear unsympathetically and the conservation advisor sets out that the front range is more architecturally significant than the rear and would support the provision of an attic range across the rear of the extensions as a way of adapting and uplifting the current building.

8.3 Historic England (formerly English Heritage) also object to the loss of the police station building on similar grounds and set out that its demolition will result in a degree of harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. They argue that the elevational treatment responds well to The Grange and is submissive in height and does not try to overdominate the main residence. They conclude that even though the Council’s conversation area appraisal for Beeston West End identifies that the building makes a neutral contribution to the conservation area, they consider it has architectural and historic merit and contributes positively to the conservation area and its loss would be regrettable.

8.4 The applicant has submitted a Heritage Impact Assessment and provided an addendum to it with specific reference to the 1950s police station building. The Assessments identify that the building is identified as having a ‘neutral contribution’ in the Council’s own conservation area appraisal for Beeston West End rather than making a positive contribution as asserted by the heritage bodies. It is also argued that the building is not of high construction quality and that there are other examples of post war civic architecture in the surroundings therefore the building is not unique in the area nor so important. It has also undergone a number of unsympathetic extensions as the original building’s design was soon outgrown by the need for new facilities to allow it to continue to be used.

8.5 In terms of whether the building ‘historically relates’ to The Grange the applicant’s Heritage Assessment indicates that it is factually true that the 1950s building was built in the garden of The Grange, however it has always had a negative impact on this listed building’s setting. The police station building therefore only relates to The Grange in a detrimental way, and as a matter of historical fact.

8.6 The applicant’s Heritage Statements have been fully considered, however the weight of objection from Historic England, the Council’s conservation advisor and the Ancient Monument’s Society who all assert that the demolition of the police

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

station building would harm the character of the conservation area is sufficiently strong to warrant a refusal of planning permission on this basis.

9. Proposed Apartment Building: Design

9.1 The proposed apartment building is arranged over 3 storeys. It has taken a contemporary design approach as an arrangement of flat roof box structures with the application noting that the principal building material will be orange brick, with metal cladding as a secondary material and stone coloured render as a tertiary material. It is necessary to assess whether the building by virtue of its scale, positioning, form, materials and overall composition represents good design, and is appropriate adjacent to The Grange Listed building, as well as its immediate setting of Chilwell Road and Grange Avenue to the rear as part of the wider Beeston West End Conservation Area.

9.2 The Council has received a number of comments opining that a Regency revival style building should be built so that it reflects The Grange’s architectural design, with other comments stating that the building should bear Victorian characteristics so that it reflects Grange Avenue and other properties along Chilwell Road. Such a resultant ‘pastiche’ design, no matter which period of inspiration, is not seen as appropriate for this location and a contemporary design solution, if of a quality design, would be encouraged as a design approach.

9.3 In terms of scale the proposed new building, although 3 storeys would be only approximately 0.9m taller than the parapet of The Grange with the ridgeline of the listed building being approximately 1.4 m taller than the proposed block. Neighbouring the proposed building to the southern side is 17 Chilwell Road which is a three storey Victorian house with an eaves height in excess of 1.0m taller than the proposed new building and a ridge height in excess of 4.0m taller than the proposed new building.

9.4 The front corner of the building closest to The Grange would appear as two storey with a brick faced balcony screen above so that the third floor massing would be recessed back from the front building line. It has been designed in order to reinforce the subordination of the building to the adjacent listed property.

9.5 As the building is lower in total height than both neighbouring buildings, it is, when viewed from Chilwell Road, acceptable in terms of scale with its surrounding context.

9.6 As to the palette of materials, it is important that new buildings achieve a harmonious relationship with the buildings in its context and draws on local distinctiveness. In this case, the applicant has identified local materials in terms of dark orange brick, sandstone and tiling principally to roofs. This is reinforced by new developments within this Beeston West End conservation area including 20 Chilwell Road opposite which successfully incorporates these materials into a new building.

9.7 Although the final arrangement of materials has not been identified on the plans and should be controlled by condition should permission be granted, the annotation and illustrations set out that the primary and predominant material will

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

be a dark orange brick of a similar appearance to that of no.20 Chilwell Road opposite. The secondary material is proposed to be dark grey zinc cladding, considered a high quality cladding material which arguably reflects the colour of slate tiles, and a final contrasting material being sandstone coloured render which would be used sparingly. The materials chosen indicate that some design cue has been taken from the surrounding context and ties the contemporary designed building in with the dominant materials of the conservation area.

9.8 Concern has also been raised from residents on Grange Avenue that the scale and appearance of the building would be harmful when viewed from the context of Grange Avenue.

9.9 Grange Avenue is a row of well detailed Victorian red brick houses, the group value of which make a positive contribution within the Beeston West End Conservation Area. The concerns raised from residents is that the flat roof design, bulk height and elevated position of the new building and the materials would be harmful to the character and appearance of this street particularly as the building would be visible at the head of the street between the two rows.

9.10 In terms of scale, it is argued in objections that the existing street comprises two storey properties of a domestic scale and that the new building would appear harmfully out of context. A section drawing has been provided (1863/38 B) illustrating the height differential between 14 Grange Avenue and the new building. It shows the difference in overall height to be approximately 2.5m, the apartment block being the higher of the two. Bearing in mind there is a separation distance in excess of 30m, a natural rise in land levels towards the application site, and a belt of mature protected trees between the new building and Grange Avenue which provides high levels of screening, this change in building height would not appear harmful to the character of Grange Avenue, and the width and overall bulk of the building from this vantage point is relieved by the use of recessed balcony spaces at second floor level and a broken up appearance. In order to be sensitive to the exclusive use of orange brick facing materials on Grange Avenue, any permission which may be granted should include control of materials and focus should be made on the use of orange brick as the dominant material for the elevation facing towards Grange Avenue in order to be sympathetic to this section of the conservation area.

9.11 Overall, the design appears as a building with an interesting composition using high quality and locally referenced materials on a building which offers a sensitive scale to its neighbours and a level of massing that has been successfully broken up so that the building appears as a sequence of individual parts rather than a large monolithic block.

10. Amenity Impact

10.1 The residential property most directly affected by the proposal is no.17 Chilwell Road, situated to the south of the site and would neighbour the new proposed apartment block. Objections have been received by the occupiers of no.17 Chilwell Road to both the original and amended proposals. Their objections are separately identified within the consultation section of this report.

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

10.2 The principal concerns relevant to the amenity impact of the proposal focus on the height of the building and the increased proximity of its bulk and the overbearing impact it would have. Also, the matter of the impact on privacy is raised as an objection by the neighbouring occupiers.

10.3 In terms of the increase in bulk of the building, concern is raised towards the front section of the new building and the impact it would have on the north side facing living area of no.17 Chilwell Road owing to its size and proximity.

10.4 To the north ground floor side of no.17 is a large kitchen and dining area with additional sitting space which has a set of large glazed doors between this space and an outside yard area. The existing 1950s police station building is, and the front section of the proposed new apartment would be, visible from these glazed openings which represent the sole means of outlook and natural light to this room.

10.5 In terms of difference in scale, the existing police station building is a two storey building (6.3m in height) with single storey wings (2.7m in height). The existing two storey building is situated approximately 19m from the affected window of no.17 with the single storey side wing being approximately 16m in distance away. The new apartment building would be situated approximately 2.7m closer to no.17’s property than the existing nearest corner of the police station and would have a height of 8.9m (thereby a height increase of approximately 2.6m from the two storey police station and 6.2m higher than the single storey wings). The front building line of the existing and proposed buildings are roughly similar.

10.6 In terms of the impact of the building on this particular neighbouring room, the following are the conclusions reached after an assessment of the plans and the case officer having viewing of the application site from the habitable room in question.

10.7 The new building would be built closer to no.17 Chilwell Road than the existing police station building and would represent a significant increase in height, particularly when compared to the single storey section of the existing building closest to no.17. It is accepted that the new building would appear visibly more prominent than the existing building. The matter is whether the new building would appear oppressively overbearing and/or would result in an unacceptable sense of enclosure for the occupiers of no.17.

10.8 Despite the acceptance that a greater degree of bulk of building would be visible from no.17 than is currently the case it is concluded that this would not represent such a significant harm to the neighbour’s amenity that it should be a reason to withhold planning permission. As the proposed new building would not be situated directly forward of the affected window, the oblique positioning of the building and its separation distance would mean that the building would be more visible and block out a section of sky currently able to be viewed but would not appear so harmfully overbearing that it would result in an unacceptable reduction in living conditions for no.17. It would maintain more direct open views over the front forecourt of the site and the level of daylight would not be materially reduced as a result.

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

10.9 As the proposed new building is situated towards the north/north-east from the kitchen/dining/sitting area of no.17, there would be no material loss of direct sunlight, nor would the building be overshadowing to this part of the neighbouring property.

10.10 A matter considered to be more finely balanced is the matter of loss of privacy to no.17. This issue is also raised in no.17’s letter of objection. The new apartment block would comprise 3 storey accommodation with first and second floor levels of accommodation providing views from living rooms and bedrooms towards the rear garden of no.17

10.11 The current situation is that there are a number of first floor windows to the side elevation of the police station building which look directly towards the rear garden of no.17. They are of varying sizes and situated approximately 12m from the shared boundary with no.17. Owing to the previous use of the police station it is accepted that the building was in use outside of normal office hours and therefore there was activity in this building on evenings and weekends when more standard office buildings would be expected to be closed.

10.12 In terms of the proposed new building, the design includes 7 windows at first floor level and 7 at second storey level comprising 4 primary windows to lounges, 6 secondary windows to lounges and 4 windows for bedrooms. They would also be set at an approximate distance of 12m from the shared boundary. They have been designed as full length windows with the bottom section annotated as being obscurely glazed, the purpose of which is to maximise natural light levels within the apartment, while attempting to minimise the impact on neighbouring privacy.

10.13 The existing first floor side windows are evident and visible when standing in the rear garden of no.17, despite a line of TPO trees on the application site side of the shared boundary. There is therefore some experience of being overlooked currently in place. The consideration is whether the increase in number and height of windows is such that there would be a significant increase in impact on the neighbouring occupier by way of a loss of privacy or unacceptable perception of being overlooked.

10.14 Even with the protected (deciduous) trees along the shared boundary it is evident that the new windows to the apartments will be visible to users of no.17’s garden. As these new windows would serve lounge and bedrooms it is expected that there will be daytime and night time activity which would impact on the neighbours and their ability to enjoy their garden area.

10.15 It is concluded that there would be an increase in number of windows looking towards the rear garden area of no.17 and that the residential use arguably would lead to people occupying the neighbouring building at the same time that the residents (existing and future) would wish to be enjoying their garden area. As the windows would serve living rooms and be effectively ‘front’ windows for these apartments, the perception of being overlooked might appear more acute than had they been rear windows to a residential development. Balanced against that is the separation distance which is 12m, which is not an insignificant separation distance to maintain privacy levels, as well as the presence of mature vegetation along the boundary (although this should be given minimal weight as although the

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

trees are protected, they do lose their leaves in winter, and despite a requirement for replanting if removed, the trees are not permanent features which can be controlled to be retained to a mature level for the lifetime of the development). Furthermore there are existing first floor windows serving a building with uncontrolled hours of operation, and of a similar separation distance to those proposed by the new building. The development would therefore not provide significant new views.

10.16 As mentioned above, this matter is particularly finely balanced. Nevertheless, owing to the separation distance which is beyond the minimum 10m ‘garden length’ separation distance often employed for new residential development in order to maintain reasonable privacy levels and the fact that the rear garden is already overlooked by first floor windows of a similar separation distance, it is not considered on balance that a refusal on this basis is justified.

10.17 The neighbouring occupier has noted the increase in height and length of the building and commented that a two storey building would appear more appropriate and neighbourly. The separation distance would ensure that the apartment block, despite their three storey nature would represent an overbearing structure when viewed from the rear of no.17 including its garden area.

10.18 Amenity Impact – Other Residents

10.19 Although it is evident that no.17 Chilwell Road is the most impacted upon residential property by the proposal, the amenity of other nearby occupiers requires consideration. An objection has been raised regarding whether the vehicular access off Middle Street will cause unacceptable levels of disturbance to the occupiers of 14 Grange Avenue, in particular as they have a bedroom window on the wall looking towards the car park entrance. This vehicular entrance is existing and historic and is one of two entrance that would serve the rear car park to The Grange and therefore a maximum of 16 cars. It is not considered that such an arrangement would cause undue or unacceptable levels of disturbance to the occupiers of no.14 Grange Avenue. The separation distances between the proposed apartments and other existing residents on Grange Avenue and Chilwell Road would ensure that there would be no significant loss of privacy, outlook or other amenity as a result of this proposal.

11. Highways

11.1 The proposal includes the use of existing vehicular accesses off Middle Street and Chilwell Road. The accesses were used by the site’s previous police station operations including movements by patrol cars and civilian staff cars. The proposed use will not cause a material increase in car movements in comparison to the current authorised use as a police station. Details showing visibility splays in relation to any new boundary wall would be required by way of condition should the Council resolve to grant planning permission.

11.2 In terms of the parking provision, 28 spaces in total are proposed for the 24 no. apartments representing a 1.14 space per unit ratio. The site is adjacent to the recently opened NET tram line with the Beeston bus/tram interchange within walking distance as is Beeston town centre and all the associated facilities and

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

amenities. For such an edge of town centre location so close to regular public transport links, minimal parking provision would be required to support the development. Nevertheless, there has been comment raised by some members of the public that residents of any new development on this site would park on the surrounding already congested streets if sufficient provision was not made on site. With such matters in mind, the provision of in excess of one space per residential unit appears appropriate and balanced.

12. Trees

12.1 The site includes a belt of protected trees to the eastern and southern boundary including a number towards the front of the site. The application included an Arboricultural Impact Assessment which has been examined by the Council’s Tree Officer who has concluded that the development would not impinge upon the root protection area of the protected trees however does recommend that protective measures would need to be conditioned and put in place both for the demolition of the police station building and the construction works of the apartment building should the Council grant permission. The protective measures would guard the TPO trees from damage resulting from demolition/construction works.

13. Other matters

13.1 Bin Store

13.1.1 The proposal appears to indicate a bin store forward of the front building line of the proposed apartment building with illustrations indicating that it would be a lean to timber faced construction. Both the prominent location and illustrated design are acceptable. In the absence of detailed elevations the bin store does not form part of the formal proposal, and should the Council resolve to grant planning permission it should include a condition requiring that no bin store are constructed until their details, design and location have been submitted to the Council for determination. This would ensure appropriate control and would restrict the positioning of a bin store in the location as shown on the submitted plans.

13.2 Tramworks

13.2.1 A number of comments received have commented that the surrounding residents have been subjected to significant disruption owing to the tram works along Chilwell Road and that the redevelopment of this site would make a continuation of such disruption. Members are advised that this is not a material reason to withhold planning permission and that should any works cause undue disturbance to neighbouring or nearby occupiers then the Council’s Environmental Health department have powers over such matters.

14. Conclusion

14.1 The consideration of the application has involved an assessment of a number of varying factors as laid out in the body of the report. It concludes that although the conversion of the Grange for residential use is appropriate and that the design of rooflights are acceptable, the application of render to the building would cause

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

some harm which is not outweighed by any convincing public benefit. Historic England, the Council’s conservation advisor and the Ancient Monuments Society have examined the proposals and the accompanying Heritage Statements and have concluded that the proposed demolition of the police station building would represent harm to the character of the conservation area. The matter of the impact on residential amenity of the occupiers of 17 Chilwell Road is considered to be finely balanced but marginally acceptable, whereas it is concluded that the visual and other impacts of the development on Grange Avenue are clearly acceptable. The proposal incorporates appropriate levels of parking given the amount of development and proximity to public transport links.

Recommendation

The Committee is asked to RESOLVE that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, owing to the demolition of the police station building, would represent harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. As a result it would be contrary to the aims of Policy 11 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy.

2. The proposed development, owing to the proposal to externally render The Grange building would harm the historic and special character of this listed building, and such harm is not sufficiently outweighed by any identified public benefit. Accordingly the proposal fails to comply with Policy 11 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy.

Background papers Application case file

Photos

Beeston Police Station, Chilwell Road, Beeston Demolish former police station, construct 19 N° apartments and convert The Grange into 5 N° apartments

Planning Committee 7 October 2015 Scale: 1: 1,250

Directorate of Legal and Planning Services

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 Report of the Director of Legal and Planning Services

15/00018/REG3 ENHANCED DRAINAGE/BIODIVERSITY ATTENUATION STORAGE INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS RELATED TO APPLICATION REFERENCE 15/00010/FUL TO ENSURE DIRECT DOWNSTREAM DISCHARGE OF SURFACE WATER FROM THE NEW PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO THE EXISTING WATERCOURSE LAND OFF THORN DRIVE AND WEST OF THE PASTURES, GILTBROOK NOTTINGHAMSHIRE NG16 2UF

This has been brought to Planning Committee as it is an application for development by the Council. The application is also linked to the application for 67 houses on land at Acorn Avenue (15/00010/FUL).

1 Details of the application

1.1 The application seeks planning permission to construct an attenuation storage feature on part of the Smithurst Meadows Local Nature Reserve. Surface water drainage from the proposed housing developments for 67 houses at Acorn Avenue (15/00011/FUL) will be passed through the attenuation storage feature to enable a greenfield runoff rate to be achieved. The water will then be discharged downstream from the site. This will divert existing surface water runoff which currently discharges into the surface water sewer/culverted watercourses (the Daisy Brook) which runs to the west of the site and is known to flood.

1.2 The attenuation storage feature will measure approximately 1.6 metres deep, 80m in length and 25m in width. The detailed design of the attenuation pond is to be agreed and will be informed by the detailed drainage strategy and in consultation with Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust and Broxtowe Borough Council. It is intended that the attenuation feature will be taken on by Broxtowe Borough Council as public open space.

2 Site and surroundings

2.1 The site lies within the Smithurst Meadows Local Nature Reserve (LNR). The site comprises of amenity grassland and immature plantation woodland comprising a variety species including field maple, oak, ash, hazel, hornbeam and silver birch. Daisy Farm Brook runs along the western boundary and beyond this there are houses on Thistle Close. To the north east of the site there is an area of rough grassland. To the south east of the site there are existing houses which form part of Acorn Avenue. The land level falls across the site significantly from north-east to south-west.

2.2 It is allocated in the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) as part of a ‘Greenway’ which runs through Giltbrook Farm from Portland Road and is also allocated for the provision of informal open space. Greasley Footpath No. 72 runs north-east to south-west through the site.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 2.3

3 Relevant site history

3.1 There are no recent relevant planning applications on this site. In 1981 (79/00666/OUT) planning permission was granted for development consisting of ‘Use site for residential, industrial, shops and school development’. This was further supplemented by the granting of outline planning permission (81/00566/OUT) for residential, industrial, shopping and school development as part of a comprehensive scheme for the whole of the Giltbrook Farm Estate. These applications established the principle of residential development on the Gilthill Farm site which has been developed in a phased manner since this time.

4 Policy context

4.1 National policy

4.1.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) contains a general presumption in favour of sustainable development whereby planning permission should be granted unless permitting the development significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits. It outlines 12 core planning principles which should underpin the planning system, including that planning should be plan-led, that high quality design and a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants should be secured, full account should be taken of flood risk, the natural environment should be conserved and enhanced, developments should be located in sustainable locations and effective use of brownfield land should be made. The document outlines that the Government’s key housing objective is to increase significantly the delivery of new homes, and states that there should be a wide choice of high quality homes within safe and accessible environments. Where a need for affordable housing has been identified, the NPPF advises that this should be provided on site unless off-site provision or a financial contribution can be robustly justified.

4.1.2 Paragraph 94 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, taking full account of flood risk, coastal change and water supply and demand considerations. Paragraph 99 states that new development should be planned to avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change. When new development is brought

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 forward in areas which are vulnerable, care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaptation measures.

4.1.3 Paragraph 100 states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

4.1.4 Paragraph 103 outlines how, when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site- specific flood risk assessment following the Sequential Test, and if required the Exception Test, it can be demonstrated that:

• within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; and • development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe access and escape routes where required, and that any residual risk can be safely managed, including by emergency planning; and it gives priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems.

4.1.5 The NPPF advises that impacts on biodiversity should be minimised and that, if significant harm cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused.

4.1.6 This Framework states that existing open space should not be built on unless: an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space to be surplus to requirements; or the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision.

4.1.7 Paragraphs 203 – 206 of the NPPF advises on planning obligations and states that obligations must be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, be directly related to the development, fairly and reasonably related in terms of scale and kind to the development. In addition, paragraph 205 of the NPPF advises that where seeking obligations, local authorities need to take into account changes in market conditions over time and be flexible so as to prevent development stalling on such matters.

4.2 Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy

4.2.1 The Council adopted the Core Strategy on 17 September 2014 and the overall strategy of this document is “urban concentration with regeneration”. Due weight should now be given to this document.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 cumulatively, does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere and, where possible, reduces flood risk. It replicates the approach to development in flood zones outlined in the NPPF and seeks the inclusion of Sustainable Urban Drainage systems within new development where viable and technically feasible.

4.2.3 ‘Policy 2: The Spatial Strategy’ sets the overarching strategy for how growth in Greater Nottingham will be accommodated and distributed. It sets the required number of homes for Greater Nottingham (GN) between 2011 and 2028 (6150 in the Broxtowe Borough part of GN, of which 3800 are in or adjoining the existing built up area of Nottingham and up to 1,250 are in or adjoining the Eastwood area which includes Giltbrook and Newthorpe) and outlines a settlement hierarchy.

4.2.4 ‘Policy 10: Design and Enhancing Local Identity’ sets design and layout principles to be applied to new development and looks to ensure that valued local characteristics are reinforced.

4.2.5 ‘Policy 16: Green Infrastructure, Parks and Open Spaces’ sets out a strategic approach to the provision of new Green Infrastructure. It states that parks and open spaces should be protected from development. Exceptions may be made if the development is a small part of the Green Infrastructure Network and will not be detrimental to its function, or the development is a use associated with parks and open spaces or, if none of the above apply, the park or open space is shown to be underused or undervalued.

4.2.6 ‘Policy 17: Biodiversity’ sets out the approach to biodiversity and how development affecting biodiversity assets should be considered. It states that designated sites will be protected in line with the hierarchy of designations.

4.2.7 ‘Policy 19: Developer Contributions’ confirms the current use of section 106 agreements.

4.3 Saved Policies of the Broxtowe Local Plan

4.3.1 The Core Strategy contains broad policies and a Development Management Policies Document will be developed in due course. In the meantime, Appendix E of the Core Strategy confirms which Local Plan policies are saved. Relevant saved policies are as follows:

4.3.2 Policy E16 ‘Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation’ states that planning permission will not be granted for development on or adjoining local nature reserves which would damage or devalue their interest, unless there are special reasons which outweigh the recognised value of the sites. Where it is accepted that there are special reasons for development which outweigh the local value of the site, the applicant shall minimise harm to the site’s features. Compensation for the loss of the site's features of interest will be required.

4.3.3 Policy E24 ‘Trees, hedgerows and Tree Preservation Orders’ states that development that would adversely affect important trees and hedgerows will not be permitted.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 4.3.4 Policy E26 ‘Pollution’ states planning permission will not be granted for development which would result in a significant deterioration in air quality, significant loss of health or amenity to nearby occupants or surface water contamination.

4.3.5 Policy E27 ‘Protection of Groundwater’ states planning permission will not be granted for development which would be liable to result in the infiltration of contaminants into groundwater resources unless mitigation measures are proposed.

4.3.6 Policy E29 ‘Contaminated Land’ states development of land which may be contaminated will not be permitted unless a site investigation (using a method agreed in writing with the Council) has been carried out; details of remedial measures have been approved by the local planning authority and the relevant consultation bodies; there will be no significant risk to the health and safety of occupants of the development and there will be no contamination of any surface water, ground water or adjacent land.

4.3.7 Policy RC6 ‘Open Space: Requirements for New Developments’: Provision should be made for public open space and children’s play areas on residential development sites which exceed 0.5 hectares. The design of any open space provision should take into account the possible provision of features beneficial to wildlife.

4.3.8 Policy RC8 allocates the site for informal open space. In doing so it states that development should not be granted unless it relates to the recreational use of the site and does not detract from the open character or environmental value of the land.

4.3.9 Policy RC14 ‘Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycle Routes’ states that Council will protect, maintain and where appropriate seek to extend the network of footpaths, bridleways and cycle routes in the Borough.

4.3.10 Policy RC16 ‘Greenways’ designates the land as part of a ‘Greenway’ which forms an important link between built up areas and the countryside. It states that opportunities should be taken to enhance these routes, including through new developments. However, planning permission will not be granted for development which would harm their function or their environmental, ecological or recreational value.

5 Consultations

5.1 Nottinghamshire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) provided comments specifically in respect of the adjacent land subject to application 15/00033/REG3 (now withdrawn), however as part of this process reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment which forms part of this application. The LLFA state that putting surface water into a balancing lagoon appears a logical approach although raise concerns regarding the existing flooding problems for properties to the north west of the site which is currently subject to further investigation.

5.2 The Environment Agency provided comments in respect of the applications for 67 houses (15/00010/FUL) and 34 affordable houses (15/00033/REG3) (now withdrawn) on the adjacent land. The Environment Agency state that is has no objection to the proposed residential schemes provided that the balancing pond, which is subject to this application, is built and maintained for the lifetime of the developments. The Environment Agency would require the detailed design of the balancing pond to

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 demonstrate that it is correctly sized so that surface water from the residential developments are balanced up to and including the 1:100 year plus an allowance for climate change. The Environment Agency also states that it would object to residential developments on the adjacent land if the balancing pond, or another storage facility, is not provided.

5.3 Severn Trent Water states no objection to the proposal.

5.4 Broxtowe Borough Council’s Environmental Health Officer states no objection to the application.

5.5 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust (NWT), following the submission of an updated Ecological Appraisal, withdraws its original holding objection to the proposal. NWT highlights the importance of protecting the Smithurst Meadow Local Nature Reserve and supports the advice contained within the Ecological Appraisal which recommends maximising the value of the ‘landscape biodiversity feature’. NWT also support the advice regarding ensuring the design and planting improves the wildlife value of the feature and encourage some areas of permanent open water to be maintained. NWT still encourage for additional green space to be provided within the adjoining residential developments and recommends that the Daisy Farm Brook is restored to an open water course. If approved, conditions ensuring the protection of nesting birds, the adherence to good construction practice in relation to protection for species including amphibians and badgers and conditions requiring a protected species survey of the Daisy Farm Brook for water vole and native crayfish are recommended.

5.6 Broxtowe Borough Council’s Environmental Projects Officer states that there is a need to undertake an environmental appraisal of the site. He states that an ecological survey of the site has been commissioned which will inform the new management plan for the reserve and may assist with the appraisal of drainage options. As stated above, an Ecology Report and Management Plan 2015 – 2020 has since been completed as well as an updated Ecological Appraisal which includes the application site.

5.7 Nottinghamshire County Council Area Rights of Way Officer states that if footpath No. 72 is required to be temporarily closed this must be discussed with the County Council to allow for sufficient time for a Temporary Closure Order to be put in place.

5.8 Greasley Parish Council objects stating that the proposal will have a serious detrimental impact on Smithurst Meadow which is a protected Local Nature Reserve. The proposal will destroy an area reserved for wild-flower meadow and woodland planting. The application documents do not refer to the status of the land as a registered Local Nature Reserve.

5.9 17 letters of objection were received. The main points raised are listed below:

• Broxtowe has a commitment under the Smithurst Meadow Local Nature Reserve Plan to protect the area from any inappropriate uses or encroaching development. • It represents a departure from Local Plan. • Loss of green open space.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 • The proposal will decimate the area. • There is no guarantee that surface water will be contained within the site. • Questions whether the drainage strategy will work. • It will not solve existing flooding problems. • If the pond was to overflow there would be serious flooding. • An area of wetland is not suitable or safe for children to seek recreation. • Disturbance caused during construction and after completion. • Concerns regarding ongoing maintenance. • Loss of wildlife. • Increase in pests and vermin. • Smell from the feature. • Inaccuracies within the application.

6 Appraisal

6.1 The application seeks to construct an attenuation storage feature on land which forms part of the Smithurst Meadows Local Nature Reserve. The main considerations with the application are the principle of constructing the feature in a Local Nature Reserve which is also allocated within the Broxtowe Local Plan for informal open space and as a Greenway; the design of the feature and if there will be any loss of amenity to neighbouring properties; the potential flood risk of the feature and whether it will be effective in managing existing and future flood risk; and ecological impact of the proposal.

6.2 Principle

6.2.1 The site lies within the Smithurst Meadows Local Nature Reserve. The Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) also allocates the site for informal open space (Policy RC8) and as a ‘Greenway’ which runs through Giltbrook Farm from Portland Road. The site comprises amenity grassland and immature plantation woodland surrounded by hedgerows.

6.2.2 Local Plan Policy E16 ‘Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation’ states that planning permission will not be granted for development on or adjoining local nature reserves which would damage or devalue their interest unless there are special reasons which outweigh the recognised value of the sites. Where it is accepted that there are special reasons for development which outweigh the local value of the site, the applicant shall minimise harm to the site’s features. Compensation for the loss of the site's features of interest will be required.

6.2.3 The Council has commissioned a report ‘Smithurst Meadows LNR Giltbrook, Nottinghamshire: Ecology Report and Management Plan 2015 – 2020’ which provides a five-year management plan for Smithurst Meadows Local Nature Reserve (LNR). The report makes specific reference to the proposed attenuation feature which is subject to this planning application and states: ‘if the lagoon was sensitively designed and managed, it could create an interesting wetland feature for the site.’ The report makes a number of recommendations which would maximise the wildlife benefits of the scheme including the design of the slopes, the type of vegetation to be planted and the mix of vegetation cover and open water areas. It also makes recommendations with respect to the type of trees to be planted. It is considered that these recommendations could successfully be incorporated within the detailed design 59

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 of the balancing pond and that this would provide suitable compensation for the loss of the immature plantation woodland.

6.2.4 Policy RC8 of the Local Plan also allocates this site for informal open space and states that development should not be granted on this land unless it relates to the recreational use of the land or provides ancillary facilities and does not detract from the open character, environmental and landscape value of the land. The NPPF further supports this stating that open space should not be built on unless: an assessment has been undertaken which shows the open space to be surplus to requirements; or the loss would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality; or the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision. Policy RC16 of the Local Plan states that opportunities should be taken to enhance Greenways, including through new developments, however planning permission will not be granted for development which would harm their function or their environmental, ecological or recreational value. Policy 16 of the Aligned Core Strategy states that parks and open spaces should be protected from development. Exceptions may be made if the development is a small part of the Green Infrastructure Network and will not be detrimental to its function, or the development is a use associated with parks and open spaces or, if none of the above apply, the park or open space is shown to be underused or undervalued.

6.2.5 With regard to the greenway, the footpath and route through the site would remain and would not be harmed. The proposed development would retain a green corridor along the north/west boundary. As the Greenway will be retained it is considered that the application would not be contrary to Local Plan Policy RC16.

6.2.6 With regard to the allocation as informal open space, it should be noted that the space would remain predominantly open. With adequate landscaping it is considered that the attenuation feature can form part of the existing open space and would not detract from the open character or landscape value of the land. Whilst it is accepted that there would be a change in character, with the replacement of the immature plantation woodland, it is considered that this does not have to be harmful to the site with regards to its function as open space, particularly as the existing woodland is surrounded by fencing. Concern has been expressed that this would appear as an engineered solution to manage the drainage from the adjacent developments however it is clear from the Ecology Report and Management Plan that, provided the lagoon is sensitively designed and managed, it can create an interesting wetland feature for the site.

6.2.7 As the proposal can be designed to form a feature within the existing open space with ecological and landscape benefits, as the character of the open space would largely remain and as the Greenway would be retained, it is considered that the proposal would accord with local and national planning policy.

6.3 Design and amenity

6.3.1 The drawings submitted with the application indicate the footprint of the proposed attenuation feature. The final design of the feature is dependent on the detailed drainage design and will be dependent on the adjacent residential housing proposals and whether these are granted planning permission.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 6.3.2 The detailed design will be required to meet the specifications and requirements of the Environment Agency with regards to flooding and drainage and will be required to meet with the requirements of Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust and Broxtowe Borough Council in terms of the final shape and form of the attenuation feature and specific details regarding landscaping and planting which can provide ecological benefits. It is considered that an acceptable design would be able to be achieved through a planning condition which would be sympathetic to the existing landscape and would form an interesting and positive feature which is appropriate for a Local Nature Reserve and area of open space and would accord with Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014).

6.3.3 The attenuation feature would be positioned to the rear of existing houses on Acorn Avenue and on Thistle Close. As this would be a landscaped feature, set at a lower level than existing properties, it is considered that there would be no loss of amenity arising from the development itself. Whilst there may be some disturbance during the construction phase of the development this would only be for a temporary period.

6.4 Flooding

6.4.1 The application forms part of the flood risk and management scheme for the adjacent housing development. There have been historical instances of flooding in the area, in particular to properties on Thorn Drive and Gorse Close which have been flooded internally. Objections to this application also raise concerns that the attenuation pond may itself flood and increase flood risk to existing properties.

6.4.2 An updated joint Flood Risk Assessment has been produced for this application and for the adjacent housing sites. It is argued that the attenuation pond will provide betterment through passing the surface water drainage through the proposed water attenuation pond which will return flows back to the Greenfield runoff rate for the housing development sites. This will remove the adjacent site catchment (to the north of this application site) from the surface water sewer network which is known to flood.

6.4.3 To assess the proposed drainage and flood risk strategy the Council instructed AECOM to be Flood and Water Management consultants to independently assess the applicant’s Flood Risk Assessment. Following a request for further information and a meeting held with the flood risk consultants for this planning application, AECOM concluded that the proposed attenuation pond would provide betterment and was a sound approach to managing the flood risk from the developments with the detail to be finalised at detailed design stage.

6.4.4 The Environment Agency has also commented on the application and has highlighted the importance of the attenuation feature to manage the flood risk and drainage of the proposed residential development on the adjacent land. It is stated that this developments should only proceed if the attenuation feature is provided, unless it is replaced by another storage facility elsewhere. This emphasises the importance of the provision of the attenuation feature if permission is granted for only one application for residential development on nearby land. The opportunity to achieve betterment is also seen as a significant positive which can only be achieved through granting planning permission for the attenuation pond. The Lead Local Flood Authority also states that putting surface water into a balancing lagoon appears a

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 logical approach to managing flood risk. Without the provision of the attenuation pond the surface water would continue to the surface water sewer/culverted watercourses (the Daisy Brook) which runs to the west of the site and is known to flood.

6.4.5 The final details of the attenuation pond are to be agreed however it is considered that a design can be achieved which will not increase flood risk elsewhere and will also be sensitive to the location within a Local Nature Reserve. The application would accord with the NPPF where Paragraph 100 states that development should be made safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

6.5 Ecology

6.5.1 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust (NWT), following the submission of an updated Ecological Appraisal, withdrew its original holding objection to the proposal. NWT highlights the importance of protecting the Smithurst Meadow Local Nature Reserve and supports the advice contained within the Ecological Appraisal which recommends maximising the value of the ‘landscape biodiversity feature’.

6.5.2 An Ecology Report and Management Plan 2015 – 2020 has since been completed as well as an updated Ecological Appraisal which includes the application site. The Ecological Appraisal identifies that the application site comprises amenity grassland with a large fenced off area where trees have recently been planted. The Ecology Appraisal concludes that no protected or notable species were recorded on the site however the scattered trees and scrub provide foraging and nesting habitat for birds and therefore any vegetation clearance including tree, shrub or hedgerow removal, should be timed to avoid the bird breeding season, which runs from March to September (inclusive). Whilst the development proposal does not propose work to the existing brook which runs through the site, habitats within the brook provide potential for water vole and white-clawed crayfish. Therefore, it is recommended that a water vole survey and a survey for white-clawed crayfish is undertaken prior to works going ahead and based on the outcome of the survey a suitable mitigation strategy may be required to avoid any detrimental impacts on the local population. Conditions ensuring the protection of nesting birds and the adherence to good construction practice in relation to protection for species including amphibians and badgers are also recommended.

6.5.3 Provided the surveys are undertaken and adequate mitigation is put in place, in accordance with the advice of the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust and the Ecological Appraisal, it is considered that the attenuation feature would not be harmful to any protected species or habitats and the final design of the attenuation feature can provide ecological benefits. In accordance with the NPPF it is considered that significant harm to biodiversity can be avoided and adequate mitigation measures can be put in place.

6.5.4 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust did raise concerns that the drainage pond could be viewed as an engineered built structure. However, the final design can ensure that the proposal is in keeping with the landscape and maximise the wildlife benefits of the scheme. This will also be achieved through carefully selected planting. With regards to public access, the current area of trees is surrounded by fencing which prevents public access. It is considered that the attenuation feature can be designed

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 to facilitate public access and act as a feature which forms part of the Local Nature Reserve which people can enjoy.

7 Summary

7.1 It is considered that the attenuation feature can be designed to form a feature within the existing open space and Local Nature Reserve which will have ecological and landscape benefits and that adequate mitigation can be put in place for the loss of the existing immature plantation woodland and to address any impact on existing ecology. The attenuation feature can also form part of the existing open space.

7.2 The attenuation feature forms an important part of the drainage strategy for the adjoining residential schemes. This applies even if only one of the proposed developments is granted planning permission and it is considered that betterment can be achieved through diverting surface water away from the surface water sewer/culverted watercourses (the Daisy Brook) which runs to the west of the site and is known to flood.

7.3 Therefore, it is concluded that the proposal would accord with national and local planning policy, the proposal is necessary for the proposed residential developments on the adjacent land and that any potential impact on the Local Nature Reserve can be adequately mitigated.

Recommendation

The Committee is asked to RESOLVE that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbered 002 ‘Site Location Plan SUDS feature’ received by the Local Planning Authority on 9 January 2015.

3. Notwithstanding the approved site plan, no development shall take place until a detailed design of the balancing pond has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency. The detailed design must demonstrate that it is correctly sized to incorporate the additional flows from any adjacent additional residential development that may be granted planning permission under reference 15/0010/FUL or any subsequent or related permission. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of any dwellings constructed pursuant to any planning permission granted for new housing development on adjacent land. The scheme to be submitted shall demonstrate that:

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

- The balancing pond is designed in accordance with CIRIA C697 and C687 or the National SUDs Standard, should the latter be in force when the detailed design of the surface water drainage system is undertaken.

- Limiting the surface water discharge rate arising from new housing development on adjacent land that may be approved under planning reference 15/00010/FUL or any subsequent or related permission generated by all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 30% (for climate change) critical rain storm to Greenfield rates for the site.

- Details of how the on-site surface water drainage systems shall be maintained and managed after completion and for the lifetime of the development, to ensure long term operation to design parameters.

4. No development shall take place until a detailed landscaping and planting scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include the following details:

The approved scheme shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the agreed details.

6. No development shall commence until a Water Vole survey and a Native Crayfish survey, details of any required mitigation proposals and a timetable for implementation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reasons

1. In accordance 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. For the avoidance of doubt.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

3. To prevent the increased risk of flooding; to improve and protect water quality; to improve habitat and amenity; and to ensure the future maintenance of the sustainable drainage structures in accordance with Policies E26 and E27 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) and Policy 1 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014).

4. To ensure a satisfactory standard of external appearance which will protect and enhance the Local Nature Reserve and in accordance with the aims of Policy E16 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) and Policies 10, 16 and 17 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014).

5. To ensure a satisfactory standard of external appearance which will protect and enhance the Local Nature Reserve and in accordance with the aims of Policy E16 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) and Policies 10, 16 and 17 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014).

6. To safeguard protected species and in accordance with the aims of Policy 17 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014).

Notes to Applicant

1. The Council has acted positively and proactively in the determination of this application in line with the guidance contained within paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, by communicating with the agent during the course of the application.

2. Greasley Public Footpath Number 53 runs through the site. The footpath should remain open and unobstructed at all times. If a temporary closure of the footpath is required Nottinghamshire County Council’s Countryside Access Team must be contracted at least 5 weeks before to allow for a Temporary Closure Order to be put in place. Nottinghamshire County Council can be contacted on 0300 500 8080.

3. Vegetation clearance should be avoided during the bird breeding season of March-August inclusive.

4. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area which may contain unrecorded coal mining related hazards. If any coal mining feature is encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to The Coal Authority on 0845 762 6848. Further information is also available on The Coal Authority website at www.coal.decc.gov.uk. Property specific summary information on past, current and future coal mining activity can be obtained from The Coal Authority's Property Search Service on 0845 762 6848 or at www.groundstability.com.

Background papers Application case file

Photo

Land off Thorn Drive and west of The Pastures, Giltbrook Enhanced drainage/biodiversity attenuation storage infrastructure works common to application reference 15/00010/FUL & 15/00033/REG3 to ensure direct downstream discharge of surface water from the new proposed developments to the existing watercourse

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 Scale: 1: 1,250 Directorate of Legal and Planning Services

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 Report of the Director of Legal and Planning Services

15/00010/FUL CONSTRUCT 67 No. DWELLINGS (REVISED SCHEME – 92/00730/FUL) LAND OFF ACORN AVENUE GILTBROOK NOTTINGHAM NG16 2UF

The planning application is also linked to the application (15/00018/REG3) to provide an ‘enhanced drainage/biodiversity attenuation storage’ as it forms part of the drainage/ flooding management plan for the development.

1 Details of the application

1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the construction of 67 dwellings at land adjacent to an existing residential development within the larger Smithurst Road development, Giltbrook. This is a resubmission of an application granted permission in 1993 for 107 houses and garages (reference 92/00730/FUL). This permission was implemented soon after the granting of planning permission, with the developer building 44 of the properties which have subsequently been sold and occupied. This permission is therefore extant and can be completed at any point without the need for any further planning permission. The developers also obtained the Building Regulations approval required to build all the properties and as such could build the remaining houses without any further approvals being required by the Council.

1.2 At the time the existing houses were constructed the developer, Langridge Homes Ltd, also constructed the connecting access road which joins up Acorn Avenue, Alton Drive and partially completed Filbert Drive, the latter two being accessed from Acorn Avenue.

1.3 This current application relates to the remaining 63 dwellings approved under this previous permission, plus an additional four dwellings and consists predominantly of detached four and five bedroom properties, all of which have either detached or integral garages. The differences between the approved plans and this current application relate to minor alterations to the layout, specifically to the south-eastern corner of the site and amendments to the house types and design which have also led to the ability to build the four extra houses proposed.

2 Site and surroundings

2.1 The site comprises approximately 2.39 hectares of land within an existing residential area which is currently grassed and has no buildings on it. As this site relates to an extant permission for housing, some works have taken place with the connecting access road which joins the two sections of Acorn Avenue having been completed. Work was also commenced on two roads leading from Acorn Avenue (Alton Drive and Filbert Drive).

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

2.2 It is largely bordered by residential properties to the northern, eastern and southern boundaries. The properties to the south and south east of the site consist of the 44 dwellings constructed under the extant planning permission (92/00730/FUL) by the applicant. These, together with the properties immediately to the north and east, consist largely of detached two storey dwellings with a small number of semi- detached properties. To the west of the site there is an area of open land which is allocated in the Local Plan (2004) as part of a ‘Greenway’ which runs through Giltbrook Farm from Portland Road and is also allocated for the provision of informal open space.

2.3 A closed barrier gate to the north and fencing to the south currently restrict access and through traffic. An existing footpath runs to the west, from which access can be gained into the application site. A public footpath which connects the two parts of Acorn Avenue runs behind properties on Robina Drive also adjoins the site to the east, where there is a group Tree Preservation Order at the south-eastern tip of the footpath.

2.4 There is a significant change in levels across the site, which slopes upwards from west to east and from south to north. The properties on Robina Drive are 5-6m higher than the properties to the west on Thorn Drive and the properties at one end of Acorn Avenue (numbers 51 and 58) are 3-4m higher than those to the south.

3 Relevant site history

3.1 In 1981 planning permission was granted for development consisting of ‘Use site for residential, industrial, shops and school development’ (79/00666/OUT). This was further supplemented by the granting of outline planning permission for residential, industrial, shopping and school development as part of a comprehensive scheme for the whole of the Giltbrook Farm Estate (81/00566/OUT). These applications established the principle of residential development on the site which has subsequently been developed in a phased manner since this time.

3.2 Planning permission for 107 houses with garages and associated works within a section of this larger site was granted in 1993 (92/00730/FUL). As stated in section 1 of this report, part of this development has been built out and as such the

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 permission is extant and could be built as approved at any point in the future without the need for any planning permission.

3.3 In 2006 planning permission (06/00967/FUL) was refused for the substitution of house types for 63 dwellings previously approved and alterations to the internal road layout. The reasons for refusal stated:

1 – The proposed residential development provides a low-density scheme, insufficient to meet the requirements of PPS3 and Policy H6 of the Broxtowe Local Plan and represents an inefficient use of land. In addition the development proposes fail to provide a satisfactory variety of housing types contrary to Policy H3 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004).

2 – The applicant has failed to provide the necessary information on the level changes of the site and subsequently there is a lack of detail to assess the impact of the proposal on the occupiers of the neighbouring properties and the amenity of occupiers of future residents within the site. The proposal is accordingly contrary to local plan policy H7.

4 Policy Context

4.1 National policy

4.1.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) contains a general presumption in favour of sustainable development whereby planning permission should be granted unless permitting the development significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits. It outlines 12 core planning principles which should underpin the planning system, including that planning should be plan-led, that high quality design and a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants should be secured, full account should be taken of flood risk, the natural environment should be conserved and enhanced, developments should be located in sustainable locations and effective use of brownfield land should be made. It also outlines that the Government’s key housing objective is to increase significantly the delivery of new homes, and states that there should be a wide choice of high quality homes within safe and accessible environments. Applicants are encouraged to work with the local community to achieve this aim.

4.1.2 A greater emphasis is placed on economic considerations and the NPPF advises that planning authorities should take account of market signals, such as land prices and housing affordability. Where a need for affordable housing has been identified, the NPPF advises that this should be provided on site unless off-site provision or a financial contribution can be robustly justified.

4.1.3 In relation to assessing the highway impacts of a proposal, the NPPF states that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts are severe.

4.1.4 In regard to the provision of housing, the Framework states that applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 deliverable housing sites. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should set out their own approach for housing density to reflect local circumstances.

4.1.5 Paragraph 94 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, taking full account of flood risk, costal change and water supply and demand considerations. Paragraph 99 states that new development should be planned to avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change. When new development is brought forward in areas which are vulnerable, care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaptation measures.

4.1.6 Paragraph 100 states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

4.1.7 Paragraph 103 outlines how, when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site- specific flood risk assessment following the Sequential Test, and if required the Exception Test, it can be demonstrated that:

• within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; and • development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe access and escape routes where required, and that any residual risk can be safely managed, including by emergency planning and it gives priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems.

4.1.8 The NPPF advises that impacts on biodiversity should be minimised and that, if significant harm cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused.

4.1.9 Paragraphs 203 – 206 of the NPPF advise on planning obligations and states that obligations must be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, be directly related to the development, fairly and reasonably related in terms of scale and kind to the development. In addition, paragraph 205 of the NPPF advises that where seeking obligations, local authorities need to take into account changes in market conditions over time and be flexible so as to prevent development stalling on such matters.

4.2 Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy

4.2.2 ‘Policy 1: Climate Change’ sets out how climate change will be tackled and adapted to and sets requirements for sustainable design of buildings. It states that

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 development should demonstrate how carbon dioxide emissions have been minimised. It states that development will be supported that adopts the precautionary principle, that avoids areas of current and future flood risk which, individually or cumulatively, does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere and, where possible, reduces flood risk. It replicates the approach to development in flood zones outlined in the NPPF and seeks the inclusion of Sustainable Urban Drainage systems within new development where viable and technically feasible.

4.2.4 ‘Policy 8: Housing Mix and Choice’ sets out the approach to ensuring that new housing development includes an appropriate mix of housing types, sizes and tenures. It sets out the approach to affordable housing and establishes a 30 per cent target for Broxtowe Borough.

4.2.5 ‘Policy 10: Design and Enhancing Local Identity’ sets design and layout principles to be applied to new development and looks to ensure that valued local characteristics are reinforced.

4.2.6 ‘Policy 16: Green Infrastructure, Parks and Open Spaces’ sets out a strategic approach to the provision of new Green Infrastructure.

4.2.7 ‘Policy 17: Biodiversity’ sets out the approach to biodiversity and how development affecting biodiversity assets should be considered. It states that designated sites will be protected in line with the hierarchy of designations.

4.2.8 ‘Policy 18: Infrastructure’ seeks to ensure new development is provided with the necessary infrastructure. It is based on an Infrastructure Delivery Plan that has been prepared to support the Aligned Core Strategy. This includes infrastructure requirements and viability information.

4.2.9 ‘Policy 19: Developer Contributions’ confirms the current use of section 106 agreements.

4.3 Saved Policies of the Broxtowe Local Plan

4.3.2 Policy E24 ‘Trees, hedgerows and Tree Preservation Orders’ states that development that would adversely affect important trees and hedgerows will not be permitted.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 4.3.3 Policy E26 ‘Pollution’ states planning permission will not be granted for development which would result in a significant deterioration in air quality, significant loss of health or amenity to nearby occupants or surface water contamination.

4.3.4 Policy E27 ‘Protection of Groundwater’ states planning permission will not be granted for development which would be liable to result in the infiltration of contaminants into groundwater resources unless mitigation measures are proposed.

4.3.5 Policy E29 ‘Contaminated Land’ states development of land which may be contaminated will not be permitted unless a site investigation (using a method agreed in writing with the Council) has been carried out; details of remedial measures have been approved by the local planning authority and the relevant consultation bodies; there will be no significant risk to the health and safety of occupants of the development and there will be no contamination of any surface water, ground water or adjacent land.

4.3.6 Policy H5 ‘Affordable Housing’ states that on housing sites of over 1 hectare or over 25 dwellings, the Council will seek to ensure that at least 25% of dwellings built will be affordable or, exceptionally, that a financial contribution will be made to enable the provision of an equivalent amount of affordable housing off site.

4.3.7 Policy H6 ‘Density of Housing Development provides density requirements for residential development: where development is within 400m walking distance of frequent public transport services a minimum density of 40 dwellings per hectare is required and if the distance is beyond 400m, 35 dwellings per hectare.

4.3.8 Policy T1 ‘Developers’ Contributions to Integrated Transport Measures’ states that planning permission for developments which generate a demand for travel will not be granted until a contribution towards transport infrastructure has been negotiated.

4.3.9 Policy T11 ‘Guidance for Parking Provision’ and Appendix 4 to the Local Plan require satisfactory provision of vehicle parking and servicing, in accordance with the latest standards.

4.3.10 Policy RC6 ‘Open Space: Requirements for New Developments’: Provision should be made for public open space and children’s play areas on residential development sites which exceed 0.5 hectares. The design of any open space provision should take into account the possible provision of features beneficial to wildlife.

4.3.11 Policy RC14 ‘Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycle Routes’ states that Council will protect, maintain and where appropriate seek to extend the network of footpaths, bridleways and cycle routes in the borough.

5 Consultations

5.1 Nottinghamshire County Council as Highways Authority has no objection as there will be no material impact of the development on adjacent roads and the proposals have already been approved previously. Conditions are recommended relating to the submission of detailed plans for the proposed roads, the use of a hard bound

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 material on driveways and parking and turning areas, the provision of wheel washing facilities on the site, adequate pedestrian visibility splays and adequate drainage to prevent unregulated discharge of surface water onto the public highway. A contribution of £76,480 is requested towards integrated transport measures.

5.2 Nottinghamshire County Council’s Area Rights of Way Officer has stated that public footpaths should not be affected or obstructed in any way be the proposed development unless subject to appropriate diversion or closure orders. It was confirmed that the proposed path surface materials are acceptable.

5.3 Nottinghamshire County Council, as education authority, has commented that the development would yield an additional 14 primary and 11 secondary school places. They therefore seek a contribution of £350,230 (14 x £11,455 for primary provision and 11 x £17,260 for secondary provision) to help provide these places. They also comment that the development would impact on local library services and seek a contribution of £3,064 towards the additional stock that would be required.

5.4 Nottinghamshire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) provided comments specifically in respect of the adjacent land subject to application 15/00033/REG3 however as part of this process reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment which forms part of this application. The LLFA state that putting surface water into a balancing lagoon appears a logical approach however raises concerns regarding the existing flooding problems for properties to the north west of the site.

5.5 The Environment Agency state no objection subject to the balancing pond, subject to planning application reference 15/00018/REG3 being put in place and the inclusion of conditions relating to the submission of a detailed surface water drainage scheme to prevent an increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, to improve habitat and amenity and to ensure the future maintenance of the sustainable drainage structures. In additional comments provided, the Environment Agency state that if the balancing pond is not granted approval and is not replaced by another storage facility elsewhere, it would object to the proposal.

5.6 Severn Trent Water has no objection provided conditions are included requiring drainage plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

5.7 The Coal Authority has no objection subject to the identified remedial measures being carried out and a note to applicant highlighting that the site lies within an area which may contain potential coal mining hazards any intrusive works will require a Coal Authority Permit.

5.8 The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has no objection subject to a condition requiring an investigate survey of the site to be carried out to identify if contamination is present and for any necessary remedial measures to be completed prior to any buildings being brought into use.

5.9 The Council’s Parks and Environment Manager makes comments in respect of the species of trees proposed and the importance of trees and hedgerows to be retained and the surfacing of the public footpath.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

5.10 The Council’s Tree Officer states no objection however requires some further investigation to establish the future viability of Ash trees protected by TPO/NEW/04 in a residential setting.

5.11 The Council’s Director of Housing, Leisure and Property Services raises no objections to the proposal.

5.12 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust states that it generally accepts the findings of the updated ecological report and highlights that the site does have biodiversity and ecological value potential for nesting birds, invertebrates and small mammals. It recommends that sensitive choice of species for landscaping are used to improve the wildlife value for the development and bat and bird boxes should be integrated within the development. It is also recommended that no site clearance work should take place during the breeding season (March to August inclusive) to protect nesting birds.

5.13 Greasley Parish Council raises concerns regarding existing traffic congestion and states that the development would introduce more traffic. It is also stated that, whilst there is an existing planning permission, this did not take into account the application for 34 affordable houses on the adjacent land or the 57 houses recently completed on the Giltbrook Dyers and Cleaners Site. The development should not proceed without funds for the provision of traffic mitigation measures.

5.14 Councillor Rowland has highlighted the existing flood risk problems experienced by residents on Thorn Drive and Gorse Close. He has also commented that there are already problems caused by on-street parking on both sides of Acorn Avenue which makes it difficult for refuse and emergency vehicles. Damage to parked vehicles is a common occurrence and this further development will exacerbate the problem and raise fears over safety and access. Consideration should be given to the timing of building works.

5.15 To publicise the application, 51 residential properties were consulted, two site notices were posted around the site’s perimeter and an advertisement was placed in the Nottingham Evening Post. Thirteen letters of objection were received and two letters in support of the application. The comments received raise the following issues:

Principle • Excessive number of dwellings • Losing greenfield land • Alternative sites are available • Buildings excessive in bulk and scale

Amenity • Overlooking/loss of privacy • Overshadowing/loss of light • Sense of enclosure • Noise and disturbance

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 Highways and access • Extra traffic, on street parking demand and congestion already causing issues on the surrounding streets • Local road infrastructure is inadequate • Inadequate access

Other Issues • Loss of view • Will make existing flooding problems worse through building on undeveloped land • Inaccurate information submitted within the application • Increase in number of local children needing a recreation facility. • Area does not have the necessary infrastructure to support the development, no shops and schools/doctors/dentists • Devalue properties • Disruption to foundations • Loss of wildlife/ natural area

6 Appraisal

6.1 The site has had permission to be used for residential development since 1993, with an extant permission for 109 dwellings of which 46 have already been built and occupied. The owners of the site however wish to revisit the layout of the development and update the house types. The main considerations with the application therefore are: the design and layout; density and housing mix; flooding; impact on protected trees; traffic; and amenity for future occupants and existing residents.

6.2 Design and layout

6.2.1 The layout shows a total of 67 dwellings, which when subtracting the number of homes already constructed under the extant permission (92/00730/FUL) results in an increase of four dwellings. The increase in numbers has been achieved through minor revisions to the layout and changes in house type. The internal layout of the scheme consists of a roadway with two roads leading from this with turning heads to serve the proposed dwellings.

6.2.2 The majority of the dwellings face onto and have their access either from Acorn Avenue or the internal roads (shown as Filbert Drive ‘Road K’ and Alton Drive ‘Road L). Plots 220-225 and plots 248-250 are served from private drives. The layout forms a continuation of the completed housing development on Acorn Avenue and will therefore be similar in terms of form and character which is considered to be suitable for this area.

6.2.3 Some of the properties have detached garages, whilst others have internal garages with all the properties being set back behind either front gardens, driveways or a combination of the two. There are variations in the size of the houses, the roof design and in the brick and fenestration detailing. It is considered that the style of housing proposed would be in keeping with the existing houses constructed on Acorn Avenue and appear appropriate in design terms for this predominantly residential area. 75

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

6.3 Density and housing mix

6.3.1 Policy H6 ‘Density of Housing Development’ provides density requirements for residential development. Where development is within a 400m walking distance of frequent public transport services, a minimum density of 40 dwellings per hectare is required and if the distance is beyond 400m, 35 dwellings per hectare is required. The proposal equates to a net density of approximately 28 dwellings per hectare, which is below this figure. However, it is considered that the housing density proposed does reflect the density of the surrounding area, particularly the completed element of the housing scheme on Acorn Avenue, and reflects the density of the principle established through the existing permission. There are also level differences within the site that the proposals have to take into account to ensure that there is no privacy or overbearing impact. It should also be noted that Paragraph 47 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should set out their own approach for housing density to reflect local circumstances. It is acknowledged that a planning application for the site was refused (06/00967/FUL) based on it failing to meet the density requirements of PPS3 and Policy H6 of the Broxtowe Local Plan. However, the policy position has since advanced with the NPPF having since replaced PPS3. In this case it is considered that the housing density successfully reflects local circumstances and therefore would accord with the NPPF and with Policy 8 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy. Due to this it is considered that a refusal could no longer be justified based on density.

6.3.2 With regards to the housing mix, whilst the application proposes primarily four and five bedroomed detached houses, there is a mix of house types in the locality including smaller houses on the former Giltbrook Dyers and Cleaners site, bungalows on Thorn Drive and larger detached houses on Acorn Avenue. The proposal will provide family housing in an existing residential area and it is considered that approval of the development will not adjust the supply of housing in the area to the detriment of certain household sizes. The proposed housing mix is therefore considered to be acceptable.

6.4 Amenity

6.4.1 Garden lengths vary throughout the development from plot 220 which has a garden size ranging between 7m and 13m to plot 197 which has a garden length in excess of 17m. All of the proposed gardens are considered to be sufficiently sized to provide adequate outdoor amenity space for prospective occupiers of the houses. The houses with the longest gardens (plots 194 to 205) are positioned where the level changes within the site are more acute. These houses will be at a higher level than those on the adjacent land where affordable housing is proposed. It is considered that the longer gardens will protect the privacy of both occupiers of houses subject to this application and the occupiers of houses on the adjacent land subject to the separate planning application. The distances are considered more than adequate to protect the amenity of dwellings on Thorn Drive if the separate application for 34 dwellings is refused or not implemented.

6.4.2 There is concern from existing residents on Acorn Avenue, The Pastures, Robina Drive and Juniper Court that the proposed development will overlook their properties, will be overbearing and cause overshadowing. Along the southern

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 boundary of the application site the proposed houses have garden lengths in excess of 10m. Houses along the southern boundary also have garden lengths in excess of 10m. It is considered that these distances are adequate to prevent a loss of amenity to the existing houses on the south side of Acorn Avenue.

6.4.3 Along the eastern boundary there are existing houses on Robina Drive and Juniper Court. These houses have smaller gardens than those on Acorn Avenue ranging in 6m to 9m in length. The back to back distance from the rear of the proposed houses to the original rear wall is 17m. This is considered to be on the limit of what would be considered to be acceptable without an unacceptable level of overlooking or the development being overbearing on existing occupiers. If plots numbered 222, 223, 224, 225, 248, 249 or 250 were to be extended at a later date this distance could be reduced. This would potentially lead to an unacceptable loss of amenity to the occupiers of properties on Robina Drive and Juniper Court. It is therefore considered justified to remove permitted development rights for the plots stated above so future extensions can be controlled so as not to be overbearing on the occupiers of existing properties. There will be a significant change in view from existing residents which currently look onto open space. However, taking into account the extant permission for housing which can be implemented, and as loss of view is not a material planning consideration, it is considered that this would not be a reason for refusal.

6.4.4 Along the northern boundary the development borders properties on Acorn Avenue and, on the north western corner of the site, The Pastures. With regards to Acorn Avenue, the proposed houses have a minimum garden length of 15m. Existing houses on Acorn Avenue have a minimum garden length of 9m. From assessing the relationship between the existing and proposed houses it is considered that due to the distances and the positioning of the proposed houses that a loss of amenity will not occur to occupiers of houses on Acorn Avenue. Where the distance between houses is not as long, for example between plot 220 and 23-25 Acorn Avenue, the existing properties will face towards the side elevation. The distance (15m) is considered to be acceptable so that the proposed house is not overbearing and any windows proposed at first floor level are shown to be obscure glazed to prevent a loss of privacy occurring. Proposed houses in the north western corner of the site have gardens 13m in length. There are back-to-back distances from original elevation walls in excess of 20m. Due to this distance it is considered that a loss of amenity will not occur to existing houses on The Pastures.

6.5 Flood risk

6.5.1 There have been historical instances of flooding in the area, in particular the summer of 2013 where there were two events where a number of properties on Thorn Drive and Gorse Close were flooded internally. The application site is positioned at a higher level than both the adjoining site where affordable housing is proposed and at a higher level than properties on Thorn Drive.

6.5.2 A joint Flood Risk Assessment has been produced for this application and for the application for affordable housing on the adjoining site. The Flood Risk Assessment assesses existing flood risk and proposes a scheme for managing flood and drainage water for the two sites. An application has been submitted on a parcel of land to the south west of the site which forms part of the Smithurst Meadows Local

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 Nature Reserve for a ‘enhanced drainage/biodiversity attenuation storage’ (15/00018/REG3). It is argued that this will provide betterment through passing the surface water drainage through the proposed water attenuation pond which will return flows back to the greenfield runoff rate for this site and for the affordable housing scheme. This will remove the adjacent site catchment from the surface water sewer network which is known to flood. To further reduce flood risk, floor levels are proposed to be set a minimum of 150mm above the surrounding external levels and sub-surface attenuation tanks will be provided to reduce and prevent flooding from the existing sewer network.

6.5.3 To assess the proposed drainage and flood risk strategy the Council instructed AECOM, as independent Flood and Water Management consultants, to assess the Flood Risk Assessment. Following a request for further information and a meeting held with the flood risk consultants for this planning application, AECOM concluded that the proposed development is at low risk of flooding and should not increase the level of risk posed to third parties. It is also considered that viable SuDS solutions are available and this detail could be finalised at detailed design stage.

6.5.4 AECOM identified that the land on which the now withdrawn affordable housing is proposed may be required for future flood mitigation to manage existing flooding problems although did not identify any problems in terms of the flood mitigation scheme proposed for this application which will be dependent on the provision of the drainage attenuation pond. Whilst the flooding issues on the adjoining land have been considered in further detail within the other reports, it is considered, in line with the advice from AECOM, that an adequate drainage strategy could be developed even if the adjacent land is not now developed.

6.5.5 Nottinghamshire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment and did not raise any specific concerns with regards to this application. The Environment Agency state no objection on the basis that measures should be put in place to ensure that the balancing pond (planning application reference 15/00018/REG3) is built and maintained for the lifetime of the development and a condition relating to a ‘surface water drainage scheme’ for the site is included in any permission. Severn Trent has no objection to the application subject to a condition relating to the management of surface water and foul sewage drainage.

6.5.6 Based on the comments provided by AECOM and by statutory consultees, it is considered that for this application, an adequate drainage and flood management scheme can be implemented to ensure, in accordance with paragraph 103 of the NPPF, that the development is appropriately flood resilient and will not increase flood risk elsewhere.

6.6 Access and traffic

6.6.1 A number of concerns have been raised by local residents regarding traffic generation from the scheme, existing on-street parking issues and the junction capacity at Nottingham Road.

6.6.2 Nottinghamshire County Council as Highways Authority has been consulted on the application and, having regard to the extant permission, does not consider that there would be any material impact on the adjacent roads. Paragraph 32 of the

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. Whilst the development is likely to increase the existing traffic levels on Acorn Avenue, it is not considered that the addition of four extra dwellings above that which already has consent will exacerbate any existing traffic problems in the area to an extent which would be considered ‘severe’.

6.6.3 All of the properties have a minimum of two parking spaces, with some having several spaces within their plots. Whilst a household may have more than two vehicles, it is common for vehicles to park on the street and it is for the owner of that vehicle to park in a manner in which cars can pass. The Highways Authority has not raised any objection with the parking provision across the site.

6.7 Trees

6.7.1 The site has a group trees subject to a group Tree Preservation Order within the south-eastern corner of the site, adjacent to plot 251. The trees are proposed to be retained and the Council’s Tree Officer states no objection however requires some further investigation to establish the future viability of Ash trees protected by TPO/NEW/04 in a residential setting. The Council’s Parks and Environment Manager made comments in respect of the species of trees proposed and the importance of trees and hedgerows to be retained. As no harm has been identified to the trees it is considered that the application is acceptable in respect of trees and further details with regards to the species of trees proposed can be included as part of a detailed landscape scheme.

6.8 Land contamination and stability

6.8.1 The Coal Authority has no objection subject to a condition which requires site investigation work prior to development commencing. The Coal Authority states that the application site falls within the defined Development High Risk Area and refers to the Geoenvironmental Appraisal Report which accompanies the planning application. The Coal Authority concurs with the recommendations of the Geoenvironmental Appraisal Report that site investigation works need to be carried out and remedial works, if required, need to be carried out prior to work commencing on the site.

6.8.2 The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has no objection subject to a condition requiring an investigate survey of the site to be carried out to identify if contamination is present and for any necessary remedial measures to be completed prior to any buildings being brought into use. With the inclusion of this condition it is considered that the application would accord with Local Plan Policy E29.

6.9 Other matters

6.9.1 A public footpath runs along the rear (western boundary) of properties on Robina Drive (public footpath number 55) and through the site (public footpath number 54). Following clarification regarding the proposed surfacing materials, Nottinghamshire County Council’s Area Rights of Way Officer has stated no objection provided that the public footpaths are not affected or obstructed in any way be the proposed development unless subject to appropriate diversion or closure orders.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

6.9.2 The Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust commented that no ecological information had been submitted and it therefore objected to the development. An ecological survey has since been submitted which states that the site has no significance for badgers, otters, water voles, reptiles, breeding or sheltering great crested newts or roosting bats. It also states that the site remains of very limited significance for breeding birds and that the development site in isolation is not likely to be of significance for foraging bats. It recommends that habitats would be enhanced through the appropriate use of native tree and shrub species and that if site clearance works are proposed during nesting season then prior inspections of the affected habitats should be undertaken to ensure that no active nests are present. No other mitigation measures are recommended. Enhancements are recommended through the provision of bat roosting boxes and bird nesting boxes.

6.10 Section 106 Agreement

6.10.1 There is no on-site affordable housing currently proposed with the application. This is the case with the extant permission and, due to the age of the permission, there was no financial requirement for the deliverance of a commuted sum to this end. However, with an aim of bringing forward housing sites for development the Council had agreed in principle with the developers to build out this site and another at Gin Close Way in Awsworth (15/00011/FUL) with a similar density and housing mix previously approved, with no affordable permission, subject to the transfer of a parcel of land with a road, sewers and landscaping for residential development by the Council and a community housing provider on the land adjacent to this site. This was the subject of the now-withdrawn application reference 15/00033/REG3.

6.10.2 The 67 dwellings proposed here and 55 at Gin Close Way total 122. 25% of this figure, as advocated within Local Plan Policy, and the figure for affordable housing provision would be 30.5 dwellings. The provision of affordable housing would be left to detailed S106 negotiations.

6.10.3 Contributions are also requested in respect of education and for integrated highway measures. Heads of Terms were not submitted as part of this planning application and it is recommended that the Head of Neighbourhoods and Prosperity is given delegated authority to negotiate acceptable contributions to the scheme. In the event that the S106 contributions are not compliant with policy, this will be reported to the Council’s Cabinet.

6.10.4 Adjacent land will be available for possible flood mitigation measures in line with the recommendations of the LLFA and AECOM. This will allow the Council to enter into discussions with the owner of this land, Langridge Homes Ltd, to negotiate the transfer of this land to the Council with the objective of delivering flood mitigation measures on this land should this be the required solution following detailed investigations by the LLFA.

7 Conclusion

7.1 In conclusion and having regard to all comments and objections and the relevant national and local plan policy, it is considered that this proposal would be an acceptable use of a site within an existing built up area to provide further residential

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 accommodation. It is considered, having regard to all material considerations, including the extant planning permission on the land, that the scheme is acceptable in regard to its design, scale and layout and that there would be no detriment to the prevailing character of development in the area, or loss of privacy for existing residents that would lead to any alternative conclusion. Provided the balancing pond, subject to a separate planning application, is provided and a detailed drainage scheme is submitted, it is considered that the application would not be refusable on flood risk grounds.

7.2 Other financial contributions will be subject to further negotiations with the applicant and if contributions are less than normal policy requirements this will be reported to Cabinet in the normal manner.

Recommendation

The Committee is asked to RESOLVE that: a) The Head of Neighbourhoods and Prosperity be given delegated authority to grant planning permission for application 15/00010/FUL subject to prior completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the conditions set out below.

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings numbered 161 Revision F ‘Layout’ and 162 Revision C ‘Insert’ received by the Local Planning Authority on 27 March 2015 and drawings numbered: DA/2007 Revision P; N2/2006 Revision J; E20/2010 Revision T; S20/2010 Revision J; T3/2007/35 Revision H; T20/2010 Revision K: KA/2006 Revision K; K6A/2006 Revision Q; E18HA/2010/35 Revision G; B5/2007/35 Revision D; C7AB/2007 Revision M; A1/2006 Revision G; and K5/2006/35 received by the Local Planning Authority on 7 January 2015 and drawings numbered: Garage/DG/2/88s/B Revision A; Garage/DG/2006/B/35 Revision A; Garage/DG/2006/B Revision A; Garage/A/2006/B/35 Revision A; Garage/E/30 Revision A; and Garage/A/2006/B Revision A received by the Local Planning Authority on 12 January 2015. 3. No building operations shall be carried out until details of the manufacturer, type and colour of the materials to be used in the facing walls and roofs, details of the colour of the rainwater goods, and the colour and location of the external meter cupboards have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be constructed only in accordance with those details.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

4. No part of the development hereby approved shall be commenced until the coal mining remedial works, as recommended in the Geoenvironmental Appraisal Report (March 2013) and the Interim Report on the Geological/ Mining Position of Giltbrook Farm Site, Eastwood, Nottingham (November 1979, K. Wardell and Partners) as annotated on the accompanying drawing (K. Wardell and Partners, Drawing No. 10/3176/1 have been implemented in full to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

5. (a) No part of the development hereby approved shall be commenced until an investigative survey of the site has been carried out and a report submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The survey must have regard for any potential ground and water contamination, the potential for gas emissions and any associated risk to the public, buildings and/or the environment. The report shall include details of any necessary remedial measures to be taken to address any contamination or other identified problems.

(b) No building to be erected pursuant to this permission shall be first occupied or brought into use until:- i. All the necessary remedial measures have been completed in accordance with the approved details, unless an alternative has first been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; and ii. It has been certified to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the necessary remedial measures have been implemented in full and that they have rendered the site free from risk to human health from the contaminants identified, unless an alternative has first been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

6. No part of the development hereby approved shall commence until a detailed surface water drainage scheme and foul sewage scheme, including details of the attenuation feature subject to planning application 15/00018/REG or an alternative drainage strategy based on sustainable drainage principles, and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to completion of the development. The scheme to be submitted shall demonstrate:

- Surface water drainage system(s) designed in accordance with CIRIA C697 and C687 of the National SUDS Standards, should the latter be in force when the detailed design of the surface water drainage system is undertaken.

- Limiting the discharge rate generated by all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 30% (for climate change) critical rain storm ideally to Greenfield rates for the site but as a minimum not to exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and will not increase the risk of flooding off-site.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 - Provision of surface water run-off attenuation storage in accordance with the requirements specified in ‘Science Report SCO30219 Rainfall Management for Developments’.

- Detailed design (plans, network details and calculations) in support of any surface water drainage scheme, including details on any attenuation system, and the outfall arrangements. Calculations should demonstrate the performance of the designed system for a range of return periods and storm durations inclusive of the 1 in 1 year, 1 in 2 year, 1 in 30 year, 1 in 100 year and 1 in 100 year plus climate change return periods.

7. No part of the development hereby approved shall take place until details of the new roads have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority including longitudinal and cross sectional gradients, street lighting, drainage and outfall proposals, construction specification, provision of and diversion of utilities services and any proposed structural works. Pedestrian visibility splays of 2m x 2m shall be provided on each side of the vehicle access leading to parking spaces and/ or garages. The development shall be implemented in accordance with these details to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

8. No dwelling shall be first occupied unless and until its associated access driveway and/or parking spaces have been constructed to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water from the driveway and/or parking spaces onto the public highway.

9. No part of the development hereby approved shall commence until wheel washing facilities have been installed on the site in accordance with details first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The wheel washing facilities shall be maintained in working order at all times and shall be used by any vehicle carrying mud, dirt or other debris on its wheels before leaving the site so that no debris is discharged or carried onto the public highway. These facilities shall be retained on the site until the substantial completion of construction work.

10. The erection of fencing for the protection of the protected trees shall be undertaken in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 11. No part of the development hereby approved shall take place until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include the following details:

(a) trees, hedges and shrubs to be retained and measures for their protection during the course of development (b) numbers, types, sizes and positions of proposed trees and shrubs (c) proposed hard surfacing treatment including detailing of the footpaths (d) planting, seeding/turfing of other soft landscape areas (e) proposed boundary treatments including along the external boundaries.

The approved scheme shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details.

12. The approved landscaping shall be carried out not later than the first planting season following which the substantial completion of the development and any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years, die, are removed or have become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with ones of similar size and species to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, unless written consent has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority for a variation.

13. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order) no extension or enlargement (including additions to roofs) within Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, or C shall be made to the following dwellinghouse(s) as shown on drawing number 161 Revision F ‘Layout’: Plots 222, 223, 224, 225, 248, 249 and 250 without the express permission in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons

1. To comply with S91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. For the avoidance of doubt.

3. No such details were submitted and to ensure the development presents a satisfactory standard of external appearance, in accordance with the aims of Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014).

4. In the interests of public health and safety.

5. In the interests of public health and safety and in accordance with Policy E29 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004).

6. To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality; and to ensure the future maintenance of the sustainable drainage structures in accordance with Policy 1 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 7. In the interests of highway safety.

8. In the interests of highway safety to ensure surface water from the site is not deposited on the public highway causing danger to road users

9. In the interests of highway safety.

10. To ensure the existing trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order are not adversely affected and in accordance with Policy E24 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004)

11. To ensure that the details are satisfactory in the interests of the appearance of the area and in accordance with the aims of Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014).

12. To ensure the development presents a more pleasant appearance in the locality and in accordance with the aims of Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014).

13. To protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and in accordance with Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014).

Notes to Applicant

1. The Council has acted positively and proactively in the determination of this application in line with the guidance contained within paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, by communicating with the agent during the course of the application.

2. Conditions 3,4,5,6,7,9 and 11 are required to be pre-commencement conditions as no/insufficient information on those matters was submitted with the application and as those parts of the development cannot proceed satisfactorily without the outstanding matters being agreed in advance of those aspects, respectively, of the development commencing.

3. Any tree works should be undertaken outside of the bird-breeding season (March-September inclusive). If works are to be carried out during this time then a suitably qualified ecologist should be on site to survey for nesting birds. Birds, their nests and eggs (except pest species) are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and as amended).

4. Greasley Footpaths Number 54 and 55 runs through the site. The footpath should remain open and unobstructed at all times. If a temporary closure of the footpath is required Nottinghamshire County Council’s Countryside Access Team must be contacted at least 5 weeks before to allow for a Temporary Closure Order to be put in place. Nottinghamshire County Council can be contacted on 0300 500 8080.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

5. The proposed development lies within an area that has been defined by the Coal Authority as containing potential hazards arising from former coal mining activity. This may result in problems to occur in the future, particularly as a result of the development taking place. Any intrusive activities which disturb or enter any coal seams, coal mine workings or coal mine entries (shafts and adits) requires a Coal Authority Permit. Such activities could include site investigation boreholes, digging of foundations, piling activities, other ground works and any subsequent treatment of coal mine workings and coal mine entries for ground stability purposes.

The applicant should be aware that any intrusive activities and any subsequent treatment require the prior written permission of the Coal Authority. Failure to obtain permission will potentially result in court action. The Coal Authority can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 and further information is provided on https://www.gov.uk/get-a-permit-to-deal-with-a-coal-mine-on- your-property b) If an agreement under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has not been reached by 11th May 2016 (6 months from the date of the Planning Committee) the Head of Neighbourhoods and Prosperity be given delegated authority to refuse planning permission for application 15/00010/FUL on the following grounds:

The applicant has failed to complete a planning obligation in timely fashion that satisfactorily meets the requirements for developer contributions as set out in the Council’s Local Plan and there are no other material considerations that justify treating the proposals as an exception to those requirements.

Background papers Application case file

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

Photo

Land off Acorn Avenue, Giltbrook Construct 67 number dwellings

Planning Committee11 November 2015 Scale: 1: 2,500

Directorate of Legal and Planning Services

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 Report of the Director of Legal and Planning Services

15/00011/FUL CONSTRUCT 55 DWELLINGS LAND AT GIN CLOSE WAY AWSWORTH NOTTINGHAM NG16 2WH

1 Details of the Application

1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the construction of 55 dwellings at land at Gin Close Way, Awsworth. This is a resubmission of an application granted permission in 1987 for 71 houses (reference 87/00562/FUL). This current application seeks amendments to 55 of the original 71 dwellings and largely relates to a change in the house types proposed with some alterations to the layout and positioning of the dwellings. The house types range in size from 3 bedroom properties to 5 bedroom properties and is a similar mix to that approved in 1987.

1.2 The planning application granted as part of the 1987 permission was implemented soon after by the applicants through the commencement of some minor works within the site. This permission is therefore extant and can be completed at any point without the need for any further permission.

1.3 In 2002 planning permission (reference 02/00182/FUL) was granted for a new site access from Gin Close Way and revisions to the layout and house types affecting plots 17-22, 40-42a, 54-56 and 62-65. This application included the revision of 17 dwellings. It should be noted that the current application proposes a further addition to plot number 65. Therefore, a combination of the 2002 planning permission and the current planning application will still result in the provision of 71 dwellings on the site, as per the original consent.

2 Site and Surroundings

2.1 The site comprises approximately 1.85 hectares of land on the edge of the settlement of Awsworth. It is currently grassed with no buildings on it and is used for grazing horses. As this site relates to two extant permissions for housing some works have taken place including the construction of the site access from the roundabout on Gin Close Way.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 2.2 Adjoining the site to the north and east are industrial and commercial properties. To the south along Main Street/Awsworth Lane are residential properties, flats and a single storey community centre. To the west is a new residential development consisting of 14 units which are a mix of houses and flats (Arches Close) and beyond this is the main road into Awsworth. To the north-west is the Awsworth by-pass (A6096).

2.3 There is a mixture of boundary treatments to the site. Along the northern boundary with Gin Close Way there is a low post and rail fence and vegetation. Along the eastern boundary, alongside the boundary with industrial and commercial premises, there is a concrete panel fence and a timber fence, approximately 2m in height. Along the south boundary of the site, there is a mixture of fencing and hedges which form the rear boundary to properties on Main Street/Awsworth Lane. Along the western boundary, next to the new housing development there is a timber boarded fence and vegetation. Along the remainder of the western boundary there is a low post and rail fence.

2.4 The land falls away from south-east to north-west across the site towards Gin Close Way. A footpath (Awsworth No. 14) crosses the site from west to east and would need to be diverted to enable the proposed development to be constructed.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

3 Relevant Site History

3.1 In 1977 (77/00337/OUT) outline planning permission was granted, which established residential use of the site.

3.2 In 1987 (87/00562/FUL) Langridge Homes Ltd was granted planning permission for the construction of 71 dwellings with access from Main Street. The proposal was for a mix of 3, 4 and 5 bedroom properties.

3.3 In 2002 (02/00182/FUL) planning permission was granted to construct a new site access from Gin Close Way, alter the internal road layout and revise plots 17-22, 40- 42a, 54-56 and 62-65.

3.4 Planning permission was refused in 2006 (06/00744/FUL) for alterations to the plots/site layout for the remaining 55 dwellings (the same site area as this current application) for the following reason:

‘The proposed residential development provides a low density scheme, insufficient to meet the requirements of PPS 3 and Policy H6 of the Broxtowe Local Plan and represents an inefficient use of land. In addition the development proposals fail to provide a satisfactory variety of housing types contrary to Policy H3 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004).’

3.5 A further application for 55 dwellings (13/00267/FUL) was submitted in 2013. This was treated as ‘finally disposed of’ by the Council as the drainage concerns seemed unresolved at the time and with no obvious progress towards an agreed solution.

4 Policy Context

4.1 National policy

4.1.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) contains a general presumption in favour of sustainable development whereby planning permission should be granted unless permitting the development significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits. It outlines 12 core planning principles which should underpin the planning system, including that planning should be plan-led, that high quality design and a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants should be secured, full account should be taken of flood risk, the natural environment should be conserved and enhanced, developments should be located in sustainable locations and effective use of brownfield land should be made. It also outlines that the Government’s key housing objective is to increase significantly the delivery of new homes, and states that there should be a wide choice of high quality homes within safe and accessible environments. Applicants are encouraged to work with the local community to achieve this aim.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 local planning authorities should set out their own approach for housing density to reflect local circumstances.

4.1.3 In relation to assessing the highway impacts of a proposal, the NPPF states that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts are severe.

4.1.6 Paragraph 94 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, taking full account of flood risk, costal change and water supply and demand considerations. Paragraph 99 states that new development should be planned to avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change. When new development is brought forward in areas which are vulnerable, care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaptation measures.

4.1.7 Paragraph 100 states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing floor risk elsewhere.

4.1.8 Paragraph 103 outlines how, when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site- specific flood risk assessment following the Sequential Test, and if required the Exception Test, it can be demonstrated that:

4.1.9 The NPPF advises that impacts on biodiversity should be minimised and that, if significant harm cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused.

4.1.10 Paragraphs 203 – 206 of the NPPF refer to planning obligations and state that obligations must be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, be directly related to the development, fairly and reasonably related in terms of scale and kind to the development. In addition, paragraph 205 of the NPPF advises

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 that, where seeking obligations, local authorities need to take into account changes in market conditions over time and be flexible so as to prevent development stalling on such matters.

4.2 Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy

4.2.2 ‘Policy 1: Climate Change’ sets out how climate change will be tackled and adapted to and sets requirements for sustainable design of buildings. It states that development should demonstrate how carbon dioxide emissions have been minimised. It states that development will be supported that adopts the precautionary principle, that avoids areas of current and future flood risk, which, individually or cumulatively does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere and, where possible, reduces flood risk. It replicates the approach to development in flood zones outlined in the NPPF and seeks the inclusion of Sustainable Urban Drainage systems within new development where viable and technically feasible.

4.2.3 ‘Policy 2: The Spatial Strategy’ sets the overarching strategy for how growth in Greater Nottingham will be accommodated and distributed. It sets the required number of homes for Greater Nottingham (GN) between 2011 and 2028 (6150 in the Broxtowe Borough part of GN, of which 3800 are in or adjoining the existing built up area of Nottingham and up to 350 in or adjoining Awsworth) and outlines a settlement hierarchy.

4.2.5 ‘Policy 10: Design and Enhancing Local Identity’ sets design and layout principles to be applied to new development and looks to ensure that valued local characteristics are reinforced.

4.2.6 ‘Policy 16: Green Infrastructure, Parks and Open Spaces’ sets out a strategic approach to the provision of new Green Infrastructure.

4.2.9 ‘Policy 19: Developer Contributions’ confirms the current use of section 106 agreements.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 4.3 Saved Policies of the Broxtowe Local Plan

4.3.2 Policy E24 ‘Trees, hedgerows and Tree Preservation Orders’ states that development that would adversely affect important trees and hedgerows will not be permitted.

4.3.3 Policy E26 ‘Pollution’ states planning permission will not be granted for development which would result in a significant deterioration in air quality, significant loss of health or amenity to nearby occupants or surface water contamination.

4.3.6 Policy E34 ‘Control of Noise Nuisance’ states that planning permission will not be granted for housing if the occupants, even with appropriate mitigation measures, would experience significant noise disturbance.

4.3.7 Policy H5 ‘Affordable Housing’ states that on housing sites of over 1 hectare or over 25 dwellings, the Council will seek to ensure that at least 25% of dwellings built will be affordable or, exceptionally, that a financial contribution will be made to enable the provision of an equivalent amount of affordable housing off site.

4.3.8 Policy H6 ‘Density of Housing Development provides density requirements for residential development: where development is within 400m walking distance of frequent public transport services a minimum density of 40 dwellings per hectare is required and if the distance is beyond 400m, 35 dwellings per hectare.

4.3.9 Policy T1 ‘Developers’ Contributions to Integrated Transport Measures’ states that planning permission for developments which generate a demand for travel will not be granted until a contribution towards transport infrastructure has been negotiated.

4.3.10 Policy T11 ‘Guidance for Parking Provision’ and Appendix 4 to the Local Plan require satisfactory provision of vehicle parking and servicing, in accordance with the latest standards.

4.3.11 Policy RC6 ‘Open Space: Requirements for New Developments’: Provision should be made for public open space and children’s play areas on residential development

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 sites which exceed 0.5 hectares. The design of any open space provision should take into account the possible provision of features beneficial to wildlife.

4.3.12 Policy RC14 ‘Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycle Routes’ states that Council will protect, maintain and where appropriate seek to extend the network of footpaths, bridleways and cycle routes in the borough.

5 Consultations

5.1 Nottinghamshire County Council, as Highway Authority, has no objections in principle to the proposals as there would be no material impact of the development on adjacent roads. Conditions are recommended to ensure that access and parking provision is provided in a satisfactory manner and highway safety is maintained. It is also noted by the Highways Authority that whilst the constructed access from Gin Close Way has been constructed to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority, it has not been adopted as public highway. Therefore, it would not be possible to adopt the roads within the proposed development as public highway until the completed section of road has been adopted or is being considered for adoption by the Highway Authority. Based on the net development area being 1.85ha, a contribution of £59,200 is requested towards integrated transport measures.

5.2 The Environment Agency has no objections to the principle of the development but recommend a number of conditions should planning permission be granted relating to a detailed scheme for surface water drainage, remediation and water contamination. They require the details to prevent an increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, to improve habitat and amenity and to ensure the future maintenance of the sustainable drainage structures.

5.3 Severn Trent Water has no objection to the application subject to a condition relating to the submission of a drainage plan for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage.

5.4 Nottinghamshire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) state that the site is not shown within an area which is susceptible to fluvial or pluvial flooding. However, the LLFA state that a flood routing plan should be provided to show exceedance routes for the surface water drainage system and, although the information provided with the application indicates that the designers are aware of this, the details of how this would be achieved are yet to be provided. The LLFA state that the proposals could potentially increase the risk of flooding to third party properties and local infrastructure and, as it is understood that Broxtowe Borough Council would prefer to issue any planning permission free of additional conditions that would preclude development until drainage conditions were satisfied, the detailed information should be provided prior to determination of the planning application.

5.5 The Council’s Environmental Health Officer raises no objections to the development subject to conditions requiring an investigative survey of the site to identify potential contamination and a scheme to protect proposed dwellings from noise and from road traffic.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 5.6 The Coal Authority do not raise any objections to the proposals, however they recommend that a condition be imposed to ensure that intrusive site investigation works and remedial measures are undertaken prior to the commencement of the development.

5.7 Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust state that it is satisfied with the methodology and conclusions of the Ecology Report. They state that they would wish to see biodiversity enhancements incorporated into the development through the retention and ongoing management of hedgerows and areas of specifies rich grassland. Installation of bird and bat boxes on the new dwellings or suitable mature trees would also enhance the site. They request that the above enhancements are incorporated into a detailed landscape scheme.

5.8 Nottinghamshire County Council, as education authority, has commented that the development would yield an additional 12 primary and 9 secondary school places. They consider that the primary school places can be absorbed in the existing schools but the local secondary schools are at capacity. They therefore seek a contribution of £155,340 (9 x £ 17,260) to help provide these places. They also comment that the development would impact on local library services and seek a contribution of £2,527 towards the additional stock that would be required.

5.9 The Council’s Parks and Environment Manager questions whether the site yields the usual developer contributions due to the age of the extant permission. It is stated that the proposed planting is acceptable, that the hedge to the south of the public right of way should be retained, details regarding the treatment of the public footpath ‘Awsworth 14’ should be approved, and that the Council would not be looking to be responsible for any areas of open or green space which fall outside of property boundaries.

5.10 The Council’s Tree Officer raises no objections to the development, commenting that there are no trees worthy of protection within the site.

5.11 Nottinghamshire County Council’s Rights of Way Officer notes that Awsworth Footpath No. 14 passes through the site and the development would require the diversion of this. She considers that the proposed new route is acceptable and advises that the diversion of the footpath would require a further application and the applicants should discuss this with the Countryside Access Team at an early stage.

5.12 The Council’s Director of Housing raises no objections to the application.

5.13 To publicise the application, 38 properties were consulted, including both residential dwellings and commercial units. Two site notices were posted around the sites perimeter and an advertisement was placed in the Nottingham Evening Post.

5.14 Four representations have been received. one letter was received in support, one raises no objection and two raise objections. The letters which raise objection were received from properties on Main Street. The letters of objection raise the following issues:

• Loss of privacy. • Loss of sunlight and daylight due to the proximity of the proposed development

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 • Increase in noise levels. • Potential damage to properties. • Loss of view.

6 Appraisal

6.1 The site has had permission to be used for residential development since the late 1970s. The 1987 planning permission (reference 87/00562/FUL) for 71 dwellings was commenced and therefore can be completed at any point without the need for any further permission. There is a further extant permission which was granted planning permission in 2002 (reference 02/00182/FUL) which altered the access into the site and the section of the layout around this access, together with updating the house types. The main change from the 1987 planning permission to the development now proposed is the main access to the development is now from Gin Close Way rather than Main Street and minor changes have been made to the internal street layout, to the house types and to the position of the plots.

6.2 The owners of the site now wish to revisit the layout of the wider site and update the house types to ensure that they will comply with building regulations and the current standards the company builds to. Whilst there is an extant permission for development on the site and therefore the principle of residential development has been considered to be acceptable, there have been developments within the surrounding area in the interim period between the granting of the previous permission and today and their impact on the development needs to be considered. There have also been changes to planning policy and legislation which again need to be considered and given appropriate weight in any decision.

6.3 Since the granting of permission in 1987 for 71 dwellings there have been numerous changes within the surrounding area including the demolition of a former bungalow, adjoining the site to the east for the development of 14 dwellings, the construction of the Awsworth by-pass and the change of use of land to the north from a haulage depot to a mixed use including a car wash and valet, car sales, car body repairs, storage and a B2 workshop,

6.4 The main considerations with the application are the design of the properties; the proposed layout; housing mix and density, amenity for existing and proposed residents, flooding issues, noise and contamination and ecology.

6.5 Design and Layout

6.5.1 The layout shows a total of 71 dwellings. However, within the red line there are only 55 dwellings as the remainder of the dwellings were subject to a separate planning application granted in 2002 (reference 02/00182/FUL) which made alterations to house types and to the layout and included a new access from Gin Close Way.

6.5.2 The internal layout of the scheme consists of a roadway with several arms leading from this with turning heads to serve the proposed dwellings. The dwellings, with the exception of plot 23 which is accessed directly from Main Street/ Awsworth Lane, all face onto the internal road, providing a street frontage to the development. These properties are largely set back behind either front gardens, driveways or a combination of the two. With the exception of the new access from Gin Close Way,

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 the layout largely reflects the layout approved as part of the 1987 planning permission. Notwithstanding issues regarding the proposed density which will be considered below, it is considered that this layout successfully addresses the internal road layout and will provide an active street scene.

6.5.3 There is a mix of house types proposed. There are variations in the size of the houses, the roof design with hipped and gabled roofs proposed and some dwellings having integral garages and others have detached garages. There are also variations in terms of the brick and fenestration dealing. Whilst it is considered that the houses do not appear particularly contemporary with regards to the style, design and materials, in this location and based on surrounding residential developments, the design of the proposed dwellings would be acceptable as there is no particular character of development which the proposal should attempt to reinforce. The proposed design would also be in keeping with the house types granted permission in 2002. It is therefore considered that the design and layout would accord with the aims of Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014).

6.6 Housing Density and Mix

6.6.1 Policy H6 ‘Density of Housing Development provides density requirements for residential development. Where development is within a 400m walking distance of frequent public transport services, a minimum density of 40 dwellings per hectare is required and if the distance is beyond 400m, 35 dwellings per hectare is required. The proposal equates to a net density of approximately 29 dwellings per hectare, well below this figure. It should be noted that a planning application was refused in 2006 (06/00744/FUL) for alterations to the plots/site layout for the remaining 55 dwellings (the same site area as this current application) for the following reason:

6.6.2 The guidance in the more recent NPPF moves away from the prescriptive density figures contained within previous policy guidance and suggests that local authorities should set their own approach to density to reflect local circumstances. Policy 8 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy also does not state a specific density figure and states that density will be informed by factors such as area character, site specific issues and design considerations.

6.6.3 Awsworth is mixed in character with the older housing stock largely being terraced properties of high density, flats such as those on Main Street/Awsworth Lane and newer developments consisting of semi-detached and detached properties of lower densities. It is considered that this development would contribute to the existing varied character. The density is also restricted by achieving acceptable distances from existing properties so as to prevent a loss of amenity occurring. It is considered that the application would reflect local circumstances and would accord with the NPPF and with Policy 8 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy. Due to this it is considered that a refusal could no longer be justified based on density.

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 6.6.4 Paragraph 50 of the NPPF 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. Whilst the properties consist of a mix of 3 – 5 bedroom properties, they are all detached dwellings. However, in reviewing the existing housing stock in the area, which is primarily semi-detached houses or terraced houses, it is considered that there is a good mix of residential properties and that approval of the development will not adjust the supply of housing in the area to the detriment of certain households.

6.7 Amenity

6.7.1 With regards to the amenity for future occupiers of the development, the garden sizes are considered be acceptable and would provide an acceptable buffer from existing properties to not be unacceptably overlooked. It is also considered that the proposed houses contain adequate internal living space. Adequate noise mitigation measures will be incorporated in the development to prevent potential noise disturbances from neighbouring land uses or from Gin Close Way.

6.7.2 There are existing residential properties to the south and to the west of the site. To the south of the site there is a row of properties on Main Street/ Awsworth Lane which are a mixture of semi-detached houses and flats. These properties have outdoor space to the rear which vary in length between 2m (at the shortest point at 49 Main Street at the corner with Gin Close Way) to 11m (at 65-67 Main Street). The rear gardens of the proposed houses subject to this application will back onto the gardens of the properties on Main Street. Due to the angle of 49 Main Street, which has the shortest section of garden between 4m and 15m in length, and the angle and position of the proposed plot 2 which as a minimum garden length of 9m, it is considered that a loss of amenity will not occur to the occupiers of number 49. With regards to other properties on Main Street, the back-to-back relationship is in excess of 20m between the existing and proposed properties with the exception of the distance between 101 and 103 Main Street and plots 15, 15A and 16 where the distance is reduced to 17m at the shortest point. This is considered to be on the limit of what would be considered to be acceptable without an unacceptable level of overlooking or the development being overbearing on existing occupiers. However, if plots 15, 15A or 16 were to be extended at a later date this distance could be reduced. This would potentially lead to an unacceptable loss of amenity to the occupiers of 101 and 103 Main Street who have objected to the application. It is therefore considered justified to remove permitted development rights for 15, 15A and 16 so future extensions can be controlled so as not to be overbearing on the occupiers of 101 and 103 Main Street. Whilst it is accepted there will be a change in view, with an open field being replaced by a housing development, loss of view is not a material planning consideration.

6.7.3 To the west of the site there is a new residential development (Arches Close) consisting of 14 units. There will be a minimum back-to-back distance of 20m between rear elevations of the existing houses (7 to 10 Arches Close) and the proposed plots 65 to 68. Where the buffer is smaller, for example with plot 69, the existing properties will face towards a side elevation where no first floor windows are proposed. Between 13 Arches Close and plot 1 there is a 6m distance however this is between side elevations. Based on the above relationships it is considered that an

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 unacceptable loss of amenity would not occur to the occupiers of the properties on Arches Close.

6.8 Noise

6.8.1 The completion of the A6096 (Awsworth by-pass) and the commercial uses on land to the east of the site will have had implications for the noise levels across the site. The applicants were asked to submit a noise assessment during the course of the previous application for the same development on the site (13/00267/FUL) and the Environmental Health Officer has assessed the findings of this in respect of the requirement for mitigation measures within the design of the development.

6.8.2 The conclusions of the report were that the dominant noise source was from road traffic. The assessments demonstrated that the proposed dwellings immediately fronting Gin Close Way/A6096 Awsworth by-pass should be fitted with standard double glazing and trickle vents. In addition to this a 1.8 metre high close boarded fence of appropriate density, or attenuation barrier, should be erected either around the sites boundary or round the garden area of plots facing these roads. In addition the properties closest to the shared boundary with the builder’s yard should be fitted with double glazing and trickle vents to minimize noise intrusion into the properties.

6.8.3 On reviewing this report the Council’s Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that she is broadly satisfied with the conclusions and recommended a condition to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are put in place.

6.9 Land contamination and stability

6.9.1 The site is a former landfill site with a history of coal mining. During the course of the application several reports have been requested to demonstrate that the land is safe to build on and that mitigation measures, where necessary, have been identified.

6.9.2 The Coal Authority initially raised objections to the application due to its location in a defined Development High Risk Area and the absence of a Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report. This document has since been submitted and concludes that site investigations have proven that shallow coal mine workings are visible in the northern part of the site. It therefore recommends that remedial works are carried out prior to the development commencing. It also recommends that further investigations take place in the eastern most area of the site. The Coal Authority considers that the investigations, mitigation measures and further surveys are sufficient to satisfy the coal mining legacy and as such withdraws its objection and recommends a condition to ensure that these measures are implemented prior to the commencement of the development.

6.9.3 The contaminated land assessment was undertaken between 2001 and 2004 and therefore will need reviewing to ensure that it is up to date and still relevant to more recent guidance. This assessment concluded that the made ground on site was gassing and that gas protection measures were necessary. Whilst stating no objection, the Environment Health Officer has commented that a condition requesting further investigative work and that a report be submitted to the Local Planning Authority be attached to any permission and that all necessary remedial measures be

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 completed and certified prior to the occupation of any of the approved dwellinghouses.

6.10 Flooding

6.10.1 The applicants have submitted a Flood Risk Assessment for the site which concludes that the site will be safe from flooding, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. The assessment includes a drainage strategy which advises that public foul and surface water sewers are already in place and that discharge rates and a system of drainage from the site has already been agreed. They note that an opportunity now exists to provide a system which achieves more modern standards and will review this during the detailed design stage of the on-site drainage systems.

6.10.2 Nottinghamshire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) accepts that the site is not shown within an area which is susceptible to fluvial or pluvial flooding. However, the LLFA state that a flood routing plan should be provided to show exceedance routes for the surface water drainage system and, although the information provided with the application indicates that the designers are aware of this, the details of how this would be achieved are yet to be provided. The LLFA also raise concerns that the proposals could potentially increase the risk of flooding to 3rd party properties and local infrastructure. They advise that, to avoid the need for additional conditions which may preclude development, that detailed drainage information should be submitted prior to determination of the application.

6.10.3 The Environment Agency has no objection to the application subject to a detailed surface water drainage scheme, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to development commencing. Severn Trent Water also has no objection subject to a condition requiring detailed drainage plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage.

6.10.4 Whilst the detailed drainage plan and flood routing plan would ideally be assessed prior to determination of the application, considering the comments of the Environment Agency and Severn Trent Water, and noting that there is an extant planning permission on the site, it is considered that the detailed information could be requested by way of condition and that this would be able to ensure that the development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, in accordance with paragraph 103 of the NPPF.

6.11 Other matters

6.11.1 An updated ecology and protected species survey was submitted which concluded that the site is not of significance for any protected species. Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust state that it is satisfied with the methodology and conclusions of the Ecology Report. They state that they would wish to see biodiversity enhancements incorporated into the development through the retention and ongoing management of hedgerows and areas of specifies rich grassland. Installation of bird and bat boxes on the new dwellings or suitable mature trees would also enhance the site. These enhancements can be incorporated into a detailed landscape scheme.

100

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 6.12 There is an existing footpath (Awsworth Footpath No.14) which crosses the site. The proposed layout shows this being taken on to the estate roads with two short link paths. Nottinghamshire County Council’s Rights of Way Officer considers that the proposed new route is acceptable however advises that the diversion of the footpath would require a further application to the County Council and the applicants should discuss this with the Countryside Access Team at an early stage.

6.13 Section 106 Agreement

6.13.1 There is no on-site affordable housing proposed with the application. This is the case with the extant permission and, due to the age of the permission there was no financial requirement for the deliverance of a commuted sum to this end. However, with an aim of bringing forward housing sites for development the Council had agreed in principle with the developers to build out this site and another at Acorn Avenue (15/00010/FUL) at the previously approved density and housing mix, with no affordable permission, subject to the transfer of a parcel of land with a road, sewers and landscaping for residential development by the Council and a community housing provider on land to be agreed (which was the subject of the now-withdrawn application reference 15/00033/REG3) or through an equivalent commuted sum, details of which will be included within a subsequent section 106 agreement.

6.13.2 The 55 dwellings proposed here and 67 at Acorn Avenue total 122. 25% of this figure, as advocated within Local Plan Policy, for affordable housing provision would be 30.5 dwellings. The provision of affordable housing would be left to detailed section 106 negotiations.

6.13.3 Contributions are also requested in respect of education and for integrated highway measures. Heads of Terms were not submitted as part of this planning application and it is recommended that the Head of Neighbourhoods and Planning is given delegated authority to negotiate acceptable contributions to the scheme, whether or not planning permission for the affordable housing at land in Giltbrook is granted. In the event that the S106 contributions are not compliant with policy, this will be reported to the Council’s Cabinet.

7 Conclusion

7.1 The application seeks amendments to 55 of the original 71 dwellings and largely relates to a change in the house types proposed with some alterations to the layout and positioning of the dwellings. The planning application granted as part of the 1987 permission was implemented soon after by the applicants through the commencement of some minor works within the site. This permission is therefore extant and can be completed at any point without the need for any further permission. In 2002 planning permission (reference 02/00182/FUL) was granted for a new site access from Gin Close Way and revisions to the layout and house types affecting plots 17-22, 40-42a, 54-56 and 62-65.

7.2 It is considered that the development achieves an acceptable layout and the dwelling types achieve an acceptable standard of design. Whilst the proposed density falls below the recommended levels stated in Local Plan Policy H6, it is considered that the density and housing mix does reflect local circumstances which would accord with the NPPF and with Policy 8 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014). It is

101

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 considered that there will not be an unacceptable loss of amenity to occupiers in neighbouring houses or flats. Provided recommended conditions are included it is considered there are no issues in respect to land contamination and noise which would warrant a reason for refusal. Whilst it is acknowledged that the Lead Local Flood Authority requests to review detailed drainage schemes prior to determination, based on the comments provided by the Environment Agency and Severn Trent, it is considered that a condition can be included which will ensure that a suitable drainage and flood management scheme is incorporated within the development.

Recommendation

The Committee is asked to RESOLVE that: a) The Head of Neighbourhoods and Prosperity be given delegated authority to grant planning permission for application 15/00011/FUL subject to prior completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the conditions set out below.

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings numbered A1/07 Revision C ‘Site Layout Plan’; JD/2007/35; B5/2007/35 Revision D; C7AB/2007 Revision M; DA/2007 Revision P; E18HA/2010/35 Revision G; A1/2006 Revision G; BA2/2006 Revision K; BGA1/2007 Revision K; JA/2007/35; E2/2010 Revision T; T20/2010 Revision K; N2/2006 Revision J; KA/2006 Revision K; F3/2006 Revision M; and XADA/2007/30 received by the Local Planning Authority on 7 January 2015 and drawings numbered Plot 2 RB/2011/REV A; Plot 23 RB/2011/REV A; GARAGE/A/2006/B Revision A; GARAGE/DG/2/88s/B Revision A and GARAGE/E/30 Revision A received by the Local Planning Authority 12 January 2015.

3. No building operations shall be carried out until details of the manufacturer, type and colour of the materials to be used in the facing walls and roofs, details of the colour of the rainwater goods, and the colour and location of the external meter cupboards have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be constructed only in accordance with those details.

4. No part of the development hereby approved shall be commenced until an investigative survey of the site, in line with the work outlined in the Site Investigation Report (prepared by Abatech International Ltd, August 2001), has been undertaken to confirm coal mining conditions and a report has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The survey shall include details of any necessary remedial measures to be undertaken to address any areas of shallow mine workings and any other problems identified through this survey and these measures shall be implemented prior to the commencement of the development.

102

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 5. a) No part of the development hereby approved shall be commenced until an investigative survey of the site has been carried out and a report submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The survey must have regard for any potential ground and water contamination, the potential for gas emissions and any associated risk to the public, buildings and/or the environment. The report shall include details of any necessary remedial measures to be taken to address any contamination or other identified problems.

b) No building to be erected pursuant to this permission shall be first occupied or brought into use until:-

i All the necessary remedial measures have been completed in accordance with the approved details, unless an alternative has first been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; and

ii It has been certified to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the necessary remedial measures have been implemented in full and that they have rendered the site free from risk to human health from the contaminants identified, unless an alternative has first been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

6. No part of the development hereby approved shall commence until a scheme for protecting the proposed dwellings from noise from the road traffic adjacent to the proposed development has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any works which form part of the scheme approved shall be completed before any dwelling hereby permitted is occupied unless an alternative period is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

7. No part of the development hereby approved shall commence until a detailed surface water drainage scheme and foul sewage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to completion of the development. The scheme to be submitted shall demonstrate:

- Limiting the discharge rate generated by all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 30% (for climate change) critical rain storm to Greenfield rates for the site.

103

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

8. No part of the development hereby approved shall commence until a remediation strategy that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority:

a) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: - all previous uses - potential contaminants associated with those uses - a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors - potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

b) A site investigation scheme, based on (a) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

c) The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (b) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

d) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (c) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the Local Planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

9. No part of the development hereby approved shall be commenced until such time as a scheme to treat and remove suspended solids from surface water run-off during construction works has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

104

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

10. No part of the development hereby approved shall take place until details of the new roads have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority including longitudinal and cross sectional gradients, street lighting, drainage and outfall proposals, construction specification, provision of and diversion of utilities services and any proposed structural works. Pedestrian visibility splays of 2m x 2m shall be provided on each side of the vehicle access leading to parking spaces and/ or garages. The development shall be implemented in accordance with these details to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

11. No dwelling shall be first occupied unless and until its associated access driveway and/or parking spaces have been constructed to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water from the driveway and/or parking spaces onto the public highway.

12. No part of the development hereby approved shall commence until wheel washing facilities have been installed on the site in accordance with details first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The wheel washing facilities shall be maintained in working order at all times and shall be used by any vehicle carrying mud, dirt or other debris on its wheels before leaving the site so that no debris is discharged or carried onto the public highway. These facilities shall be retained on the site until the substantial completion of construction work.

13. No part of the development hereby approved shall take place until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include the following details:

a) trees, hedges and shrubs to be retained and measures for their protection during the course of development b) numbers, types, sizes and positions of proposed trees and shrubs c) proposed hard surfacing treatment including along footpaths d) planting, seeding/turfing of other soft landscape areas e) proposed boundary treatments including along the external boundaries.

The approved scheme shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details.

14. The approved landscaping shall be carried out not later than the first planting season following which the substantial completion of the development and any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years, die, are removed or have become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with ones of similar size and species to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, unless written consent has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority for a variation.

105

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

15. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order) no extension or enlargement (including additions to roofs) within Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, or C shall be made to the following dwellinghouse(s) as shown on drawing number A1/07 Revision C ‘Site Layout Plan’: Plots 15, 15A and 16, without the express permission in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons

1. To comply with S91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. For the avoidance of doubt.

4. In the interests of public health and safety.

5. In the interests of public health and safety and in accordance with Policy E29 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004).

6. To protect future occupiers from excessive noise and in accordance with Policy E34 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004).

7. To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality; and to ensure the future maintenance of the sustainable drainage structures in accordance with Policy 1 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

8. To ensure the protection of the underlying Secondary A aquifer and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

9. To reduce the risk of surface water pollution.

10. In the interests of highway safety.

11. In the interests of highway safety to ensure surface water from the site is not deposited on the public highway causing danger to road users.

12. In the interests of highway safety.

13. To ensure that the details are satisfactory in the interests of the appearance of the area and in accordance with the aims of Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014).

106

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 14. To ensure the development presents a more pleasant appearance in the locality and in accordance with the aims of Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014).

15. To protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and in accordance with Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014).

Notes to Applicant

1. The Council has acted positively and proactively in the determination of this application in line with the guidance contained within paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, by communicating with the agent during the course of the application.

2. Conditions 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 and 13 are required to be pre-commencement conditions as no/insufficient information on those matters was submitted with the application and as those parts of the development cannot proceed satisfactorily without the outstanding matters being agreed in advance of those aspects, respectively, of the development commencing.

4. Awsworth Footpath No. 14 runs through the site. The footpath should remain open and unobstructed at all times. If a temporary closure of the footpath is required Nottinghamshire County Council’s Countryside Access Team must be contacted at least 5 weeks before to allow for a Temporary Closure Order to be put in place. Nottinghamshire County Council can be contacted on 0300 500 8080.

5. The Coal Authority state that there is no record of a permit being granted for intrusive site investigation works to be undertaken. The applicant should be aware that any intrusive activities and any subsequent treatment requires the prior written permission of the Coal Authority. Failure to obtain permission will potentially result in court action. The Coal Authority can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 and further information is provided on https://www.gov.uk/get-a- permit-to-deal-with-a-coal-mine-on-your-property

6. Severn Trent Water advises that there is a public sewer located within the application site. Public sewers have statutory protection and you may not built close to or directly over or divert a public sewer without consent. You are therefore advised to contact Severn Trent Water to discuss the proposal on 0116 234 3834.

107

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 b) If an agreement under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has not been reached by 11 May 2016 (6 months from the date of the Planning Committee) the Head of Neighbourhoods and Prosperity be given delegated authority to refuse planning permission for application 15/00011/FUL on the following grounds:

Background papers Application case file

108

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

Photo

Land at Gin Close Way, Awsworth Construct 55 number dwellings

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 Scale: 1: 2,500

Directorate of Legal and Planning Services

109

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

Report of the Director of Legal and Planning Services

15/00515/FUL LAND ADJACENT 4 GRANGELEA GARDENS, BRAMCOTE NG9 3HR CONSTRUCT DWELLING WITH GARAGE

Councillor M E Plackett has requested that this application be brought to Committee.

1.0 Details of the application

1.1 The application proposes to construct one new dwelling on a vacant plot between number 2 and number 4 Grangelea Gardens. The dwelling contains an integral garage which is accessed from Grangelea Gardens and is located along the boundary with number 2 Grangelea Gardens.

1.2 The proposed dwelling consists of a number of component parts which add to a holistic design. There are varying roof designs and profiles with a maximum ridge height of 9m. The garage and first floor, which runs along the boundary with the neighbouring property, is set approximately 1.2m below natural ground level.

1.3 The proposal is for a five bedroom dwelling with a generous garden area in a quiet residential area in Bramcote. The dwelling is of a similar form and position as the first of two dwellings refused on the site, the main difference being the roof profile of the section which runs along the north eastern boundary and the reduction of the overall height of the dwelling.

2.0 Site and surroundings

Site from Grangelea Gardens Access to the site

110

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

Boundary with number 2. The Grange (from SW boundary of site)

2.1 Grangelea Gardens is a cul-de-sac located in Bramcote approximately 1.5 miles from Beeston town centre. Grangelea Gardens and the surrounding areas consist of large detached dwellings with relatively large gardens. There is a variety in style and architectural form of the dwellings.

2.2 The site is approximately 0.15m hectares and has recently been cleared of the majority of trees and shrubs on the site. Trees protected by a Tree Protection Order are retained to the south east of the site.

2.3 The site itself slopes upwards from the south west and sits significantly higher than number 2 Grangelea Gardens.

2.4 The site borders the Bramcote Conservation Area. Located to the west of the site is The Grange - a Grade II listed building from the 1830s. The site historically formed part of The Grange formal gardens but has been segregated for some time.

3.0 Relevant planning history

3.1 75/00933/FUL – In 1975 planning permission was granted for 10 dwellings which forms Grangelea Gardens. One of the plots remains undeveloped and is the subject of this planning application.

3.2 14/00396/FUL – Application to construct two dwellings, garages and access on a larger site area, including the application site, was refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal due to its form, density and size of plot will have a negative effect on the character of the Conservation Area and the setting of the adjacent Listed Building to the detriment of both these designated historical assets. Accordingly the proposed development would therefore be contrary to Broxtowe Local Plan policies E1, E3 and H7 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004), Policies 10 and 11 of the Draft Aligned Core Strategy and chapter 12 of the NPPF and there is no justification for treating this proposal as an exception to these policies.

2. The proposed dwellings would be highly constrained within the afforded plots, in close proximity with the north-western and eastern boundaries of 111

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

the site and a number of protected trees. The orientation of the properties, size of amenity space and proximity of the trees would result in a poor level of amenity for future occupants of the property and would result in pressure to remove these protected trees to the detriment of the amenity and character of the area. Accordingly the proposed development would therefore be contrary to Broxtowe Local Plan policies E1, E3, E24 and H7 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004), Policies 10 and 11 of the Draft Aligned Core Strategy and chapter 12 of the NPPF and there is no justification for treating this proposal as an exception to these policies.

4.0 Policy context

4.1 National policy 4.1.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012 contains a general presumption in favour of sustainable development whereby planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of permitting the development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific policies in the framework indicate development should be restricted. It outlines 12 core planning principles which should underpin the planning system including that planning should be plan-led, sustainable economic development should be proactively driven and supported, high quality design and a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants should be secured, full account should be taken of flood risk, heritage assets should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, the natural environment should be conserved and enhanced, developments should be located in sustainable locations and effective use of brownfield land should be made.

4.1.2 In relation to assessing the highway impacts of a proposal, the NPPF states that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts are severe.

4.2 Core Strategy 4.2.1 The Council adopted the Core Strategy on 17 September 2014 and the overall strategy of this document is “urban concentration with regeneration”. Following the adoption of the Core Strategy the Council is able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites in accordance with the NPPF.

4.2.3 Policy 8: Housing Mix and Choice sets out the approach to ensuring that new housing development includes an appropriate mix of housing types, sizes and tenures.

112

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

4.2.4 Policy 10: Design and Enhancing Local Identity, sets design and layout principles to be applied to new development and looks to ensure that valued local characteristics are reinforced.

4.2.5 Policy 11: The Historic Environment aims to support proposals and initiatives where the historic environment and their settings are conserved and/or enhanced in line with their interest and significance.

4.3 Saved Policies of the Broxtowe Local Plan. 4.3.1 As the Core Strategy contains broad policies, a Development Management Policies Document will be developed in due course. In the meantime, Appendix E of the Core Strategy confirms which Local Plan policies are saved. Relevant saved policies are as follows.

4.3.4 Policy T11 and appendix 4 require satisfactory provision of vehicle parking and servicing, in accordance with the latest standards.

5.0 Consultations

5.1 The Council’s heritage adviser considers that a single dwelling is preferable as it would offer opportunities to ‘fill in’ the gaps in the protected shelter of trees and advises obtaining specialist tree advice regarding the rain harvester shown on the plan. The heritage adviser is pleased that the development has been reduced to a single dwelling.

5.2 Nottinghamshire County Council as Highway Authority considers that the development is unable to generate a significant amount of traffic and its impact on the local highway network is minimal. It suggests standard conditions relating to the dropped vehicular crossing, driveway surfacing and discharge of water.

5.3 The Council’s Tree Officer has no objection to the proposal. The footprint of the building is outside the root protection area (RPA) of the adjacent Beech Tree. The rains water harvester is also outside of the RPA of both TPO trees and so will not pose a problem.

113

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

5.4 Five neighbouring properties have commented on the application, two in support and three objecting.

5.5 The occupiers of number 4 Grangelea Gardens firstly are worried that the proposal may lead to overlooking of their patio area. They also have concerns regarding the access and that this will conflict with their own driveway. They consider the driveway is designed to allow for the second dwelling to the west to be built in the future and they consider a clause should be written to prevent this from happening.

5.6 The occupiers of number 2 Grangelea Gardens consider the application should be refused for the following reason:

‘The proposed new house, by reason of its size and proximity to the shared boundary with 2 Grangelea Gardens, would be detrimental to the amenity of the occupants of this property due to its overbearing impact contrary to policy H9 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) and Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy’.

They consider that the dwelling should be located in the middle of the plot as, being set so close to the common boundary, there will be a significant impact on loss of light due to the differing land levels. The development pattern for Grangelea Gardens is generally more evenly spaced. The proposed development commences 1.5m from the back of the building line of number 2 and runs virtually the entire length of their back garden. The occupier presents an architect’s plan which, they consider, takes into account the difference in height more accurately. Irrespective of the change in roof pitch from the previous scheme, the position of the house is considered unacceptable.

5.7 The third objector also has similar concerns as the occupier of number 2 Grangelea Gardens and the precedent this may set for future developments.

6.0 Appraisal

6.1 It is considered the main issues relating to the determination of this application are the design, character and appearance of the conservation area and the adjacent listed building, impact on the group TPO and the impact on neighbouring amenity.

6.2 Design

6.2.1 The design of the proposed dwelling is of a contemporary style, which uses a variety of materials which take a lead from the mixed palette in the surrounding area. The building consists of angled sections with asymmetrical roof slopes which help to break down the various elements of the structure and add variety and interest to the form. All the properties on Grangelea Gardens are of an individual design and it is considered that the proposal would not result in a change of character and would not be detrimental to the street scene.

114

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

6.3 Conservation

6.3.1 The site borders Bramcote Conservation Area and is in close proximity to the Grade II listed building ‘The Grange’. One of the reasons for refusal for the previous application for two dwellings was due to the negative impact the second dwelling (to the west of the application site) was likely to have on the open views from this listed building and the potential loss of the TPO trees which are listed in the Bramcote Conservation Area Appraisal as a key characteristic of the Conservation area. The Conservation Advisor, discussing the 2014 application, strongly suggested that the site was suitable for development for a single dwelling which should be positioned towards the east of the site. The revised scheme now removes the offending dwelling from the scheme and therefore it is considered that it acceptably addresses the reason for refusal regarding the impact on the setting of The Grange.

6.3.2 The second reason for refusal of the previous application was due to the orientation of the properties and the size of amenity space and the proximity of the trees which would result in pressure to remove the protected trees to the detriment of the conservation area. Although the house remains in a similar position to that originally proposed, it is reduced in height. The dwelling will be afforded a 21.3m long garden which is considered as more than generous and unlikely to lead to the loss of the mature trees on the site which was the previous concern. The Conservation Advisor is now content with the scheme for one dwelling as it allows opportunities to ‘fill in’ the gaps in the protected shelter belt of trees with planting. The application site is now outside of the Conservation Area boundary.

6.3.3 The Council’s Tree Officer is content that the proposed dwelling will not impact on the root protection area of the protected trees and will not have a detrimental impact on the trees. It is considered that the second reason for refusal has been sufficiently addressed.

6.4 Neighbouring amenity

6.4.1 The proposed dwelling is set behind number 2 Grangelea Gardens and runs from the rear wall of this property along a large proportion of its rear garden. Number 2 is set at a significantly lower level to the application site with a retaining wall and fence. The dwelling is 1.8 - 1.9m from this boundary. Following concerns from the previous submission and in an attempt to mitigate the impact, this section of the dwelling has been modified to have a roof which slopes away from this boundary with an eaves height of 4.5m gradually rising to a ridge of 9m. This section does not reach its full height until it is almost 8m from this boundary. In addition to this change in the roof profile it is proposed to create the garage 1.2m lower than the ground level in order to minimise the impact of the height of the dwelling.

6.4.2 The occupiers of number 2 Grangelea Gardens have strong concerns regarding the overbearing and overshadowing impact of the proposal on the living accommodation and the garden area. The garden serving number 2 slopes away from the site (approximately 2m over the width of the garden).

115

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

The occupier considered that the angle that the applicants’ plans had been drawn greatly under emphasised the true relationship and has submitted an elevation looking directly from the patio area serving number 2.

6.4.3 Under the supervision of the Council’s Tree Officer, the site has recently been cleared of a number of tall trees which has significantly opened the site up and increased the amount of natural light available to the occupiers of 2 Grangelea Gardens. This can be discerned from photographs submitted by the applicant. The loss of light due to the dwelling is not considered to be worse than the situation prior to the clearance of trees. Nevertheless, taking the site in its current state, the relationship between the two properties is considered suitable and the impact on the amenity of current and future occupiers in terms of loss of light and overbearing is acceptable.

6.4.4 The occupiers of number 4 Grangelea Gardens are primarily concerned with the proximity of the proposed access to their driveway and the impact of the new dwelling in terms of traffic generation and highway safety. The proposed access is as was agreed for the tenth house from the extant approval. Although it is reasonable to expect that the new occupiers of a dwelling of this size will have two or more vehicles, the impact on traffic generation is not deemed to be significant and Nottinghamshire County Council Highways is satisfied that the access arrangements do not present a threat to highway safety.

6.4.5 The dwelling is proposed 6.6m away from the boundary with number 4 and 15.5m from the living accommodation which is deemed a sufficient distance to mitigate any unreasonable loss of privacy.

6.4.4 The dwelling has been amended from the previous submission in an attempt to mitigate amenity issues and it is considered that the situation has been improved. The relationship with neighbouring properties was deemed acceptable in the previous application and, as there have been no environmental or policy changes since then, there are not therefore considered sufficient grounds to deviate from that opinion.

7.0 Conclusion

7.1 In conclusion, and having regard to all comments received and the relevant national and local plan policy, it is considered this proposal addresses the previous reasons for refusal and is an acceptable use of the site. Having regard to all material considerations the scheme is suitable in regard to its design, scale and layout and that there would be no detriment to the prevailing character of development in the area, no detrimental impact on the Conservation Area or setting of the Listed Building, nor significant loss of privacy for existing residents that would lead to any alternative conclusion.

Recommendation

The Committee is asked to RESOLVE that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

116

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the site plan and drawing numbered 10947/401 A received by the Local Planning Authority on 5 August 2015 and drawings numbered: 10947/400, 10947 402 and 10947/403 received by the Local Planning Authority on 20 July 2015. 3. No building operations shall be carried out until details of the manufacturer, type and colour of the materials to be used in the facing walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall be constructed only in accordance with those details. 4. No development shall take place until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include the following details:

The approved scheme shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details.

5. The approved landscaping shall be carried out not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development and any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years, die, are removed or have become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with ones of similar size and species to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, unless written consent has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority for a variation. 6. The dwelling constructed pursuant to this permission shall not be first occupied until the driveways, parking, turning and servicing areas have been constructed in a hard bound material (not loose gravel) and so as to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water therefrom onto the public highway. The provision to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water to the public highway shall then be retained for the life of the development.

117

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

Reasons

1. To comply with S91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. For the avoidance of doubt. 3. No such details were submitted, in the interests of the appearance of the development and in accordance with the aims of Policy H9 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) and Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Draft Aligned Core Strategy. The requirement is to be satisfied before new construction begins in order that potentially abortive work is avoided, if unacceptable materials are used. 4. No such details were submitted and to ensure that the details are satisfactory in the interests of the appearance of the area and in accordance with the aims of Policy H7 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) and Policy 10 of the Aligned Core Strategy (2014). The requirement is to be satisfied before new construction begins in order that potentially abortive works are avoided and to ensure that any important tree or plant species are adequately protected. 5. To ensure the development presents a more pleasant appearance in the locality and in accordance with Policy H7 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) and Policy 10 of the Aligned Core Strategy (2014). 6. To ensure that deleterious materials and surface water from the site is not deposited on the public highway, in the interests of highway safety.

Background papers Application case file

118

Photos

Land adjacent 4 Grangelea Gardens, Bramcote Construct dwelling with garage

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 Scale: 1: 1,250

Directorate of Legal and Planning Services

119

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

Report of the Director of Legal and Planning Services

15/00617/FUL RETAIN FIRST FLOOR REAR EXTENSION 19 GRANGE VIEW, EASTWOOD, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE NG16 3DE

Councillor J Marsters has requested that the application be determined by the Planning Committee.

1.0 Details of the application

1.1 The application seeks permission to retain a first floor rear extension. Works started on the extension in May 2015.

2.0 Site and surroundings

2.1 The property is a two storey semi-detached house with a detached garage. The neighbour at number 21 has had an extension constructed to the rear of the property of a similar design to that currently under consideration at number 19.

2.2 The majority of the properties are semi-detached houses or detached bungalows. Number 17 is a detached bungalow which is a considerable distance away from the dwelling at number 19, with a garage intervening between the two dwellings. The land slopes down to the north, with the properties to the rear on Princes Street at a higher level. To the rear of the dwelling runs Princes Street, which is located in Eastwood Conservation area.

Rear elevation From pavement on Grange View

120

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

View from Princes Street Application property

3.0 Relevant planning history

3.1 Planning permission was granted in 1978 to construct a single storey extension to the rear of the property. It was agreed in this application that render would be an acceptable material to be used for the extension.

3.2 There is no other relevant planning history for the property.

4.0 Policy context

4.1 Broxtowe Local Plan:

4.1.1 Policy H9 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) states that extensions to dwellings will be permitted provided that the extension is in keeping with the original building in terms of style, proportion and materials and that the extension must not cause an unacceptable degree of loss of privacy or amenity for neighbouring occupiers.

4.2 Adopted Core Strategy:

4.2.1 Policy 10 of the Adopted Aligned Core Strategy states that development should be assessed in relation to its massing and scale, materials, design and impact on the amenity of nearby residents or occupiers.

4.3 National Planning Policy Framework:

4.3.1 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF states that the planning process should seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for both existing and future occupants.

4.3.2 Section 7 of the NPPF generally promotes good design.

121

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

5.0 Consultations

5.1 One neighbour has submitted an objection to the application. Their reasons for objection include:

• that the extension was constructed prior to permission being granted, therefore not having the opportunity to comment prior to development; • the substandard quality of materials and workmanship; • noise during construction; and • loss of privacy at first floor, with the new windows directly overlooking the rear garden of number 21.

5.2 No other comments were received for the application.

6.0 Appraisal

6.1 The application seeks permission to retain a first floor rear extension, constructed over an existing single storey extension. The construction of the extension has largely been completed.

6.2 The extension projects 2.62m from the rear elevation of the dwelling and has a width of 5.948m. The extension has a height to eaves of 4.944m and a height to ridge of 7.337m. The ridge height of the extension is lower than that of the existing dwelling. Two windows have been inserted in the rear elevation of the extension. One window is to serve a bedroom and the second to an extended bathroom.

6.3 It is not considered that the development is harmful to the amenity of the occupier at no 21 in terms of overlooking or overbearing. The attached neighbour has had an extension constructed of an almost identical design which projects the same distance from the rear elevation as the extension at number 19. The development would not result in any loss of light to the neighbouring occupier and would not result in any significant overlooking to warrant the refusal of the application. It is not considered that the extension would be harmful to the amenity of the neighbour at number 17 given the considerable distance to this neighbour.

6.4 It is considered that the design of the extension is acceptable for this location and the style of the property. The extension is currently clad at first floor with cedar cladding. Given the traditional design of the extension and the materials of properties in the surrounding area, it is not considered that cedar cladding is an appropriate material to be used on this extension in this location. Having spoken to the agent regarding the materials of the extension, it is considered that a condition would be acceptable to request the removal of the cedar cladding and replacement with render to the extension at ground and first floors.

6.5 The standard of materials/workmanship and any disruption during the construction period, as raised by the objection from neighbour, are not

122

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

material considerations and cannot be taken into account when determining the application.

7.0 Conclusion

7.1 It is considered that the extension does not have a harmful impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. The design of the extension is considered acceptable for the style of the property, however the materials are not considered acceptable for this traditional property and extension and the character of the area as a whole. Therefore it is recommended that this can be overcome by conditioning the removal of the cedar cladding and replacement with a more traditional render.

7.2 In conclusion, and having regard to all comments received, the relevant national and local plan policy and all other material considerations, it is considered that this proposal is acceptable, subject to conditions.

Recommendation

The Committee is asked to RESOLVE that planning permission be granted subject to the following condition:

Within 2 months of this approval, the cedar cladding on the extension hereby permitted shall be removed and the extension shall be rendered white/cream unless an alternative is agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

To ensure the development presents a satisfactory standard of external appearance and in accordance with the aims of Policy H9 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) and Policy 10 (Design and Enhancing Local Identity) of the Adopted Aligned Core Strategy (2014).

Note to Applicant

The Council has acted positively and proactively in the determination of this application in line with the guidance contained within paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, by undertaking the site visit early in the process to allow time for negotiation should it have been necessary and through on-going discussions with the agent for the application.

Background papers Application case file

123

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

Photo

19 Grange View, Eastwood Retain first floor rear extension

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 Scale: 1: 1,250

Directorate of Legal and Planning Services

124

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 Report of the Director of Legal and Planning Services

15/00525/FUL CHANGE OF USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO 17MW PV SOLAR FARM AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE (REVISED SCHEME) LAND OFF LONG LANE WATNALL

This application is being taken to Planning Committee as it is a major development which would, if approved, constitute a material departure from the Council’s, and national, policy in respect of protecting the Green Belt from inappropriate development. This is also the first development of this type proposed in Broxtowe.

1. Details of the application

1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a solar farm on a 24.5ha site accessed of Long Lane in Watnall. The site in question includes the former Watnall Brickworks and consequently the site area includes elements of both brownfield and greenfield land, although the whole site is contained within the Nottinghamshire Green Belt. The development proposes to install approximately 68, 000 solar arrays across the site, accompanied by 7 invertor/transformer stations and 10 CCTV cameras. The transformer stations would be single storey buildings of brick construction 2.5metres wide and 7 metres in length and, since the previous submission, 5 out of 7 of these stations have been moved into the brownfield area of the site and there is one less station overall. 4200metres of wire mesh security fencing would surround the site which would be 1.8metres in height and contain a small gap at the bottom to allow for wildlife roaming. There will be a 7 metre gap between the perimeter fencing and the panels to ensure protection of existing vegetative boundaries and room for maintenance. The solar farm would have an operational working life of 25 years.

1.2 The solar panels themselves consist of a steel sub structure mounting a dark blue glass module, with the module/panel being 1.47m in length and 1m wide. The modules will sit on tables in columns of two, with the columns running the length of each individual table. The tables will be erected on piles that are sunk approximately 1.2 metres into the ground. When complete the panels will sit approximately 2.6 metres above ground level (at highest point) with a 0.9metre gap between the bottom of the panels and the ground level. The panels will be orientated at an approximate 30 degree angle. To connect the panels to the transformer station shallow trenches will be dug underneath each of the rows for cabling.

1.3 This solar farm would generate 17mw of power that would feed into the national grid. This is equivalent to providing for 5,151 homes per annum and would result in a saving of 6,700 tonnes of CO2 per year. Research has shown that this would result in the creation of 119 jobs either directly or indirectly resulting from this development. The site would utilise the existing access road into the site that was historically used for the brickworks.

1.4 It would take three months in total for site preparation and construction with the delivery of panels taking place over a 12 week period. It is suggested that there would be approximately 115 HGV deliveries over this period with approximately 2-3 per day

125

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 and 10 two way movements per day of smaller delivery vehicles would occur.

1.5 Alongside the application various reports and surveys were submitted including: Heritage Assessment, Flooding Report, Agricultural Land Quality, Ecological Assessment, Planning Statement and a Landscape Appraisal. Additionally a screening opinion was carried out by the Council under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, but it was determined that no EIA report was required.

1.6 Additionally, alongside this application, an updated Landscape and Visual Impact assessment has been submitted with montages showing the proposed landscaping over a number of years; further clarification on the community benefits and addressing the previous reasons for refusal has been included within the planning statement and an Alternative Site Assessment has been submitted. The applicants have also sought a 30 year planning permission, although the operational life of the solar farm would only be 25 years.

1.7 Alternative site assessment:

Since the last application the applicants have commissioned Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners to carry out an alternative site assessment at this site. Whilst there is no statutory obligation to carry out this work, or indeed any requirement for a sequential test, the applicants believe this work would assist the decision makers about the levels of weight to allocate to the proposal’s conformity with wider planning issues. It is argued that this assessment provides the decision makers with an understanding as to why this site has been chosen.

1.8 The report carried out an assessment of sites within the locality and explored the potential for totally different scenarios, such as roof mounted solar schemes, and concluded that there were no alternative sites capable of providing equivalent amounts of renewable energy or which are demonstrably better than the application site. This was due, in part, to the fact that the national grid only has a limited capacity for accommodating additional power at particular points nationally and, whilst there is capacity at this locality, this is only within approximately 4.25km from a particular connection point. Consequently the assessment area is significantly reduced, nevertheless the conclusion of the report still outlined that this site is likely to be the only possible site of providing 17mw of renewable energy.

2. Site and surroundings

2.1 The application site is north east of the settlement of Watnall and approximately 1km west of the settlement of Hucknall (in Ashfield District). It lies immediately adjacent to the M1 motorway, which runs along the western boundary of the site, and 300m to the south east of the site is the Hucknall Aerodrome which has planning consent for a mixed use redevelopment. The B6009 Long Lane road runs along the southern boundary and it is from this road from which the access is served. The northern part of the site is a local designated wildlife site.

126

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

Various views from within the site.

2.2 The site itself has largely been unmanaged for a long period of time since the closure of the Watnall Brickworks in the mid-1970s. The large chimneys remained on site for much longer until they were demolished in August 2009. Consequently the site itself could be described as unkempt and much of the vegetation on site consists of large groups of brambles or foliage that has long since grown out of control. There are a wide mixture of tree species and hedgerows on the different boundaries to the site, again it is clear that these have not been pruned or managed The large expanses of hardcore depict where the previous colliery yards were located and large piles of bricks are still located on site at the foot of the old chimneys. Whilst the site is generally flat, there are old mounds of earth and bricks on site that have been

127

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 fashioned into motorbike jumps by several bikers that frequent the site illegally on a regular basis. The northern end of the site includes large expanses of concrete and piles of rubble and would be classified as brownfield, whereas the southern end of the site is currently farming land and therefore greenfield.

3. Planning history

3.1 The planning history on this site is virtually non-existent although there has been a desire from within the planning department to find a suitable use for this historically. Unfortunately due largely in part to the Green Belt location, prior to the possibility of this development, no suitable use has been forthcoming.

3.2 At the Planning Committee of 17th June 2015 it was resolved to refuse planning permission for the following reason:

‘The proposed development lies within the Nottinghamshire Green Belt within which there is a strong presumption against inappropriate development except in very special circumstances, none of which are made out on the basis of the information provided here. The proposed development would result in a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt contrary to policy E8 of the Broxtowe Local Plan and government advice in the National Planning Policy Framework.’

4. Policy Context 4. 1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

4.1.2 Paragraphs 93 – 98 outline that securing radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions plays a central role within sustainable development. Stating that any projects regardless of scale provide a valuable contribution to cutting gas emissions and renewable energy applications should be approved if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

4.1.3 Guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework states that, as with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The development proposed is not contained in the list of ‘appropriate development’ in the Green Belt and as such it is for the applicants to demonstrate such circumstance that would outweigh the buildings inappropriateness and demonstrate that no lasting harm will be caused by its construction.

4.1.4 Paragraph 112 of the NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should consider the economic benefits of the best quality agricultural land and, where development of agricultural land is necessary, poorer quality land should be used first.

4.2 Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy The Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy was adopted in September 2014 and forms part 1 of the Local Plan to replace the 2004 Local Plan. The Core Strategy includes Policy 1 Climate Change which provides strong in principle support for proposals that will assist in mitigations against climate change. Policy 3 The Green Belt largely repeats guidance laid down within the NPPF. Amendments to the Green Belt will be undertaken as part of Broxtowe’s part 2 Local Plan.

128

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 4.2.1 Policy 10: Design and Enhancing Local Identity, sets design and layout principles to be applied to new development and looks to ensure that valued local characteristics are reinforced.

4. 3 Broxtowe Local Plan (2004)

4.3.1 Policy E8 largely reflects the national guidance, advising that only appropriate development in the Green Belt shall be permitted unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated.

4.3.2 Policy E16 suggests that planning permission would not be granted for developments that are on or adjoining local wildlife sites which would damage or devalue their nature conservation interest.

5. Consultations

5.1 Nottingham County Council highways department has raised no objections to the proposal.

5.2 The Nottingham County Council Rights of Way Officer originally objected to the developed based on a lack of information about the treatment of Bridleway no. 19 which crosses the top end of the site. The applicants submitted further information outlining the treatment of the bridleway, both during development and after the farm had been completed. This covered issues such as the boundary treatment and the material to be used on the ground floor of the bridleway. Following the submission of further information the formal objection was withdrawn.

5.3 HS2 Ltd has explained the current stage in the process of the HS2 consultation, and consequently has declined to make any specific comment on the application.

5.4 The Coal Authority has raised no objection to the proposal.

5.5 Nottingham County Council Ecology raised concerns over the need for various protected species surveys to be carried out prior to the implementation of any development. Various protected species surveys were carried out and no evidence of any Great Crested Newts or protected amphibians was discovered. However, a badgers sett was discovered in close proximity to the access. The Ecology department raised no specific concerns about the protected species not found, but suggested some conditions relating to offsetting development from the badger setts. With regard to the impact on the Local Wildlife Site concerns are raised about the duration of the development and the fact that the northern part of the site is developing into a habitat know as Open Mosaic Habitat. NCC Ecology continue by suggesting that ideally the removal of the northern part of the scheme should ensure the continued development of this habitat, but that if this is not considered viable or if planning permission is granted, paragraph 118 of the NPPF should be consulted. They continue by suggesting that mitigation could be possible on some land, although not all of this is in the control of the applicant. Confirmation is also sought about the retention of three ponds and some mature trees. Japanese Knotweed was recorded on site and it is requested that suitable surveys are carried out to prevent this spreading. Clarification over certain points within the Landscape strategy is sought and certain conditions are suggested.

129

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

5.6 The highways agency has raised no objections to the proposal.

5.7 The Environment Agency initially raised no objection in principle but asked for additional swales to be incorporated into the scheme and suggested a condition relating to the surface water drainage of the site. These additional swales have been included within the development. The Agency has raised no objections to the revised scheme.

5.8 Ashfield District Council raises no objections to the proposal but outlines how it is for the determining authority to assess if any very special circumstances exist and suggest standard conditions.

5.9 The Environmental Health Technical Officer has raised no objections to the proposal but has raised some concern about the noise created by the piling work required to install the solar panels. Consequently a condition relating to operating hours for the piling work has been suggested.

5.10 Three objections have been received in response to this application from house owners in Watnall, Eastwood and Nuthall. The following points have been raised: landscaping impact has not been fully assessed, site visible from the air, community benefits are unclear, this development would result in a loss of openness, it would start to infill the gap between Westville and Watnall, reference to possible changes in planning policy over the next 25 years, loss of good quality agricultural land, no compelling argument has been made for development on this site, the VSC submitted do not overcome the harm to the Green Belt, this brownfield site would be better used for housing or industrial land, solar panels could reasonably be located on rooftops elsewhere, loss of natural habitat and beauty, the life of the permission requested has gone up to 30 years, temporary nature of development is long at 30 years, not just local impact, harm should be judged ‘here and now’ rather than after 30 years, would infill the gap between Watnall and the development at the Rolls Royce site.

5.11 Four residents from properties in Selston, Kimberley, Nottingham and Watnall have written supporting the scheme raising the following points: the prospect of helping the environment is beneficial, the development solves the local issue of illegal motorbike riding, the visual impact of the scheme is minimal, enhancement of the area, creative re-use of brownfield land, renewable energy is a priority, temporary nature of the development, the scheme would help decarbonise part of the energy system, significant wildlife enhancement and the scheme would make an excellent use of poor agricultural land.

6. Appraisal

6.1 Green Belt Considerations: Whilst 42% of the site area is considered to be brownfield land and this development would assist in reusing an area of derelict land, the site lies within the Nottinghamshire Green Belt where there is a presumption against inappropriate development other than in exceptional circumstances. Solar farms and associated equipment are not forms of appropriate development within the current policy framework, therefore by definition they are inappropriate. Thus the main issues with

130

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 this proposal relate to the appropriateness of this type of development in the Green Belt and whether very special circumstances (VSC) exist to justify allowing such a proposal.

6.2 The fundamental aim of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. To this end the Green belt serves five purposes:

- to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas. - to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another - to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment - to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns, and - to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

The applicant submits that the M1 acts as a significant barrier to prevent the merging of towns and that no sprawl will result as a consequence of this development. The use of this site as a solar farm would also prevent this site from being developed in the future, or at least for the operational life of the development, and as such does not encroach into the countryside. There are no historic towns within the immediate vicinity.

6.3 Whilst it is not believed that this development would result in either unrestricted sprawl or create coalescence of settlements, the encroachment argument is harder to justify. If this development is allowed, it would have an operational time frame of 25 years and would be reversible, but it would still result in an area of land covered in solar panels which are not consistent with the rural landscape. Whilst over 40% of the site is brownfield, therefore lessening the strength of this argument, it is not fully accepted that this development would prevent encroachment into the countryside.

6.4 With regard to the argument for openness, the impact of this development is more significant. The land area covered by solar panels is 24.5 hectares and these include some subsidiary brick buildings, CCTV towers and are all surrounded by a 1.8 metre wire mesh fence. The applicant argues that this development would have a local impact with regard to openness and long and medium distance views are largely unaffected by this proposal due to the low level height of the panels. It is also argued that the panels are similar in linearity and appearance to man-made modern agricultural practises such as polytunnels, sheeted row formations and frames for hops and fruit. Whereas these points are all justifiable, technically it cannot be argued that this development has either minor or no impact on the openness of the Green Belt, and as such is contrary to one of the aims of Green Belt policy. Nevertheless, any impact is tempered by the fact that the existing Watnall Brickworks site consists of large swathes of concrete slabs and piles of bricks, all of which would be removed by this development and its associated landscaping.

6.5 Notwithstanding the arguments above, the applicant understands that this development is not considered a form of ‘appropriate development’ and as such very special circumstances (VSC) must be justified. The VSC case put forward here is largely based on the need for renewable energy and a reduction in the need for carbon fuels, and is now supported by an argument that there is no other viable site with suitable grid capacity for a site of this size in the locality. This case is further supported by other elements such as economic benefits, farm diversification,

131

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 biodiversity enhancements, the temporary and reversible nature of the proposal and community benefits. The case submitted is that these elements when considered cumulatively are sufficient to justify that VSC exist and these outweigh the usual Green Belt policy considerations. Each of the elements will be assessed in turn.

6.6 Need for Renewable Energy. The NPPF is very clear in its support of renewable energy projects and moving towards a low carbon economy and achieving energy security are key government aims. The Climate Change Act in 2008 and The Renewables Directive in 2009 set targets for the UK to achieve and 15% of the Country’s energy consumption should be from renewable sources by 2020. As of 2013 only 5.2% came from these sources and therefore there is still a sufficient gap to fill in order to meet this target. This farm would generate 17MW of renewable energy for the national grid and, whilst the NPPF states that all renewable developments regardless of how small their respective contribution in energy production is, all provide a valuable contribution, 17MW would result in approximately 6,700 tonnes of C02 being saved a year equivalent to 5,151 homes. This amount of CO2 reduction would be a significant contribution locally and as such significant weight in planning policy terms should be given to this aspect.

6.7 Alternative Site Assessment: Following the refusal of the previous scheme the applicants commissioned Nathaniel Lichfield and partners to carry out an alternative site assessment to see if there were any alternative sites within the locality that could accommodate a solar farm. Whilst there is no established policy requirement or indeed established framework for assessment the survey may, the applicants believe, explain why this particular site was chosen. The overall conclusion being therefore that this site was the only realistic prospect of delivering 17mw of renewable energy within this locality and there are no alternative sites that are capable of providing equivalent outputs of renewable energy or are demonstrably better than the application site. The methodology for reaching this conclusion is explained below.

6.8 To determine the specific parameters for the search some of the technical issues behind locating large scale renewable energy schemes were outlined. Across the UK the national grid only has certain points where there is specific capacity to add additional electrical power into the network. Within this locality the only viable location to add power to the network is at a particular point in Hucknall. Indeed, according to Western Power, the next available grid capacity location is near Basford (within Nottingham City) and there are no other currently accessible locations on the grid within Broxtowe. However the search area is then further restricted by the connection costs and outputs in relation to this specific connection point, and consequently the search area was defined as radius of 4.25km from this point and is comparable to other solar farm site assessments that have been undertaken. Alternative sites within this search area were then examined, based on sites that could sufficiently achieve the outputs of the proposal, sites that appear readily available, and that any alternative site should be suitable for the proposed development without any significant alteration and with no disaggregation.

6.9 Other criteria covered by the assessment included researching the possibility of other options such as roof mounted technology, looking for sites with lower quality farmland than the proposal site, and removing constrained land from the assessment such as airfields, golf course and land covered by specific planning policies. Once all these

132

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 criteria were implemented a list of 35 potential sites were determined, this list was quickly reduced to 16 once it had been filtered further, and these 16 sites were then assessed in greater detail.

6.10 The report concluded that only three reasonable credible alternative sites existed and these all would have required unviable mitigation measures in order to overcome operational or physical constraints. Consequently these were all discounted. The report also dismissed the option of roof mounted solar based on the fact that the site area of the available roofs was smaller than required and spread over an extremely wide area making it impractical to manage.

6.11 The alternative site assessment indicates that there are no viable alternatives to this proposal within the locality. Indeed Western Power has confirmed that there is no other suitable grid connection for a site of this size within a 10 mile radius of the site, which effectively discounts most of the Borough apart from a small section of Attenborough Nature Reserve. Consequently if this proposal does not take place at this particular location, then the opportunity to generate 17mw of renewable power would not be realised within Broxtowe. This factor therefore should be given significant planning weight in the overall VSC case, and arguably could be considered a VSC in its own right.

6.12 Economic Benefits and Farm Diversification: Farm diversification is recognised by planning policy as necessary in order to ensure the long term economic stability of farmers. Due to the government tariffs available for these schemes the land owner of this land will receive a steady stream of income for the life of the solar farm, which is a more reliable resource than current farming practices. Furthermore, due to the layout and general operational practices of solar farms, agricultural use of the land can continue albeit it largely restricted to livestock grazing but the agricultural use of the land can continue alongside the solar farm itself. With respect to employment, research has shown that for every MW installed for ground mounted projects approximately seven jobs are created. Consequently this site, if permitted, could result in the creation of 119 jobs. The jobs created, and the stability of the project in terms of farming income, can both be given appropriate weight with regard to the overall VSC case. However, considering the scale of the development when compared with the relatively small outputs in job terms, it is not considered that anything more than some planning weight can be given to this element.

6.13 Landscaping and Biodiversity: The landscaping appraisal submitted alongside the application describes the general landscape quality of this area as poor or ordinary, and it is quite apparent that there are no significant landscape features worthy of protection here. Nevertheless the landscape strategy proposes to protect and enhance the existing trees, woodlands and hedges on site, with some of the hedges augmented where appropriate to encourage biodiversity and including infilling of gaps. The perimeter fence will be planted with native hedge and climbers for wildlife benefit and soils enriched where appropriate. There are also plans to grow wildflowers through over seeding, meadow areas will be created and habitat boxes located throughout the site. Other biodiversity enhancements include new woodland planting (adjacent to the bridleway), habitat enhancement for reptiles, nesting boxes for bats and birds, ponds created for newts and Great Crested Newts to inhabit, log piles for invertebrates and some woodland

133

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 scrub area are to be created.

6.14 Following the refusal of the previous scheme additional work was carried out to further enhance the proposed landscaping work including specific enhancement of key landscape characteristics particularly at key boundary locations. A landscape and visual impact assessment has been submitted that shows the development of the solar farm over time taken from key vantage points, usually footpaths. The impact assessment indicates that once the proposed landscaping has had opportunity to establish itself views of the solar farm would be limited.

6.15 Many of the boundary enhancements would have to be carried out to partially screen the development from the surrounding landscape and therefore are required more to mitigate the development rather than adding value to it. Consequently it is not considered that these elements can be considered as part of the VSC case. However the vast majority of the enhancements proposed would only happen if the solar farm was granted planning permission and to that end can be considered as part of the VSC case. Indeed the case officer has visited other solar farms within the Midlands and has noted the biodiversity benefits that such developments can bring. Consequently, and considering the current state of the landscape in question, it is likely that this development would result in significant landscape and biodiversity enhancements across this site, and to that end should be given significant weight in the wider planning considerations.

6.16 Irreversibility: The operational shelf life of solar farms is currently 25 years. After this time they are decommissioned and the existing land use restored. The impact these developments have on the landscape is therefore both temporary and reversible. The panel table (the steel frame upon which the panels sit) would be attached to a steel pole which is inserted into the ground to a distance of 1.2metres. However once decommissioned the panel tables are simply removed and the land restored. Considering the temporary nature of the scheme and the reversibility of it, moderate planning weight should be given to this element.

6.17 Education and Community benefits: 5mw of a potential of 17mw of the energy available on site could be owned by the community schemes, initiatives and tariffs. In January 2014 the first ever UK Community Energy Strategy was written which outlined that over the coming decades the country needs a continuous supply of reliable and affordable energy from low carbon sources to address national energy targets. Although led by big companies and organisations the document outlined how smaller schemes and groups can get involved and make a difference and maintain energy security. This farm, if approved, would have a community energy element of 5mw, managed by Community Energy England which is a not for profit organisation that works with the relevant partners in delivering community energy. 5mw is the maximum allowed under current guidelines and differs from the figures quoted within the submitted planning statement. Earthworm Energy (the applicants) are currently identifying local interest groups to engage with under the shared ownership community scheme and investment opportunities will be offered to any interested community groups. Consequently local community groups can get involved in this solar farm by purchasing some of the panels on site through initiatives such as feed in tariffs. The idea being that the community would have an opportunity to proactively get involved in local projects and

134

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 potentially benefit from a financial return on any schemes within their specific locality. Any income generated from the scheme could then be used for other community projects within the local area.

6.18 From an educational perspective there will be various information boards posted along the footpaths that cross the site and opportunities for local schools and community groups to visit the site by arrangement. The opportunity to both understand the benefits of, and actively benefit financially from, this development is admirable, although not considered significantly noteworthy in terms of VSC. The wider public can learn about the benefits of solar farms from a variety of sources and having an opportunity to invest in local developments and feed in tariffs are commonplace. If any money gleaned from the site is reinvested in local projects then there could be a direct benefit from this development into the local community, which would not occur if the development was not constructed. However, it is impossible to determine how many local schemes or initiatives would benefit from this development or indeed influence it through planning. It is considered therefore that only limited weight can be given to this factor in planning terms.

6.19 Ecology. Both desk based surveys and field surveys were carried out across the site between June 2014 and May 2015 to ascertain the presence of any protected species on site. Both the Great Crested Newt survey and the reptile survey carried out found no specimens on site and therefore no mitigation measures are proposed for these species. However, as part of the landscape and biodiversity enhancements proposed on site, specific work will be carried out to try and enhance or create habitats that would actively encourage these species to populate the site. The Nottingham County Council Ecology Officer has commented on the submissions and is happy with the survey results carried out. A survey for badgers was also carried out and discovered some badger setts in close proximity to the access. The Ecology Officer has asked for some conditions relating to protecting the badger setts and elements of these will be included in any permission. It is worth remembering that currently no protection is afforded to the badgers on site, therefore any additional measures for their protection will improve the current situation. Suggested stand-off distances and methods for their protection during development will therefore be conditioned. The Ecology Officer has also requested a survey for Japanese Knotweed removal on site but this could be extremely expensive, affecting the overall viability of the scheme, and is covered by other legislation and therefore imposing such a condition would be unreasonable.

6.20 With specific reference to the Local Wildlife Site to the north of the site, the EcologyOfficer has explained that this area is emerging into a specific area of habitat know as Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land. He continues by explaining that ideally the northern part of the site (on the old Brickworks area) should be removed from the development proposal to allow this emerging habit area to develop. If however the Local Planning Authority grant permission, then paragraph 118 of the NPPF should be given due regard. Paragraph 118 of the NPPF outlines that biodiversity should be enhanced and if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for, then it should be refused. Key areas which should be protected are also outlined (such as SSSIs and Ancient Woodlands) and Local Wildlife Sites are not included within this list.

135

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 6.21 It is questionable whether any significant harm is being created here as the scheme is both over a temporary period and reversible, with the subsoil being unaffected longer term. Moreover this area will remain a Local Wildlife Site and, whilst it is accepted that the light levels and character of the area will be altered, habitats can continue to develop around the solar panels and in between the individual rows. Furthermore the submitted landscaping strategy outlines that over the wider site works will be carried out creating additional habitats for varying species and ecological enhancements that would result in the betterment of the ecological situation. Thus whilst there may be a negative impact on the ecological progression of the LWS area of the site, overall the ecological benefits of this development are positive. When assessing the ecological benefits of the site overall, they are significant, and would result in ecological betterment overall. Consequently it is considered that the main aims of paragraph 118 of the NPPF are met and the impact on the LWS by this development is acceptable.

6.22 Agricultural Land Quality: The agricultural land survey submitted alongside the application outlines that the site contains a mixture of lower quality agricultural land. Agricultural land is classified into grades from 1-5 with this site being classified as having Grade 2 (21%), Subgrade 3A (22%) and Subgrade 3b (15%) and the rest of the site being either non-agricultural land or brownfield. 56% of the area proposed for the panels would be classed outside of the agricultural ‘best and most versatile’ categories utilised by the NPPF and much of the agricultural land is low quality. Most of the land affected by this development is of sufficiently poor quality that there would be no adverse on productive farming land locally. Additionally the solar panels are fixed to the ground with the use of reversible construction techniques and the soil quality itself would be unaffected long term. Consequently whilst a small proportion of reasonable quality arable farming land would be utilised for this development, due to the reversibility of the proposals it is not considered that this should be a reason to resist the development.

6.23 Heritage: The heritage desk based survey determined that there was, at best, a low potential for archaeological evidence within 2km of the site (including the site itself). Additionally that the proposed solar farm would not have an adverse impact on the views currently afforded to heritage assets in relative close proximity to the site. It is not considered therefore that heritage assets would be affected by this proposal.

Other Issues

6.24 Illegal Motorbike Riding: Motorbikes and quad bikes have been riding illegally on the site on and off for years, and whilst there has been involvement from enforcement and the Nottinghamshire Police, this issue has never been resolved. Nottinghamshire Police have also informed the Council that criminal damage has occurred to adjacent crops by bikers trying to gain access to the site. If this site is redeveloped then it is anticipated that this issue would be largely resolved as much of the terrain for riding bikes on would be removed and access to the site would be far harder. Redeveloping the site would therefore be beneficial from both enforcement and a policing perspective, preventing further time and money being expended in trying to resolve this issue. In accordance with Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 the Council is under an obligation

136

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 to give due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of its functions and to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder. Whilst the issue of illegal motorcycling cannot be considered as a form of VSC, it can be considered as another positive element to add into the wider VSC case for allowing this development.

6.25 Highways: The highways department has raised no objection to this development, and following the construction of the solar farm the traffic generated in order to serve this site is insignificant.

6.26 Footpaths and Bridleways: A bridleway crosses the northern section of the site and would be impacted by this development. This right of access will be maintained throughout the course of the development, and suitable protective measures put in place to ensure the safety of users of it. Fencing will be erected either side of the bridleway and climbing species and native hedging introduced for the benefit of screening and wildlife improvement. The ground floor of the bridleway will also be enhanced by the use of a fine dust composite material. These measures are considered acceptable and following the establishment of the species introduced it is likely that the bridleway environment would be enhanced in the longer term.

6.27 Flooding: The site is in Flood Zone 1 but a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is required due to the site area being over 1ha. There are no significant watercourses within the site with the nearest watercourse in Giltbrook, approximately 1km to the west of the site. Within the site itself are a few pools of water on site but nothing of any great scale, and some localised instances of waterlogging can occur. There is a very low risk of any flooding within the site and no significant measures are required. Nevertheless following consultation with the EA it was determined that three additional swales shall be constructed on the eastern boundary of the site prior to first use of the site. This will be conditioned as part of any planning permission. All tracks constructed on site will use permeable hardcore or aggregate to allow for water to infiltrate through to the underlying soil and prevent water run off to adjacent land.

6.28 Noise and Glinting: There is public concern and perception about solar arrays reflecting sunlight and causing issues with regard to glare they emit. This is not actually the case. Solar panels are designed to absorb light rather than reflect it and the reflective quality of water, polytunnels and glass buildings is far greater than that from solar PV. With respect to the operational noise from the site it is not considered that this would extend beyond the site boundaries and is not considered an issue. The disturbances from piling during construction may well be marginally more audible although considering the short time frame of the construction, this is not considered to be a significant issue.

6.29 Other Alternatives: As part of the alternative site assessment carried out by Nathanial Lichfield and Partners other alternative methods of locating solar panels that created equivalent power outputs were considered. The only realistic way an equivalent power output could be achieved was through locating a significant number of solar panels on

137

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 various properties roofs within the locality. Due to the scale of panels required and the vast multitude of property owners this would entail, this option is not considered a viable or practical alternative.

6.30 Lifespan: The operational lifespan of solar farms is 25 years, which is taken from the first export date to the grid, the first date from which electrical power in generated. Either side of this date is a commissioning (setting up) and decommissioning period. The applicants have applied for a 30 year planning permission, which would incorporate a commissioning and decommissioning period. It is considered that allowing a period of five years for setting up and dismantling the site is rather excessive and there does not appear to be a precedent for this for other similar schemes elsewhere. Any planning permission would contain conditions, one of which would allow three years for construction to start on the development, and another which explains when the 25 year time frame for electricity generation begins. A separate condition deals with decommissioning of the farm, and the timeframes for this can be agreed through this condition at that time. Consequently it is not considered relevant or necessary to have a 30 year planning permission attached.

6.31 Land ownership: Adjacent land owners who border the site have raised no objection to the development but have queried whether access will remain intact throughout and wanted clarity that their access rights would be retained. Whist legal matters are not a planning consideration the applicants have responded to this enquiry stating that all access rights to adjacent landowners will remain.

7.0 Conclusion: It is not considered that this development would contravene the main purposes of the Nottinghamshire Green Belt, other than that of the impact on openness. The land use proposed is not one which would usually be considered an ‘acceptable’ use within a Green Belt location and as such VSC need to be demonstrated. In this case the VSC put forward by the applicant can be summarised as follows:

- The lack of significant harm to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. - The development would recycle derelict land - The urgent and current need for renewable energy reflected in current policy. - Ecological benefits resulting from the solar farm development. - The reversibility of the development - This is the only viable site within Broxtowe that could accommodate this level of renewable energy.

It can be argued that the identified need for renewable energy, coupled with the relatively localised harm to the Green Belt in openness terms on a part brownfield site is sufficient VSC on its own to outweigh usual policy considerations. Notwithstanding these factors the current grid capacity within Broxtowe can only take 17mw of renewable energy at a specific point, and the alternative site assessment has demonstrated that this site is the only viable option to locate such a development. This, particularly in the context of current policy, should be given significant weight when assessing the overall VSC case.

When other factors are considered as well, cumulatively it is considered that they

138

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 amount to sufficient VSC to override the usual policy consideration within this Green Belt location. Consequently planning permission is recommended for approval.

Recommendation

The Committee is asked to RESOLVE that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the plans, elevations and supporting documentation received by the Council on 13 March 2015, 22 July 2015 and the amended documentation received on 16 September 2015.

3. The external appearance of the transformer invertor buildings shall first be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to any development commencing on site

4. The planning permission hereby granted is for a period of 25 years from the date of first export of electricity from the solar farm to the grid (the ‘first export date’) after which the development hereby permitted shall be removed in accordance with the approved Decommissioning Method Statement. Written notification of the first export date shall be given to the Local Planning Authority no later than 14 days after the event.

5. Unless further planning permission has been obtained for its retention not less than 12 months before the expiry of this permission, a Decommissioning Method Statement (DMS) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Decommissioning Method Statement shall include details of a timetable for the removal of the panels, cables and buildings from the site. The DMS shall also include details of the proposed restoration of the land and its subsequent aftercare. The site shall be decommissioned and restored in accordance with the approved DMS.

6. The site shall be landscaped in accordance with the submitted landscaping scheme within the landscape visual impact assessment and received by the local planning authority on 16 September 2015. Notwithstanding these plans the following details shall be submitted prior to development commencing on site:

(a) trees, hedges and shrubs to be retained and measures for their protection during the course of development (b) footpath surfacing details and associated boundary treatment (c) details of the specific ecological habitats created and their locations

The approved scheme shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the agreed details.

139

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 7. The approved landscaping shall be carried out not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development and any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years, die, are removed or have become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with ones of similar size and species to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, unless written consent has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority for a variation.

8. No vegetation shall be cleared on site between March and August inclusive.

9. Specific details relating to the protection of the Badger Setts during the course of the construction of the solar farm, including general good practice construction methods such as covered trenches overnight and standoff zones, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to development commencing on site.

10. Prior to the first export date 3 drainage swales shall have been constructed on the eastern edge of the site. This is in line with the details contained within the revised Flood Risk Assessment which was submitted to the Council on 22 April 2015.

11. Piling shall not be undertaken on site except between: 08:00-17:00 Monday to Friday, 08:00-13:00 Saturday, and at no time on Sundays, Bank Holidays and other public holidays without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons

1. To comply with S91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. For the avoidance of doubt 3. To ensure a satisfactory external appearance of these structures. 4. To ensure that the turbines are removed from the site at the end of their operational life in the interests of protecting the character of the Green Belt 5. In the interests of protecting the visual character and appearance of the Green Belt. 6. No such details were submitted and to ensure that the landscaping is appropriate for the locality and no development occurs until suitable landscaping has been agreed. 7. To ensure the development presents a more pleasant appearance in the locality 8. To ensure that any nesting birds are not disturbed by the development. 9. To ensure no undue harm is caused to any badgers roaming the site and it is important that these methods are agreed prior to any development commencing on site. 10. To ensure suitable flood prevention measures have been installed on site and all flood prevention measures are in place before the development becomes active. 11. To protect nearby residents from excessive construction noise.

140

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 Note to Applicant

The Council has acted positively and proactively throughout by liaising with the applicant throughout the process and resolving potential issues before determining the application and in accordance with paragraphs 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Background papers Application case file

141

Photos

Land off Long Lane, Watnall Change of Use from agricultural land to 17MW PV solar farm and associated infrastructure

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 Scale: 1: 10,000

Directorate of Legal and Planning Services

142

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

Report of the Director of Legal and Planning Services

15/00101/LBC AND 15/00115/FUL REMOVE ASBESTOS ROOF AND WALL CLADDING FROM AN AGRICULTURAL OUTBUILDING, TAKE DOWN PARTIALLY OPEN EASTERN ELEVATION, TAKE DOWN AND REBUILD PART OF THE WESTERN ELEVATION, REMOVE AN INTERNAL WALL, FORM NEW ROOF WITH DORMERS AND ROOFLIGHTS, RAISE NORTHERN, WESTERN AND SOUTHERN WALLS, CREATE NEW EASTERN ELEVATION, INSTALL NEW FLOOR AND FORM INTERNAL PARTITIONS TO CREATE TWO HOLIDAY LETS BEAUVALE ABBEY FARM, NEW ROAD, GREASLEY NG16 2AA

The applications have been brought to the Planning Committee as, following the Committee resolution in June to grant planning permission and listed building consent, drawings and additional information have been received in order to discharge the conditions placed by the Planning Committee. The previous report to Committee is attached as an appendix.

1.0 Details of the proposal

1.1 The proposal is to discharge the conditions placed on the planning permission and listed building consents, which granted conditional permission to remove the asbestos sheet roof, partially take down the east elevation, take down part of the west elevation, removal of an internal wall, form new roof with dormers and roof lights, raise northern, western and southern walls, create new eastern elevation, insert new floor and form internal partitions.

1.2 The conditions which were included on the two applications determined in June, which are for consideration, are:

1. The roof on the north elevation shall be wholly tiled unless a suitable alternative means of fenestration in this roof slope has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with such approved details unless the roof’s north elevation is wholly tiled.

2. Notwithstanding the details on the submitted plans, no rainwater goods, external chimneys, nor external facing materials for the east elevation of the building, shall be used unless their details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with these approved details.

A note to applicant in the decision notices stated that “Whilst dormer windows are not considered to be appropriate in this type of building, should fenestration be desired in the north elevation, conservation style roof lights may be appropriate subject to design and location. Any rainwater goods should be metal and finished in black; if the chimneys are still desired, a more

143

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

appropriate style may be acceptable for use in a converted agricultural building such as a metal stove pipe of an appropriate colour or finish”.

2.2 On 16 September 2015, a meeting took place on site at Beauvale Abbey Farm. Representatives from the applicant, Historic England, the Council and members were in attendance. The meeting was arranged to discuss a way forward with the discharge of conditions.

2.0 Policy

2.1 Paragraph 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of a heritage asset or development within its setting. Any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.

2.2 Paragraph 133 of the NPPF states that where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm, Local Planning Authorities should refuse consent unless it can be demonstrated that the harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits which outweigh the harm, or

• the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site, and • that no viable use of the heritage asset can be found in the medium term that will enable its conservation, and • conservation by grant funded or some other form of charitable/public ownership is demonstrably not possible, and • the harm/ loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

2.3 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum use.

2.4 Policy 11 of the Aligned Core Strategy seeks to protect the historic environment and heritage assets.

2.5 Policy E8 states that planning permission will not be granted for development in the Green Belt except where it constitutes appropriate development. Examples of appropriate development are stated in the policy.

3.0 Consultations

3.1 The Council’s previous Conservation Advisor was of the view that the dormer windows and brick chimneys were not appropriate.

3.2 Since the previous application was determined and following the meeting on 16 September 2015, the Council has appointed a new Conservation Advisor. She has viewed the proposal details and considers that the building is of agricultural character and that it would be possible to convert the building to a

144

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

holiday let without unduly harming the character or appearance of the building. She considers that the raising of the ridge and increase in the pitch of the building have not harmed the agricultural appearance or character of the building. The north elevation of the holiday let building is the most significant on the building as it is the only one visible from the Priory and also visible in the same viewpoint as the farmhouse as viewed from the Priory.

As with most farm buildings, windows were kept to a minimum, which resulted in low key, blank elevations. The holiday let building is no exception to this. The dormer windows are considered to be wholly inappropriate on the building of its character and in the setting. The dormer windows are considered to be more jarring because the rest of the elevation is blank except for one very small window and its modest unfussy demeanour allows the former function, heritage and that of the rest of the grouping of buildings, to be read. She considers that the dormers add suburban domestic character that is entirely at odds with the building, heritage, setting and appearance of the group of buildings as a whole. It is acknowledged that the owners have put in a considerable effort and enterprise into rescuing the Priory from dereliction and allowing the public to share in the history and heritage of the site. As a Local Planning Authority, she points out that we should encourage this, as well as be flexible and pragmatic. However, the dormers would spoil the setting of the Listed Buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monument to such an extent, that the beneficial works would be undermined in her view. Dormer windows are not considered necessary for the implementation, viability or success of wider initiatives on site. Although they would give guests a view of the Priory from the bedroom, this view could easily be gained from standing in front of the building or from other viewpoints on the site. Furthermore, in her opinion far more people would have to suffer the view of the dormer windows from the Priory down the valley than would benefit the view of the Priory from the dormer windows.

3.3 A photo of the reclaimed cast iron gutter has been submitted. The gutter has an ogee profile and is not as simple as would be appropriate. However, while not ideal, the material is of good quality and overall would not harm the building or setting. The Conservation Advisor had noticed that during a site visit UPVC guttering has been installed on a wooden fascia board to the South elevation of the building. The use of PVC and the fascia would not be appropriate if details had been submitted. Rainwater goods should be fixed directly on the walls with rise and fall brackets or similar. PVC is not an appropriate material on a building of its age and in the setting. Both the PVC and fascia harm the building and there are no public benefits to these details which would outweigh the statutory presumption against permission where harm is found.

3.4 No comments were made in relation to the materials already erected on the East elevation. The brick chimney stacks would be at odds with the simple functional form and demeanour of the building and if required, a simple steel flue would make less of a visual impact and would be acceptable.

145

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

3.5 The previous Conservation Advisor stated that as a general rule, Historic England advises that the conversion of traditional farm buildings should “avoid domestic references” and that on this basis, recommended that the dormer windows and chimneys should be omitted. This is taken from the Historic England guidance “Conversion of traditional farm buildings” (2006) (published under English Heritage).

3.6 Regarding rainwater goods, the previous Conservation Advisor advised that rainwater goods should be cast iron or extruded aluminium with half round gutters and circular section for the downpipes. These gutters should be fixed to the wall with wall spikes or rafter brackets, as farm buildings rarely have any fascia board. He recommended that all fascia boards should be removed and that half-round gutters on rise and fall brackets should be provided.

3.7 Historic England have no further comments to add to their previous comments on the planning application and have no objection to the approval of the drawings submitted for the discharge of conditions.

4.0 Appraisal

4.1 As part of the information submitted to discharge the condition, the agent submitted a supporting letter. In this letter, he has stated that if the dormer windows as constructed are agreed to be retained, that the cheeks of these would be clad in lead. In the previous report to planning committee, it was stated that dormer windows represent a domestic feature and would be inappropriate on agricultural buildings and should be avoided.

4.2 The agent has quoted the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in that the harm of a designated heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. The agent and the applicant’s Conservation Advisor considers that the harm of the dormers is outweighed by the public benefits, as the historic buildings and monument are being repaired and brought back into use and that the public access to the site is provided and encouraged. The agent considers that the conversion to holiday lets would encourage tourism to the area.

4.3 It is not considered by the Local Planning Authority that there are any public benefits from the installation of the dormer windows. Recent case law clarifies the relationship between the primary statutory legislation and the NPPF, with the presumption in favour of refusal where any harm is found.

4.4 It is not disputed that the conversion of the buildings would be a positive development at the site in principle, however it is the opinion of officers and the Councils current and previous Conservation Advisors that the dormer windows are inappropriate in an agricultural building and that the conversion of the building can still be carried out without harm to the building as already approved. The agent has argued that conservation style roof lights (that have been suggested by the Local Planning Authority to be a suitable alternative) would not provide a view of the Priory structure and would discourage guests from visiting, affecting the viability of the scheme. There has been no

146

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

evidence provided to demonstrate that the lack of dormer windows would affect the viability of the scheme or wider operation of Beauvale Abbey Farm. In this regard, as advised in the note to applicant, Conservation type roof lights in place of the dormer windows would be an acceptable opening that would also offer a view of the Priory for those staying in the holiday lets.

4.5 The applicant is proposing reclaimed cast iron ogee profile gutters. The building is of traditional agricultural style and originally would not have had any fascias or guttering. The agent has noted that the rainwater goods are required to maintain the fabric of the building and that the ogee section of the gutter would have the advantage of obscuring the fascia board and sit well with the dormer windows. It is of the opinion of the Council that both rainwater goods and fascias are not design features that typically feature on agricultural buildings. However it has been accepted by the Council that the proposed rainwater goods are of good quality and do not unduly harm the building or wider setting and therefore can be accepted. However it is recommended that the fascia boards are not approved and should be removed. The guttering can be erected on the building without the use of fascias by means of a rise and fall type bracket (wall spikes).

147

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

4.6 Previously it had been proposed that brick chimneys would be inserted in the roof of the property. As previously mentioned in the original committee report, it was considered that brick chimneys would not be appropriate for a property of agricultural character. It was suggested that a stove flue could be more acceptable. At the meeting, the use of a stove was discussed with the applicant, which is preferred by officers of the Council. However the amended drawings submitted include brick chimneys as it was considered by the agent and their advisor that they would sit better with the dormer windows. The Note to Applicant in the Planning and Listed Building Consent decisions recommended the use of stove type chimneys rather than brick chimneys.

4.7 The east elevation has been partially clad in waney edge elm horizontal boarding. It was considered that the use of this material was acceptable by all parties.

148

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

4.8 Regarding Green Belt policy, it is not considered by officers that the dormer windows and brick chimneys amount to appropriate development in the Green Belt as these additions are not listed in saved policy E8 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) as being appropriate development. It is accepted that given the approval of the building subject to condition to be determined, the dormers and chimneys do not have a significant additional impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

5.0 Conclusion

5.1 The waney edge timber cladding on the east elevation of the building is considered to be acceptable for the development and it is recommended that this material can be approved. Whilst the cast iron gutter is not as simple as would have been preferred, it is considered that overall it would not harm the building or its setting.

5.2 However it is considered by officers of the Council and both Conservation Advisors that the dormer windows and chimneys proposed are too domesticated for an agricultural farm building. Suggestions made to the agent and applicant which may result in a more acceptable scheme to the Local Planning Authority and in line with the Historic England publication, “Conversion of traditional farm buildings” (2006), have not been followed.

5.3 The Council must take into account its statutory duty under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, that when determining an application which affects a listed building or its setting, the Local Planning Authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting. Even where the harm would be “less than substantial” the statutory duty under Section 66 (1) cannot be ignored.

5.4 The opinion of the officers is that the dormer and brick chimneys in combination amount to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset and amount to inappropriate development in the green Belt. If members agree with this assessment and are satisfied that no very special circumstances have been shown including the public benefit of the proposed details to discharge the condition then the details should not be approved relating to the dormer windows and brick chimneys.

5.5 If members consider that in line with the position of Historic England that there is either no harm to heritage assets from these details or that the harm would be less than substantial taking into account the advice in paragraph 5.3 (above) then it is necessary to consider the public benefits of the proposal and whether these outweigh any harm identified. Recommendation The Committee is asked to RESOLVE that the details submitted by the applicant as required by conditions 1 and 2 are not approved and that enforcement proceedings are commenced to remedy the continuing planning breach. This would include the removal of the dormer windows, fascia boards and UPVC guttering which have been erected on the building. Background papers: Application case file

149

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

Photo

Beauvale Abbey Farm, New Road, Greasley Remove asbestos roof and wall cladding from an agricultural outbuilding, take down partially open eastern elevation, take down and rebuild part of the western elevation, remove an internal wall, form new roof with dormers and rooflights, raise northern, western and southern walls, create new eastern elevation, install new floor and form internal partitions to create two holiday lets. Planning Committee 11 November 2015 Scale: 1: 10,000 Directorate of Legal and Planning Services

150

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

Photo

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 Scale: 1: 2,500

151

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

Photo

Abbey

Farmhouse

Stables

Application Buildings

Workshop Modern Barn

Gatehouse (tea rooms) Listed Building

Planning Committee 11 November 2015 Scale: 1: 2,500 Directorate of Legal and Planning Services

152

Planning Committee 3 June 2015

APPENDIX Report of the Director of Legal and Planning Services

Councillors M Handley and M Brown have requested that this application be brought to Committee.

1.0 Details of the application

Two applications have been submitted for retrospective Listed Building Consent and Planning Permission for the development described above.

2.0 Site and surroundings

2.1 Beauvale Abbey Farm is located off a track off New Road, approximately 1.2 miles from the junction in Moorgreen next to the Horse and Groom Public House (the B600). The site is approximately 3 miles North East of Eastwood town centre.

2.2 Beauvale Abbey Farm is located within both the Green Belt and a Mature Landscape Area. The whole site is covered by a Scheduled Monument designation. The Monument was scheduled in 1915, making it one of the earliest scheduled monuments and ranks amongst the most important archaeological sites in the country.

2.3 There are four Listed Buildings/structures on site. These include:

• Beauvale Priory Gatehouse Range (Grade II – First Listed 1952) • Beauvale Priory Church and attached Prior’s Lodgings (Grade II* - First Listed 1952) • Beauvale Abbey Farmhouse (Grade II – First Listed 1952) • Beauvale Priory Precinct Boundary Wall (Grade II – First Listed 1952).

2.4 The north of the site is bounded by mature woodland and the south by a dismantled railway line. To the east of the site is a large pond with fields, and fields to the west of the site. The land slopes gently down to the south. The Priory church and lodgings, farmhouse and precinct boundary wall are all located to the north of the building currently under consideration. There

153

Planning Committee 3 June 2015

are no immediate neighbours to the site who would be affected by the development. 2.5 The Priory sits at the head of a minor stream to the northern side of the Valley. The geography of the site influenced the layout of the Priory, allowing it to take advantage of the spring from the stream and shelter provided from the woodland to the North of the site.

2.6 The building under consideration is in the curtilage of, and ancillary to the Grade II Listed Farmhouse. The building forms part of a group of buildings forming the farm courtyard to the South of the Priory church and lodgings.

2.7 The building previously had a brick built West elevation with two traditional stable doors. The East elevation comprised timber boarding with asbestos sheeting. The North and South elevations were constructed out of stone and the building was finished with asbestos sheeting to the roof, as indicated on the photographs below.

Previous images of the building (prior to development)

Images of building work undertaken so far East elevation Internal of East unit

154

Planning Committee 3 June 2015

Internal roof structure South elevation

North elevation West elevation

155

Planning Committee 3 June 2015

West elevation

North elevation from North of site

156

Planning Committee 3 June 2015

3.0 Relevant planning history

3.1 Beauvale Priory was originally a Carthusian charterhouse established in 1343. Beauvale is one of nine Charthusian charterhouses established in medieval England and its focus was upon solitude and individual meditation rather than communal activity and worship. This solitude approach had a direct impact upon the structure of the settlement. The order was the first to be placed at risk following the passing of Henry VIII’s Act of Succession in 1534.

3.2 Over the years there have been several additions to the site including the construction of the farm house (C16-19) and various farm buildings to the South of the Priory church and lodgings.

3.3 In 2009, planning permission was granted conditionally for the change of use from workshops/agricultural buildings to a classroom (Class D1), coffee shop (Class A3), ice-cream manufacturer (Class B2), microbrewery and holiday let (Class C1). The planning permission included both a condition and a note to applicant which stipulated that the permission related to the change of use only and that no internal or external alterations were to be carried out without the relevant Listed Building and Scheduled Monument Consents. A substantial amount of construction and alteration has taken place already (as evidenced in the photographs) this work is unlawful and also in breach of the condition of this planning permission.

3.4 Early in 2015, it was brought to the Council’s attention that works were being carried out to the roof of the “holiday let” building to the rear of the group of the farm courtyard buildings. Following a site visit by the Council, the Listed Building Consent application and a planning application were submitted.

4.0 Policy context

4.1 Broxtowe Local Plan (2004)

4.1.1 Green Belt

Saved Policy E8 of the Broxtowe Local Plan states that planning permission will not be granted for development in the Green Belt except for where it constitutes “appropriate development”. Appropriate development can include essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, the change of use of agricultural buildings and other buildings to employment and tourism uses which help to diversify the economy.

4.1.2 Other relevant policies

Saved Policy E14 of the Broxtowe Local Plan states that development which would harm a Mature Landscape Area will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the siting, scale and design of the proposal minimises the harm to the Mature Landscape Area and that the need for

157

Planning Committee 3 June 2015

the proposal clearly outweighs the remaining harm to the special qualities for which the area was designated. The characteristics of this area include an extensive and varied landscape with large blocks of woodland, a reservoir and a mixed farming pattern defined by mature hedgerows and trees.

4.1.3 Saved Policy RC18 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) states that planning permission will be granted for tourist related facilities, including business and visitor related accommodation, provided that there is satisfactory access, including by public transport and appropriate parking facilities, the development would not detract from the open character, environmental and landscape value of the area and that there would be no unacceptable harm to local amenity.

4.2 Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014)

4.2.1 Heritage assets

Policy 11 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (The Historic Environment) states that proposals will be supported where the historic environment and heritage assets and their settings are conserved and/or enhanced in line with their interest and significance. Part 4 of the policy states that particular attention will be given where a number of heritage assets have significance as a group or give context to a wider area.

4.2.2 Other relevant policies

4.2.2.1 Policy 3: The Green Belt, restates the importance of retaining the Green Belt in principle but also heralds the review of its boundaries in order to deliver development to meet the Borough’s housing need as set out in Policy 2.

4.2.2.2 Policy 10 of the Adopted Aligned Core Strategy (Design and Enhancing Local Identity) states that development should be assessed in relation to its massing and scale, materials, and design and impact on the amenity of nearby residents or occupiers. The policy also states that when considering development, the potential impact on important views and vistas and other individual landmarks, as well as the setting of heritage assets, should be taken into account. The development should be designed in a way which conserves both locally and nationally important heritage assets and preserves or enhances their settings.

4.2.2.3 Policy 13 (Culture, Tourism and Sport) states that, where appropriate, existing cultural, tourism and sporting facilities will be protected and their further development will be supported.

4.3 National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

158

Planning Committee 3 June 2015

4.3.1 Core planning principles

Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out 12 core planning principles. These include the high quality of design and good standard of amenity of development, taking into account the different roles and character of different areas, including protecting the Green Belt and conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.

4.3.2 Design principles

4.3.2.1 Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

4.3.2.2 Paragraph 61 states that although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, decisions should address connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.

4.3.3 Green Belt

As with previous national Green Belt policy, paragraphs 87 - 90 confirm that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The NPPF also states that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. However there are some exceptions to “inappropriate development” which can include the “extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building”. It is also considered that other certain forms of development are not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt, including the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction.

4.3.4 Heritage assets

4.3.4.1 Paragraphs 130 – 136 consider the harm that development may have on heritage assets. Paragraph 130 of the NPPF states that where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of or damage to a heritage asset, the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision. Paragraph 131 states that when determining applications, Local Planning Authorities should take into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation and the positive contribution that the conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities, including their economic viability.

4.3.4.2 Paragraph 132 states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great

159

Planning Committee 3 June 2015

weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of a heritage asset or development within its setting. Any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.

4.3.4.3 Paragraph 133 states that where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm, Local Planning Authorities should refuse consent unless it can be demonstrated that the harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits which outweigh the harm, or

• the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site, and • that no viable use of the heritage asset can be found in the medium term that will enable its conservation, and • conservation by grant funded or some other form of charitable/public ownership is demonstrably not possible, and • the harm/loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

5.0 Consultations

5.1 The Council’s Conservation Adviser has been consulted on the application. He considers that the building is within the curtilage of, and ancillary to, the farmhouse and therefore considers that Listed Building Consent is required (this is consistent with case law). He considers that the works would affect the setting of the farmhouse, the gatehouse range and the wider Scheduled Monument. The Adviser observes that the application building is uphill from the gatehouse range and unusually deep on plan. He considers that in the past the building remained subservient to the gatehouse because the eaves were no higher than the gatehouse range and the roof pitch was less steep. The building has been raised in height using reclaimed materials, the lime washed interior faces of bricks and stones have been placed on the exterior face of the property. The eaves of the building have been raised and roof pitch has been made steeper. The alterations have provided first floor accommodation but they have also made the building more visually dominant.

5.2 The Conservation Adviser notes that plain rosemary tiles have been used on the roof. Staffordshire blue plain tiles are the dominant and characteristic roof tiles locally, used on the farmhouse, prior’s lodgings and gatehouse range. The two dormer windows have been installed addressing the standing remains of the priory and two chimneys are proposed. The English Heritage “Conversion of traditional farm buildings” (2006) practice guidance states that “roof lights may be more appropriate in agricultural buildings than dormer windows” and that “the introduction of new dormer windows is generally inappropriate in all farm building conversions”. He notes that the West elevation has been “substantially rebuilt”, the stable doors have been removed and reduced in height, the concrete heads have been replaced with soldier heads and the uppermost pintle hinge blocks have been removed. The blocked first floor openings in this elevation have

160

Planning Committee 3 June 2015

been replaced with smaller openings with soldier heads rather than segmentally arched ones.

5.3 In conclusion, the Conservation Adviser recommends that the eaves of the property and the roof pitch should be reduced, although not necessarily to their original dimensions, but so that the property is subservient to the gatehouse range. Therefore the first floor accommodation may need to be reduced to accommodate this. It is also suggested that the roof should be covered with Staffordshire Blue tiles and that the dormer windows and chimneys should be omitted. On the west elevation the first floor openings should be reinstated to their original design and dimensions and that on the east elevation two openings of a similar dimension should be created. The stable door openings should be reinstated to their previous dimensions and segmentally arched heads would be preferable. The lime wash should also be removed from the external faces of the masonry of the property.

5.4 Historic England (formally known as English Heritage) have provided a very detailed response which is included as an appendix to this report. In summary, and whilst they advocate changes to the proposed development and to some of the work already carried out, they do not object to the applications. Their Inspector of Ancient Monuments has given detailed advice to the applicant prior to the works being undertaken but the applicant has not followed that advice in every aspect, nor in obtaining the necessary statutory approvals before carrying out the works.

5.5 Greasley Parish Council supports the development. It states that although the site lies within the Green Belt it does not believe that the development is inappropriate as there was already a derelict building in position. It considers that the work carried out does not in any way impinge on upon or adversely affect the general outlook of the farm and priory. The dormer windows look out onto the rear woodland and the priory but are discrete and do not cause the problem of overlooking as they would on a site of a more built up nature. The Parish Council understands that English Heritage has been involved in the design of the building and feels it has to follow English Heritage’s recommendations as it is more experienced than the Parish Council. The Parish Council considers that the development of the holiday lets would improve the sustainability of the business and considers that it should also encourage business to develop. There has already been considerable development carried out to preserve the site as a local and national reminder of our heritage. It is an asset used by schools and other groups for educational purposes and is well loved by the many people who visit regularly. Should the farm not be able to remain sustainable there is always the danger that this valuable asset would be lost to community and return to its original derelict and inaccessible state.

5.6 Two local residents have submitted objections to the application. The first objection states that they are not too concerned about the tea rooms at the site except for when the larger farm vehicles use New Road, which can be an issue, along with the other permissions on the site due to the increase of visitors. They note that the building for the holiday lets has already been

161

Planning Committee 3 June 2015

partially demolished and a new structure has been built in its place. They claim that the materials used are a “hotch potch” and include a mix of concrete blocks, mix of bricks, roof tiles of the wrong colour, as well as new dormers and roof light windows and a roof 2 metres higher than the original roof, all before planning was applied for. The complainant states that other local builders are concerned about the “liberal” granting of planning permission at the site and considers that farms should be for farming.

5.7 The second objector is also concerned about New Road and the increase in traffic. They say that there is already evidence of holes in the hedge as a result of an increase in traffic from customers, delivery vans and farm vehicles. The objector does feel that the local farming community deserves a little more consideration from the Borough Council as farming today is difficult enough. The objector has voiced their opinion that English Heritage should purchase Abbey Farm and put it back to how it was and prevent further damage to the Monument floor and history.

6.0 Appraisal

6.1 The application seeks retrospective permission for the works described earlier. It is proposed that each holiday let will have two floors with two double bedrooms to the first floor.

6.2 Due to the variations in natural land levels at the site, there is no uniform eaves height and ridge height for the building relative to the ground levels. The original building had an eaves height ranging from 1.4m to 2.6m and a ridge height ranging from 4.65m to 5.8m (taken from drawings submitted for the application). From the drawings submitted, the amended building has a height to eaves ranging from 2.7m to 3.8m and a height to ridge ranging from 6.55m to 7.7m. The alterations have resulted in a building with an overall height approximately 1.9m higher than the original building. Due to the alterations of the eaves and ridge, the pitch of the roof has been altered from 40° to 45-46°.

6.3 Green Belt

6.3.1 The site is located within the Nottinghamshire Green Belt. Policy E8 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) states that development would not be granted planning permission except where is constitutes “appropriate development”.

6.3.2 The NPPF states that the construction of new buildings would be inappropriate in the Green Belt, although an exception to this would include the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the original size of the building. Considering that there has been a substantial increase in the height of the roof and the inclusion of dormer windows and that there is no definition of what would be considered “disproportionate”, these alterations are not considered to be acceptable. According to the NPPF, the reuse of a building - provided it is of permanent and substantial construction - may be

162

Planning Committee 3 June 2015

considered appropriate in the Green Belt, but new development or extensions/additions to non-domestic buildings are ‘inappropriate’.

6.3.3 The dormer windows are considered to be alien features in the roof of the building and when taking into account the setting of other surrounding buildings. The Design and Access Statement submitted states that the windows are required to make the first floor useable for residential purposes and that dormer windows with a view of the Priory ruins are more desirable to best appreciate the site. However, prior to the raising of the roof and internal alterations, there was no first floor in the building which would have required such openings. The raising of the roof height to create an additional floor is also considered to result in a disproportionate addition to the building which is harmful to the character and openness of the Green Belt and results in a building significantly taller than the other agricultural buildings. It is not therefore considered that the raising of the farm building roof and insertion of dormer windows is “appropriate development”.

6.3.4 No very special circumstances have been submitted by the applicant to argue an exceptional need for the alterations.

6.3.5 Given the open character of the surrounding land and the setting of the building in a rural farm environment, it is considered that the proposed alterations to the building would have an unacceptable impact upon the openness and character of the Green Belt.

6.4 Listed building

6.4.1 The National Planning Policy Guidance (to be read in conjunction with the NPPF) sets out that the significance of a heritage asset is assessed on the value of the heritage asset to current and future generations because of its heritage interest. This is based on not only its physical presence but also its setting. The National Planning Policy Guidance states that “even minor works have the potential to cause substantial harm”.

6.4.2 The English Heritage (now Historic England) guidance document “Conversion of traditional farm buildings” (2006) provides advice on good practice for conversion projects of traditional farm buildings. This document states that with any conversion there is a “balance to be struck between incorporating the practical requirements of a new use and protecting the special character and significance of the farm building and its setting.”

6.4.3 The document then later says that farm buildings are characterised by few external openings and that there should always be a presumption in favour of maximising the use of the existing openings without changing their size, and limiting the formation of new ones, and that where new openings are added great care needs to be given to their placing and design. The document states that standard “domestic style” windows can have a very adverse impact on the majority of farm buildings.

163

Planning Committee 3 June 2015

6.4.4 The document asserts that roofs of farm buildings are highly visible in the landscape and represent a very significant aspect of their character. The aim should be to retain as much of the historic roof form as possible including the roof timbers and to retain character by working with the existing roof structure. Roof structures should not be drastically altered to create extra headroom and the “introduction of new dormer windows is generally inappropriate in all farm-building conversions except where there is already evidence of their use”. The roof of the Beauvale building has been altered to create extra headroom, including the insertion of the two dormer windows. There are no examples of dormer windows on any of the buildings at Beauvale Abbey Priory and these are considered inappropriate for the building and location. The introduction of dormer windows gives the former agricultural building a domestic appearance which is contrary to good practice and to Historic England guidance.

6.4.5 The insertion of the new floor has involved in the insertion of steel beams. The guidance advises that it is important to retain the open aspect of barn interiors and that any inserted floor should generally be kept to a minimum. The document later states that “Certainly no part of the main structural fabric should be removed or altered in an attempt to accommodate new floors”.

6.4.6 Although not yet built, it is proposed that two chimneys will be constructed to allow the operation of the two fires. It is considered that the proposed chimney stacks will appear too domestic for the former farm building and detract from its simple character. Although there are chimneys evident on the farmhouse, chimneys are appropriate for that type of domestic dwelling. There are other chimneys on other buildings, such as the chimney on the stables to the West of the holiday let building and a new chimney in the Gatehouse (now tearooms), however these have been rebuilt without the benefit of consent and are not as prominent in the roof structure as the two chimneys proposed. More appropriate means of venting any heating appliance as part of the conversion of an agricultural building should be explored in preference

6.4.7 It is proposed that the rainwater goods to be used on the building will be UPVC. Cast iron or aluminium would be more appropriate for the building in this historic context.

6.4.8 Historic England has advocated changes to the proposed development while not objecting to the development. However the comments which have been submitted by Historic England have not been accompanied by supporting evidence, planning policy or guidance.

6.4.9 The Design and Access statement submitted with the application states that the brickwork of the building was in a poor state of repair and that the holiday lets will “assist in making the site financially viable”. While the damage and disrepair of the building is a material planning consideration, this would not result in the requirement to carry out works to the extent that has been carried out to date. The statement claims that the use for holiday

164

Planning Committee 3 June 2015

lets will safeguard the future of the site. However planning permission for the change of use for the building had been granted in 2009 and therefore the proposed use of the building was already established as acceptable and the alterations that have been carried out with consent were not considered essential by the applicant at the time of the original application. Although the applicant states that the addition of a first floor, made possible by the raising of the roof and gables, and the addition of dormer windows, improves the holiday let accommodation, it is considered that claimed benefit does not outweigh the harm that is clearly caused to the Listed Building.

6.4.10 When assessing the impact of the development on the significance of a building, in accordance with the NPPF, “great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation” and that “any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification”. It advises that ‘substantial harm’ to or loss of a Grade II Listed building should be exceptional and that where a development will lead to ‘less than substantial harm’, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Whilst the building under consideration is not listed in its own right, it is within the curtilage of a listed building and therefore is afforded the same legal protection; being within its curtilage, it also forms part of the listed farmhouse’s setting.

Even if the harm is ‘less than substantial’ in NPPF terms it is considered that any ‘public benefits’ arising from the proposal are not evidenced in any supporting information submitted with the application. It is acknowledged that the principle of conversion of the building to provide holiday let accommodation would result in an economic benefit to the business, this could be achieved with a more sensitive conversion. The current proposal fails to achieve this and economic benefits from the application proposal are not considered to outweigh the clear harm identified.

7.0 Conclusion

7.1 The development as carried out does not accord with Policy E8 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) or the National Planning Policy Framework (2012). It is considered that the development that has been carried out is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that no very special circumstances have been demonstrated that would warrant the approval of planning permission contrary to local and national planning policy.

7.2 The guidance provided by Historic England (English Heritage) sets out what would be appropriate development to allow the conversion of farm buildings. In their concluding remarks, Historic England states that it is for the Local Authority to make a decision on the Planning and Listed Building Consent applications and refers the Council to Statute and Government Planning Policy and Guidance, such as the National Planning Policy Framework. The development as carried out and further proposed does

165

Planning Committee 3 June 2015

not accord with this guidance or with local and national planning policy. Whilst Heritage England does not object to the application, subject to alterations to the applicant’s proposals, Listed Building Consent and Planning applications are determined by the Local Planning Authority.

8.0 Enforcement action

8.1 As the works have been unlawfully carried out, if consent and permission are now refused, the question of enforcement action must be considered.

8.2 The NPPF (Paragraph 207) states that effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. The supporting National Planning Policy Guidance states that effective enforcement is important to:

• tackle breaches in planning controls which would have an unacceptable impact on amenity of the area, • maintain integrity of the decision making process, and • help ensure that public acceptance of the decision making process is maintained.

8.3 Whilst enforcement action is discretionary, as the building which has been altered is listed by reason of its situation within the curtilage of a Listed Building, a criminal offence has occurred.

8.4 Options available to the Committee are as follows:

(i) do nothing, (ii) serve an enforcement notice requiring the breaches of planning control be remedied (there is a right of appeal against this), (iii) prosecute the perpetrator in respect of the criminal offence of making unlawful alterations to the building, or (iv) a combination of (ii) and (iii).

Recommendations

The Committee is asked to RESOLVE that Listed Building Consent be refused for the following reason:

1. The proposed development, by virtue of the inclusion of the dormer windows and chimneys, and the increase of height of the building, is considered to be harmful to the character and appearance of the Grade II Listed Farmhouse. It is not considered that there is sufficient justification nor public benefit to allow the proposed development which would outweigh the harm to the setting of the Listed Farmhouse and Gatehouse, and other listed buildings on the site and view of the Gatehouse range when viewed from the vantage point of the Priory.

166

Planning Committee 3 June 2015

The Committee is asked to RESOLVE that Planning Permission be refused for the following reason:

2. The proposed development, in that it adds height and volume to the building, is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and harms its open character. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated by the applicant which would warrant an approval contrary to local and national planning policy. Additionally, the development is considered to be harmful to the character and the appearance of the traditional farm building positioned within the curtilage of a Grade II Listed Building.

The Council will seek to undertake enforcement proceedings to require the applicants to reinstate the building to its previous form in accordance with the enforcement notice.

Note to applicant

The Council has tried to act positively and proactively in the determination of this application in line with the guidance contained within paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework. However the works had already been commenced to the building prior to the submission of the applications; accordingly no minor amendments could overcome the fundamental concerns held with the proposed development .

Background papers Application case file Appendix – Letter from Historic England dated 5 May 2015

167

Planning Committee 3 June 2015

Photo

Development Control Committee 3 June 2015 Scale: 1: 10,000 Directorate of Legal and Planning Services

168

Planning Committee 3 June 2015

Photo

Development Control Committee 3 June 2015 Scale: 1: 2,500 Directorate of Legal and Planning Services

169

Planning Committee 3 June 2015

Photo

Abbey

Farmhouse

Stables

Application

Building

Workshop Modern Barn

Gatehouse (tea rooms) Listed Building

Development Control Committee 3 June 2015 Scale: 1: 2,500 Directorate of Legal and Planning Services

170

Planning Committee 3 June 2015

APPENDIX

171

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

Report of the Director of Legal and Planning Services

1.0 Purpose of report

1.1 The application was originally brought to the Planning Committee on 7 October 2015. Following discussions it was resolved to defer the application to allow the applicant to enter into further discussion with the Environment Agency to address their concerns regarding the replacement of the above ground attenuation feature with underground tanks. The previous report is attached as an appendix.

2.0 Appraisal

2.1 Since the Committee the applicant and the Council have been in discussions with the Environment Agency and as a result the Environment Agency have withdrawn their objection. The Agency states that the Lead Local Flood Authority became the responsible body for surface water disposal and ordinary watercourse in April 2015 and, should the matter become the subject of an appeal, they would not wish to be involved nor would they be in a position to review any hydrology.

2.2 Given this change in the Agency’s position it is not considered defendable to resist the application on flooding grounds and the application is brought back to Committee with no alterations or additional information.

2.3 The applicant requested a number of minor changes to the wording of some of the reasons for the conditions, which were introduced as a late item to the Committee in October. It is considered the proposed modifications more adequately address the changes in legislation regarding pre-commencement conditions. The recommendation remains the same apart from these minor alterations.

Recommendation

The Committee is asked to RESOLVE that permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

Planning Authority on 18 August 2015. 3. No retail unit shall be formed as a result of the development hereby permitted shall be less than 660sqm in area (gross internal area) nor shall any unit subsequently be divided or otherwise altered such as would result in a unit smaller than 660sqm (gross internal area) being formed. 4. The new extension hereby approved shall be constructed using external facing materials of a type, texture and colour so as to match those of the existing unit. 5. No building works shall commence until further details of the flood mitigation scheme and proposed underground tanks have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with those details. 6. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the parking, turning and servicing areas are provided in accordance with the proposal site plan reference 0303 01 received by the Local Planning Authority on 18 August 2015. The parking, turning and servicing areas shall not be used for any purpose other than servicing of the unit and the parking/turning/loading and unloading of vehicles for the life of the development. 7. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations set out in section 6 of the Ecological Assessment compiled by WYG and received by the Local Planning Authority on 9 June 2015. 8. No building works shall commence until details of the provision of bat and bird nesting boxes have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with those details. 9. No building works shall commence until a method statement addressing the potential for contamination into the Gilt Brook, to which the attenuation feature connects, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with those details.

Reasons

1. To comply with S91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. For the avoidance of doubt. 3. In accordance with Policy S2(c) of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) and Policy 6 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014). 4. In the interests of the appearance of the development and in accordance with the aims of Policy H9 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) and Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Draft Aligned Core Strategy. 5. To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and the surrounding area and to ensure these details are acceptable before the existing attenuation feature is taken off line. 6. To ensure that adequate off retail park car parking provision and servicing is made to reduce the possibilities of the proposed development leading to parking and servicing in the retail park parking area and to ensure these facilities are available to serve the development

173

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

hereby permitted. 7. To mitigate against harmful impacts on wildlife as a result of the development and to ensure the mitigation is appropriate before the clearance of existing habitat takes place. 8. To mitigate against harmful impacts on wildlife as a result of the development and to ensure these details are acceptable before the works giving rise to the potential contamination commence. 9. To prevent the discharge of contaminants (e.g. silt or pollutants) into the Gilt Brook.

Notes to Applicant

1. The decision has been reached taking into account the guidance in paragraphs 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, with the Council entering into negotiations with the applicant and requesting the provision of additional information to ensure that the development is satisfactory. 2. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area which may contain unrecorded coal mining related hazards. If any coal mining feature is encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to The Coal Authority on 0345 762 6848.

Further information is also available on The Coal Authority website at: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-coal-authority

Property specific summary information on past, current and future coal mining activity can be obtained from: www.groundstability.com

174

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

APPENDIX Report of the Director of Legal and Planning Services

15/00420/FUL CONSTRUCT SIDE EXTENSION TO PROVIDE GROUND AND MEZZANINE FLOORSPACE, RELOCATION OF SERVICE YARD AND CREATION OF BELOW GROUND ATTENUATION FACILITY IN PLACE OF EXISTING ATTENUATION FEATURE NEXT 2 GILTBROOK RETAIL PARK IKEA WAY GILTBROOK NG16 2RP The Head of Neighbourhoods and prosperity has requested that this application be determined at committee, given a difference of opinion between the Environment Agency and Nottinghamshire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority.

1. Details of the application

1.1 The application proposes to construct a side extension to Unit 2 of Giltbrook Retail Park, currently occupied by Next. It is proposed to extend the existing 118sqm of non-sales space at ground floor level by 1,161sqm and to insert a mezzanine floor to provide 1037sqm of trading space resulting in 1396sqm of trading space in total.

1.2 Next Home currently occupy unit 10 of the retail park and it is the intention to vacate this unit to form one consolidated unit with its partner store. In line with Next’s corporate model this requires an increase in the floorspace of this existing store. The move was anticipated last year when an application was granted for a mezzanine floor in unit 10 in order for Outfit to occupy the building and Next Home to move to join with the other Next building on the retail park.

1.3 The side extension will occupy the position of the existing service yard and therefore it is necessary to relocate this yard eastwards occupying the space of the existing flood attenuation basin. In order to accommodate this, the attenuation basin will be incorporated in cells beneath the service yard.

1.4 One customer car parking space will be removed to allow for suitable access to the extended store. Four staff car parking spaces will be relocated within the new service yard.

1.5 The design of the extension will be finished to match the existing unit with aluminium clad panels, render and structural glazing wrapping the front entrance and side elevation.

2. Site and surroundings

2.1 Giltbrook Retail Park is located 2 miles wet of junction 26 of the M1 between Ilkeston and Newthorpe, 5 miles west of Nottingham City Centre.

175

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

2.2 The retail park is accessed from two key locations. The Nottingham Road/Giltway junction and the Nottingham Road/Ikea Way Roundabout.

2.3 The Retail Park includes IKEA, Next and Decathalon on its Southern side and a terrace of retail units which began trading in September 2008 on its northern side (including Barker and Stonehouse, Harveys, Pets at Home, Boots, Next Home, ScS). The Decathlon was previously subdivided to allow Next to occupy the most eastern unit which has become unit 2. Next have remained the occupiers until the present day.

Existing Next building Service Yard and attenuation basin

2.4 To the east of unit 2 there is a service yard which serves both the Next and Decathlon stores. Further to the east there is a flood attenuation basin connected to the retail development. On the south and east boundary of the site and beyond there is an area of plantation and broad leaved woodland.

3. Relevant planning history

3.1 95/00464/OUT – Ikea was originally granted planning permission.

3.2 99/00443/REM – Consent for the Decathlon Store (Unit 3) which was later subdivided to create the current Next store.

3.3 11/00583/FUL – Planning permission granted for alterations to the shopfront.of Next.(Unit 2).

3.4 12/00713/FUL – Planning permission granted for the insertion of Mezzanine floor of Decathlon (Unit 3) resulting in an increase of floorspace of 3633sqm - not implemented

3.5 12/00681/FUL – Permission for extension to the Ikea Store comprising of 4,188sqm of floorspace - not implemented.

3.6 14/00615/FUL – Permission for the insertion of mezzanine floor space comprising of 2052sqm at Unit 5 (BHS) – not implemented

176

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

3.7 14/00616/FUL – Permission for the insertion of mezzanine floor space comprising of 758sqm at Unit 10 (Next Home).- not implemented

4. Policy context

4.1 National Planning Policy Framework:

4.1.2 Paragraph 24 of the NPPF outlines the retail policy tests of impact and states that a sequential approach needs to be applied to site selection. This policy states that for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up to date local plan, town centres should be considered first then edge-of-centre locations. Only when suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites should be considered with preference to sites that are accessible and well connected to the centre. Flexibility should be given on issues such as format and scale. Paragraph 26 sets out the need for an impact statement (for developments over 2500 sqm) which sets out the impact of the proposal on existing centres in the same catchment area and the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability. For major schemes the impact should be assessed up to 10 years form the time the application is made.

4.1.3 National Planning Policy Guidance builds on this paragraph and states that a sequential approach to site selection should be proportionate and appropriate for the given proposal. It sets out that a consideration of whether the suitability of more central sites has been assessed and whether there is scope for flexibility of the proposal is necessary. If there are no sequentially preferable locations the sequential test is passed. The guidance also states that the use of the sequential test should recognise that certain main town centre uses have particular market and locational requirements which mean that that they may only be accommodated in specific locations.

4.1.4 Paragraph 103 of the NPPF states that local authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere as a result of development, and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where informed by a site- specific Flood Risk Assessment.

177

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

4.1.5 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that all developments that generate significant amounts of traffic movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. The statement should take regard of the opportunities for sustainable modes of transport, safe and suitable access and the potential improvements that can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development.

4.2 Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy

4.2.1 The Council adopted the Core Strategy on 17 September 2014 and the overall strategy of this document is “urban concentration with regeneration”.

4.2.2 Policy 1: Climate Change: states the need to adopt the precautionary principle with regards to flood risk and sets out a sequential basis for site selection

4.2.3 Policy 6: Role of Town and Local Centres, identifies a hierarchy of existing centres. Eastwood and Kimberley are defined as town centres. The policy states that main town centre uses should be located in centres. If no suitable sites are available in centres then edge of centre locations should be used and only if there are no suitable sites will out of centre sites be considered. Proposals for edge of centre and out of centre sites should satisfy the sequential test and show how the development will not have adverse impact on any centre.

4.2.4 Policy 10: Design and Enhancing Local Identity, sets design and layout principles to be applied to new development and looks to ensure that valued local characteristics are reinforced.

4.2.5 Policy 14: Managing Travel Demand, priorities reducing the need to travel especially by private car by securing new developments in the most accessible locations. It goes onto state that the effective operation of the local highway network and its ability to provide sustainable transport solutions should not be compromised.

4.2.6 Policy 17: Biodiversity, sets out criteria for increasing biodiversity over the plan period. The policy states that development on or affecting non designated sites or wildlife corridors will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the need for the development outweighs any harm caused by the development and that adequate mitigation measures are put in place.

4.3 Broxtowe Local Plan

4.3.2 Policy S2: Sites for Retail and Associated Development, identifies Giltbrook retail park as a site for new retail and associated development outside of the

178

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

town centres. The supporting text states that in the absence of suitable sites, within the edge of the existing centres of Eastwood and Kimberley, sites within Giltbrook Retail Park are the next most sustainable option for bulky comparison goods retail development. Applications for retail development would need to be accompanied by a sequential analysis demonstrating that this is the case.

4.3.3 Policy S3: Retail and Associated Development Outside Town Centres, sets out 6 criteria for proposals for development over 1000sqm outside town centre locations. These are:

a) an identified need for the development b) a sequential assessment of available sites has been demonstrated. c) the site is within convenient walking distance of a prime shopping frontage. d) the vitality and viability of defined centres is not compromised. e) the proposal is well served by public transport and accessible by foot or bicycle. f) appropriate provision for access, serving and car parking including traffic generated.

4.3.4 Policy S8: Shopfront design will be permitted provided that they relate well to the design of the building and are in keeping with the frontage as a whole and contribute to the maintenance or enhancement of the appearance of the area.

4.3.5 Policy T11: Guidance for Parking Provision: states that permission will not be granted for new development unless appropriate provision is made for vehicle parking and servicing in accordance with the latest guidelines agreed with the highway authority.

5. Consultations

5.1 The Rights of Way Officer from Nottinghamshire County Council points out that the Greasley Parish foot path no 58 & 59 run alongside the southern and eastern boundary of the site and require that this path remains available and unobstructed unless subject to an appropriate diversion or closure orders. Any required re surfacing, gating, closure or diversion of the path should be made with consultation of the Countryside Access Team.

5.2 The Coal Authority point out that whilst the widening of the road intersects with the site boundary of the surface mining operations site, it is not the specific area where coal has actually been removed by surface mining operations and therefore falls outside the defined Development High Risk Area and therefore they do not object to the application and do not require a Coal Mining Risk Assessment. There is the potential for unrecorded coal mining features therefore a note to applicant is advised in the interests of public safety.

5.3 The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has no objections to the proposal.

179

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

5.4 The Council’s Tree Officer has no objection to the application. There will the loss of some trees around the existing attenuation feature but nothing worthy of TPO status and there will be sufficient remaining tree cover to provide a screen to the retail park.

5.5 Nottinghamshire County Council as Highway Authority acknowledge that the road network around the retail park is private therefore any highway issues arising as a result of the extension would be as a result of the manoeuvring of traffic around the site and car parking provision especially at busy times which may result in queues around the highway network. Servicing to the site is as previous albeit, relocated further east but the existing access point exists. The proposal results in the loss of the existing lay-by leading to the service yard which is principally used to allow vehicles to turn so that they can reverse into the docking bay to service the units. There is sufficient space provided to the south of the buildings to allow delivery vehicles to pass a vehicle docked and vehicles to wait if required. Car parking for the whole of the retail park appears to be adequate, although at times different areas are more in demand and the whole of the site would benefit from a Car Parking Management Scheme. The reduction of one space to allow pedestrian access is acceptable. They recommend that a condition be placed on any approval to ensure the parking and turning areas are provided in accordance with the submitted details prior to use of the extension.

5.6 Nottinghamshire County Council as Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) point out that the Flood & Water Management Act 2010 recognises the need for engineered management of the flooding risks from surface water and much research into appropriate approaches has been taken to reducing the flooding risk to existing properties from existing pluvial and fluvial sources. There is a significant pluvial risk in this part of Giltbrook. The exceedance flows would tend to be intercepted by the pond at the present time and need to be managed when the pond is filled in and replaced with a service yard and underground tanks. These exceedance flows need to be intercepted and routed to the new storage tank. The existing pond and outfall are to be replaced with similar storage volume under the storage yard. The storage volume is to be designed to enable the periodic removal of silt to prevent this impeding the flows within the storage of the functioning of the inlet/outlet. The development is considered to be acceptable in principle and in accordance with the NPPF.

5.7 The Environment Agency originally objected to the application as they considered that the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) submitted with the application did not provide a suitable basis for assessment to be made of the flood risks arising from the proposed development. In particular the FRA fails to consider the loss of channel capacity from the new development. Following the receipt of comments from Nottinghamshire County Council as Local Lead Flooding Authority (LLFA) the Agency responded again. In this response, whilst not removing their previous objection, they state they are disappointed with the response from the LLFA as regards the loss of the attenuation feature as they consider the use of attenuation tanks does not give the amenity, biodiversity and limited water quality improvement compared to above ground

180

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

attenuation ponds. They maintain that the FRA has not adequately demonstrated that flood risk will not be increased due to the loss of channel capacity and without this flood risk is unknown. The appropriate method for demonstrating this is most likely to be in the form of a hydraulic assessment.

5.8 Nottinghamshire County Council’s nature conservation officer state that the ecological assessment indicates that the proposals will not give rise to any significant ecological impacts, provided that certain mitigation methods are put in place. These mitigation methods should be secured by conditions. The mitigation methods to be controlled by condition are as follows: • Vegetation within the balancing pond should be maintained a height of less than 10cm to discourage its use by amphibians and reptiles. In the event that the vegetation has been allowed to grow, then a two phase direction cut should take place under the supervision of an ecologist. • In the event that works have not commenced by November 2015 then an updated badger survey should take place prior to the commencement of development. • Vegetation clearance should take place outside the bird nesting season, which runs from March to August inclusive. • Prior to work commencing which affects the mammal burrows present within the attenuation pond, these should be dismantled under the supervision of an ecologist. In addition they consider that the details for the provision for bat and bird boxes should be ensured by condition.. Also section 5.1 of the Ecological Assessment indicates that care should be taken during construction to avoid discharge into Gilt Brook, to which the balancing pond connects. A method statement secured by condition is therefore desired.

6.0 Appraisal

6.1 It is considered that the main issues with this application will be the principle for the increase in floorspace at this location in terms of policy considerations, the impact on the vitality and viability of Eastwood and Kimberley Town Centres, the impact on the likelihood of flooding of the retail park, the impact on highway safety and parking provision and the suitability of the design of the proposal.

6.2 Vitality and Viability of town centres

6.2.1 The application proposes the construction of 2080sqm of net floorspace. Given that there are a number of recent permissions granted for increasing floorspace at the retail parked (notably the permitted extensions at Ikea) and local and National policy aims to prevent the unregulated expansion of out of town retail provision which might have a detrimental impact on the vitality and viability of town centres, it is important to establish as to whether the principle of further retail and associated development is acceptable in this location.

6.2.2 The submitted retail statement evaluates the ‘health’ of surrounding centres to establish a baseline position, undertakes a sequential search for other sites of

181

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

suitable size and form in and around Kimberley and Eastwood and contains a vitality and viability assessment of the proposal in order to display that there will be no adverse impact as is required by national and local policy for out of town retail development. .

6.2.3 Four alternative sites within Eastwood and Kimberley which are considered to be of a suitable form for the proposed requirements of Next have been analysed. The criteria for the sites are a 2000sqm of floor space, suitable parking, Equality Act compliant access, service access and room to accommodate plant/air handling units. The four sites analysed are: • Lord Neslon Public House • Eastwood Infant Junior School. • Hilltop House • The Chapel Of the four sites considered one was analysed to be unavailable and the other three were considered to be unsuitable and unviable. In terms of suitable sites to accommodate the development, there appears to be none available and the application passes the sequential test.

6.2.4 An assessment of impact and cumulative impact has also been provided within the retail assessment which uses a methodology consistent with that used for other applications on the retail park. The assessment concludes that the proposals are not likely to have a significantly detrimental impact on any committed of planned public or private investment within Eastwood and Kimberley or any other centres within the catchment area.

6.2.5 In order to assess the impact on other centres, the report, the vacancy levels of both Kimberley and Eastwood have been assessed to be below national averages and generally both centres are found to be performing well. The report also makes an assessment of Ilkeston, Ripley and Hucknall town Centres as these are also seen as relevant. Overall although some of the centres in neighbouring authorities are below average in terms of vacancies the reports states that they are all performing relatively well.

6.2.6 The findings regarding Eastwood seem to be at odds with Core Strategy Policy 6 which identifies Eastwood as a district centre which is in need of enhancement to improve vitality and viability. The number of national multiples within Eastwood Town Centre, the lower than average level of vacancies and the high footfall are considered to be a good indication that the centre is performing well. The report however highlights the small representation of homeware and furniture stores (bulky goods) and attributes this to the floorspace and access and parking requirements of these type of goods which is potentially constrained by the Conservation Area designation.

6.2.7 Kimberley is also considered to be performing well from the analysis. The report however emphasises the low representation of comparison offer of the town and the lack of unsuitable formats units for homeware and furniture stores and therefore Kimberley is also considered not to have suitable locations for the type of building that Next require.

182

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

6.2.8 The retail statement argues that, as the extension is to an existing building and will be occupied by an existing occupier of the retail park the impact on vitality and viability is significantly less than would be the case for the construction of a new unit for the purposes of a new occupier. It is argued that the building is intended to satisfy the commercial objectives of the applicant (Next) as opposed to catering for an identified need. The statement refers to a number of recent appeal decisions (notably, the Dundee Supreme Court judgement and subsequent judgements) whereby the inspector has determined that where the proposal is specific to the site and there is no prospect of the units being developed in another location, a sequential test of other sites within or on the edge of the centre is not relevant and a sensible, pragmatic approach should be taken. This seems to strongly signify that when a building is extended by a single occupier on an out-of-town site that the impact on other centres is likely to be significantly less and the requirement to evidence need and suitability is redundant.

6.2.9 In addition it is argued that the tradable floor space will be on the mezzanine floor therefore creating 1396sqm of sales area and it is considered mezzanine floor space has less sales density and therefore less impact on vitality and viability of other centres.

6.2.10 It is considered that the extension to an existing unit by the same occupier is unlikely to significantly increase the number of visitors to the retail park by itself. The Ikea franchise is the key anchor to the retail park and draws customers from a large catchment area which is likely to be much larger than the catchment areas of the district centres. It is worth noting that for recent applications for the expansion to the retail park the Council has appointed independent retail assessors who have accepted the findings of the retail reports submitted by the same applicant and concluded that the impact on the vitality and viability of neighbouring district centres will not be unacceptably compromised. Also it was accepted that the sales density for mezzanines is significantly lower than ground floor space.

6.2.11 Advice in the NPPF is if the impact on town centre vitality and viability is ‘significant’ then permission should be relieved. Given the supporting evidence provided by the applicant there is sufficient evidence on balance to demonstrate that the impact on surrounding District Centres is will not be significant.

6.3 Flooding Issues

6.3.1 The extension necessitates the relocation of the service yard. It is proposed to develop a new service yard over an existing vegetated attenuation basin and to construct an underground surface water balancing tank to replace the open attenuation basin using like for like storage volume. The applicant asserts that over the years additional flood mitigation has been introduced at the retail park and significant on site storage capacity is provided upstream meaning that the basin now only holds water in small quantities and very infrequently and therefore its importance for reducing flood risk over the whole of the retail park is relatively minor. Part of the site (along the river corridor) is

183

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

within Flood Zone 3. The NPPF defines retail development extension to be classed as ‘less vulnerable’ in terms of flood risk and the applicant has submitted a Floor Risk Assessment on these terms.

6.3.2 The FRA has been compiled by qualified civil engineers with experience in the water industry and highlights that, given the available evidence the site following the proposed development the site would not be at risk from fluvial flooding (from rivers) however if adequate compensation is not made for the loss of the attenuation feature ,there is a risk of pluvial flooding (from rain). The engineers conclude in the FRA that if developed in line with the proposals for the site and if fully implemented the mitigation scheme would result in there not being a significant risk of flooding for the development, and not increasing flood risk elsewhere. They therefore consider the development is acceptable in relation to flood risk, in accordance with the NPPF. To ensure the detailed design is adequate this can be controlled by way of a planning condition.

6.3.3 Nottinghamshire County Council as Local Lead Flood Authority have considered the proposed replacement of the attenuation basin and the submitted FRA with underground storage tanks and are satisfied that the development will not result in an unacceptable risk of flooding of the site. However, the Environment Agency have a somewhat varying opinion. The EA initially raised an objection on the grounds that the FRA did not adequately provide evidence that the use of the attenuation tanks does not give comparable amenity, biodiversity and limited water quality improvement compared to above ground attenuation ponds. Following the receipt of the LLFAs response the EA have diluted their previous strong objection however still remain of the opinion that further work should be done to the FRA.

6.3.4 There has been a recent change in the remit of these consultees. The LLFA is now the key consultee responsible for managing local flood risk, including from surface water, ground water and ordinary watercourses, and for preparing local flood risk management strategies. The Environment Agency, although clearly an important consultee as regards flooding issues, due to their experience and expertise, are no longer the lead authority. The comments of the EA were made available to the applicant who has indicated that they consider the extra work suggested by the EA would be costly and not commensurable to the proposal.

6.3.5 Although this is regrettable, given the clear view of the County Council as LLFA it is not considered that a refusal of permission is justified on Flood Risk grounds.

6.4 Highway Safety and Parking

6.4.1 In accordance with the NPPF requirements, the applicant has submitted a Transport Statement with the application. The transport statement is based on the premise that additional floor space in an existing unit on an existing retail park does not attract trips at the same rate as a stand alone retail unit and it uses a factor of 25% which is a similar approach that has been applied

184

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

to other applications which have been granted planning permission. Using this figure it is calculated that the extension would generate 13 additional traffic movements in a weekday evening peak hour and 27 in a weekend peak hour.

6.4.2 The capacity at the main access to the retail park (Nottingham Road/Ikea Way roundabout) was analysed as part of the Oxylane Village proposal which has been refused planning permission. This showed that this roundabout operates satisfactory with 2016 traffic proposals, which included the Oxylane development plus other commitments in the area. It is considered that in line with these projections the roundabout is able to accommodate the modest increase brought about by the proposed extension at Next. The second access (Nottingham Road/Giltway junction) is used less frequently and it is likewise considered that this access has sufficient capacity.

6.4.3 As regards parking provision the application involves the removal of one customer parking space. The retail park has a total of 2,343 parking spaces (with 440 basement parking). The transport statement confirms that even at peak times at weekends there is spare capacity within the car park, albeit there are particularly busy periods and particular hot spots where parking demand is higher. The analysis calculates that there will be an increase in parking demand of 22 spaces as a result of the extension and as even at peak times there is proven spare capacity within the car park it is considered this can be easily accommodated.

6.4.4 Nottinghamshire County Council do not comment on the highway capacity issues contained in the report. They however do agree that the parking on the site is sufficient to accommodate the development. They acknowledge that there is a need for a comprehensive Car Parking Management scheme for the retail park. Given the scale of this application in relation to the whole of the retail park it is not considered that such a scheme would be necessary to make the development acceptable. The County also accept that the relocation of the service yard is suitable in terms of the maneuvering of delivery lorries.

6.5.5 The retail park has some provision for cyclists and pedestrians however it is accepted that such a park has been designed with the private car in mind. It is not considered that the extension to this unit will have a dramatic increase or decrease in the amount of customers arriving by alternative modes of transport to the car.

7. Design

7.1 It is proposed that the new extension will match exactly the scale, height and general massing characteristics of the existing block with the parapet height and height to head of glazing being in line. The floor levels at both ground and mezzanine level will follow through from the existing unit.

7.2 The existing store was granted permission for a new shopfront in 2012. This comprised of large double height glazed shopfront with white/pale surrounds.

185

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

The new extension is proposed to follow the form of the existing shopfront and will incorporate signage of a similar style. Any further signage will be subject to a separate advertisement consent. A pre-assessment rating of to BREEM standards indicate a ‘very good’ rating indicating that the environmental credentials of the extension will be up to a recognised standard as required by Building Regulations. Full certification will only be achieved following a post construction assessment.

7.3 There will be some loss trees around the existing attenuation feature but there will be sufficient remaining tree cover to provide a screen to the retail park and the proposal. It is considered that the proposed design of the extension integrates well with the existing store and the surrounding stores on the retail park in terms of scale, massing and materials and will not have an adverse impact on the locality.

8. Ecology Issues

8.1 The proposal includes the construction of a new service yard over the current location of the attenuation basin. The attenuation basin is densely vegetated. To the south and east boundary of the site and beyond there is an area of plantation broad-leaved woodland. There is therefore potential for the protected species to be present on the site. In addition there is one Site of Special Scientific Interest and 4 Local Nature Reserves within 2 miles of the site.

8.2 The applicant has submitted an Ecological Assessment with the application which details the phase 1 surveys undertaken out to determine the presence or otherwise of protected species in the form of both a desk-based assessment and on-site surveys. The report concludes that the habitat is not of particular merit and that the development will not adversely impact on protected or notable species, however some recommendations are made as to mitigation methods that are necessary including the provision of bird and bat nesting boxes and clearance and maintenance methods. A conservation officer from Nottinghamshire County Council has assessed the report and agrees that the mitigation methods are necessary and suggests that these should be ensured by condition.

8.3 As regards the trees on the site the Council’s tree officer acknowledges that there will the loss of some trees around the existing attenuation feature but none worthy of TPO status.

9. Conclusion

9.1 In conclusion, and having regard to all comments received and the relevant national and local plan policy and all other material considerations, it is considered that the extension is acceptable in principle and will not have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of neighbouring district centres. It is also considered, that the scheme is appropriate in regard to its design, scale and layout and the impact on flood risk, highway safety and ecology are acceptable.

186

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

Recommendation

The Committee is asked to RESOLVE that permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings numbered: 0303 01 and 0305 01 received by the Local Planning Authority on 18 August 2015.

3. No retail unit shall be formed as a result of the development hereby permitted shall be less than 660sqm in area (gross internal area) nor shall any unit subsequently be divided or otherwise altered such as would result in a unit smaller than 660sqm (gross internal area) being formed.

4. The new extension hereby approved shall be constructed using external facing materials of a type, texture and colour so as to match those of the existing unit.

5. No building works shall commence until further details of the flood mitigation scheme and proposed underground tanks have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with those details.

6. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the parking, turning and servicing areas are provided in accordance with the proposal site plan reference 0303 01 received by the Local Planning Authority on 18 August 2015. The parking, turning and servicing areas shall not be used for any purpose other than servicing of the unit and the parking/turning/loading and unloading of vehicles for the life of the development.

7. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations set out in section 6 of the Ecological Assessment compiled by WYG and received by the Local Planning Authority on 9 June 2015.

8. No building works shall commence until details of the provision of bat and bird nesting boxes have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with those details.

187

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

9. No building works shall commence until a method statement addressing the potential for contamination into the Gilt Brook, to which the attenuation feature connects, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with those details.

Reasons

1. To comply with S91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by S51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. For the avoidance of doubt.

3. In accordance with Policy S2(c) of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) and Policy 6 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (2014).

4. In the interests of the appearance of the development and in accordance with the aims of Policy H9 of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004) and Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Draft Aligned Core Strategy.

5. To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and the surrounding area.

6. To ensure that adequate off retail park car parking provision and servicing is made to reduce the possibilities of the proposed development leading to parking and servicing in the retail park parking area.

7. To mitigate against harmful impacts on wildlife as a result of the development.

8. To mitigate against harmful impacts on wildlife as a result of the development.

9. To prevent the discharge of contaminants (e.g. silt or pollutants) into the Gilt Brook.

Note to applicant

2. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area which may contain unrecorded coal mining related hazards. If any coal mining feature is encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to The Coal Authority on 0345 762 6848. Further information is also available on The Coal Authority website at: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-coal-authority

188

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

Property specific summary information on past, current and future coal mining activity can be obtained from: www.groundstability.com

Background papers Application case file

189

Planning Committee 7 October 2015

Photos

Next 2 Giltbrook Retail Park, Ikea Way, Giltbrook Construct side extension to provide ground and mezzanine level floorspace, relocation of service yard and creation of below ground attenuation facility in place of existing attenuation feature.

Planning Committee 7 October 2015 Scale: 1: 2,500

Directorate of Legal and Planning Services

190

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

Report of the Director of Legal and Planning Services

15/00269/FUL APPEAL REFERENCE APP/J3015/W/15/3133491 CHANGE USE OF PUBLIC HOUSE (CLASS A4) TO RETAIL (CLASS A1) WITH ALTERATIONS INCLUDING PART DEMOLITION, TWO STOREY SIDE AND SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND CONVERSION OF FIRST FLOOR APARTMENT TO CREATE TWO APARTMENTS, CAR PARK AND LANDSCAPING NEW WHITE BULL, 519 NOTTINGHAM ROAD, GILTBROOK NG16 2GS

The purpose of this report is to provide an update to Planning Committee in respect of the appeal against the decision of the Council to refuse planning permission for the above planning application. Since the Planning Committee’s decision there has been a change to the status of the building which will be outlined below.

1 Details of the appeal

1.1 The planning application sought to change the use of the New White Bull in Giltbrook from a public house to retail and create two first floor apartments. As part of the development the existing extensions and outbuildings to the rear of the main building would be demolished and a flat roof extension will be constructed.

1.2 The planning application was reported to the Council’s Planning Committee held on 15 July 2015. The Officer recommendation was for the application to be approved subject to conditions. Members of the Planning Committee resolved to refuse the planning application. The decision notice lists two reasons for refusal:

Reason 1: “The New White Bull public house is a valued facility and has been designated as an asset of community value under the Localism Act 2011. The degree and diversity of the social interaction that the public house helps to drive is significantly important to the local community. As such, the harm that would be caused to the local community by the loss of the public house and its social functions within the community has not satisfactorily been proven to be outweighed by the need or other benefits associated with the proposed change of use to Class A1 retail. It is therefore considered that the proposals would conflict with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) to achieve sustainable development and social well-being as required by its policies.”

Reason 2: “The proposed development would be harmful to the viability of other local shopping facilities and is therefore contrary to Policy S5(b) of the Broxtowe Local Plan (2004).”

1.3 Following the refusal of the application the applicants have submitted an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. The appeal will be a Hearing which will take place on 5 January 2016. As part of the appeal the Council is obliged to defend the reasons for refusal.

1.4 The New White Bull was removed from the Asset of Community Value register on 22 September 2015. This is as the regulations, set out in Part 5 Chapter 3 of the 191

Planning Committee 11 November 2015

Localism Act 2011 state that the asset should be removed from the register following ‘a relevant disposal’. This includes the sale of the property. The New White Bull is therefore no longer on the Council’s register as an Asset of Community Value.

1.5 Whilst the New White Bull was listed as an Asset of Community Value at the time of the Planning Committee’s decision, as it is no longer listed as an Asset of Community Value the Planning Committee is invited to consider whether reason 1 of the reason for refusal should be defended as part of the planning appeal.

Recommendation

The Committee is asked to CONSIDER the first reason for refusal following the removal of the New White Bull from the register of Assets of Community Value and RESOLVE whether the first reason should still be defended at appeal.

Background papers Application case file

192

B R O X T O W E B O R O U G H C O U N C I L DEVELOPMENT CONTROL – NEIGHBOURHOODS & PROSPERITY

PLANNING APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH FROM 19 September 2015 TO 16 October 2015

CONTENTS

Planning applications dealt with by the Development Control Manager

Please note: This list is now prepared in WARD order (alphabetically)

193

B R O X T O W E B O R O U G H C O U N C I L DEVELOPMENT CONTROL – NEIGHBOURHOODS & PROSPERITY

PLANNING APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

ATTENBOROUGH & CHILWELL EAST WARD

Applicant : HRWF (Chilwell) Limited 15/00514/ROC Site Address : Unit 5A Chilwell Retail Park Barton Lane Attenborough Nottinghamshire NG9 6DS Proposal : Variation of condition 7 of planning permission 14/00767/FUL Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mrs Alison Rees Jones 15/00564/FUL Site Address : 5 Barratt Crescent Attenborough Nottinghamshire NG9 6AH Proposal : Construct two dormer windows to front elevation Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mr A Coomber 15/00610/PNH Site Address : 70 Audon Avenue Chilwell Nottinghamshire NG9 4AW Proposal : Construct single storey rear extension, extending beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling by 4 metres, with a maximum height of 3 metres, and an eaves height of 2.15 metres Decision : Refusal

AWSWORTH, COSSALL & TROWELL WARD

Applicant : Mr & Mrs B Johnson 15/00545/FUL Site Address : 1 St Helens Crescent Trowell Nottinghamshire NG9 3PZ Proposal : Construct two storey side extension Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mr & Mrs S Raynor 15/00556/FUL Site Address : Land Adjacent To 27 Ellesmere Drive Trowell Nottinghamshire Proposal : Construct dwelling Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mr Magnus Muir 15/00591/FUL Site Address : 169 Nottingham Road Trowell Nottinghamshire NG9 3PN Proposal : Construct two storey rear extension Decision : Withdrawn

BEESTON CENTRAL WARD

Applicant : Mr Zhenyi Mou 15/00507/FUL Site Address : 36 Queens Road East Beeston Nottinghamshire NG9 2GS Proposal : Construct two storey and single storey rear extensions Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mr Saied Ebrahimian 15/00539/FUL Site Address : 145A Station Road Beeston Nottinghamshire NG9 2AZ Proposal : Change use of photo studio (Class B1) to two dwellings and alterations to front elevation including single storey and first floor gable extensions (revised scheme) Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mr Damien McGrath 15/00543/FUL Site Address : Star Inn 22 Middle Street Beeston Nottinghamshire NG9 1FX Proposal : Retain extension, shed, fencing beside Moore Gate and extraction equipment Decision : Conditional Permission

194

BEESTON NORTH WARD

Applicant : Mr Clive Gunn 15/00557/FUL Site Address : 8 Kenilworth Road Beeston Nottinghamshire NG9 2HX Proposal : Construct single storey side and rear extension Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mrs N Aziz 15/00619/PNH Site Address : 20 Muriel Road Beeston Nottinghamshire NG9 2HH Proposal : Construct single storey rear extension, extending beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling by 6 metres, with a maximum height of 3.85 metres, and an eaves height of 2.55 metres Decision : Prior Approval Not Required

BEESTON RYLANDS WARD

Applicant : The Co-operative Group 15/00503/ADV Site Address : Co-op 291 Queens Road Beeston Nottinghamshire NG9 1JB Proposal : Retain signs Decision : Conditional Permission

BEESTON WEST WARD

Applicant : Mr & Mrs Andrew & Emma Saville 15/00552/FUL Site Address : 36 Cumberland Avenue Chilwell Nottinghamshire NG9 4DH Proposal : Construct two storey side, single storey rear and side extensions Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mr & Mrs A Bird 15/00606/FUL Site Address : 59 Grove Avenue Chilwell Nottinghamshire NG9 4DZ Proposal : Retain replacement boundary fence and proposed gates Decision : Conditional Permission

BRAMCOTE WARD

Applicant : Mr Darren Hurrell Plush Property Ltd 15/00504/FUL Site Address : 91 Derby Road Bramcote Nottinghamshire NG9 3GW Proposal : Construct two storey side, single storey rear extensions and front porch Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mr P Hillier 15/00550/LBC Site Address : 139 Derby Road Bramcote Nottinghamshire NG9 3GZ Proposal : Listed Building Consent to widen existing front parking area at front of property Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mr P Hillier 15/00548/FUL Site Address : 139 Derby Road Bramcote Nottinghamshire NG9 3GZ Proposal : Widen existing front parking area at front of property Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mr I Rawson 15/00553/FUL Site Address : 7 Park Road Bramcote Nottinghamshire NG9 3LA Proposal : Construct two storey side extension and single storey rear extension Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mr & Mrs Jon Birch 15/00561/FUL Site Address : 66 Valmont Road Bramcote Nottinghamshire NG9 3JD Proposal : Construct rear extension to enlarge ground and first floor accommodation and construct single storey side extension Decision : Conditional Permission

195

Applicant : Mr Nigel Richardson 15/00566/FUL Site Address : Beecholme 25 Beeston Fields Drive Beeston Nottinghamshire NG9 3DB Proposal : Construct single storey rear / side extension Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mr & Mrs R Moore 15/00586/FUL Site Address : 18 Burnside Drive Bramcote Nottinghamshire NG9 3EE Proposal : Construct first floor side extension Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mr Derrick White 15/00594/FUL Site Address : 34 Russley Road Bramcote Nottinghamshire NG9 3JE Proposal : Construct first floor extension, replacement roof and replace garage door to front elevation with new window Decision : Conditional Permission

BRINSLEY WARD

Applicant : Mr William Fry 15/00589/FUL Site Address : 94 Broad Lane Brinsley Nottinghamshire NG16 5BD Proposal : Construct single storey rear extension Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Miss Elizabeth Sisson 15/00595/FUL Site Address : 13 Cordy Lane Brinsley Nottinghamshire NG16 5BY Proposal : Construct dropped kerb and paved driveway Decision : Conditional Permission

CHILWELL WEST WARD

Applicant : Mr Allan Taylor 15/00596/FUL Site Address : 23 Burton Drive Chilwell Nottinghamshire NG9 5NS Proposal : Erect fence Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mrs Zoe Bacon 15/00620/PNH Site Address : 29 Wentworth Road Chilwell Nottinghamshire NG9 4FP Proposal : Construct single storey rear extension, extending beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling by 3.5 metres, with a maximum height of 3.3 metres, and an eaves height of 2.2 metres Decision : Prior Approval Not Required

EASTWOOD HALL WARD

Applicant : IM Properties Plc 15/00469/REM Site Address : Land To The East Of The A610/Land To The West Of Eastwood Hall/North Of Mushroom Farm Mansfield Road Eastwood Nottinghamshire Proposal : Reserved matters approval for the construction of three industrial / warehouse units (Use Class B1c/B2/B8) with ancillary offices, plant, gatehouse, associated infrastructure, including service yards, access, parking, landscaping and associated development Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mr & Mrs. N Reeve 15/00605/FUL Site Address : 124 Greenhills Road Eastwood Nottinghamshire NG16 3FR Proposal : Construct single storey front extension, ramp and landing Decision : Conditional Permission

196

EASTWOOD HILLTOP WARD

Applicant : Mr David Northwood Eastwood Community FC 15/00532/FUL Site Address : Eastwood Town Football Club Chewton Street Eastwood Nottinghamshire NG16 3HB Proposal : Replace and enlarge football pitch with a new 3G pitch (third generational artificial grass) and ancillary works Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mr & Mrs S Sanby 15/00614/FUL Site Address : Land Adjacent To 107 Lynncroft Eastwood Nottinghamshire NG16 3ER Proposal : Construct detached double garage (revised scheme) Decision : Conditional Permission

EASTWOOD ST MARY’S WARD

Applicant : Mr Rob Forster Clear Channel UK Ltd 15/00593/ADV Site Address : Forecourt Public Library Wellington Place Eastwood Nottinghamshire Proposal : Display two posters forming integral part of bus shelter Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mr G Ramparia Coffee Lovers Group Ltd 15/00616/P3CPA Site Address : 99 Nottingham Road Eastwood Nottinghamshire NG16 3AJ Proposal : Prior Notification under Part 3, Class C (a) - Change of use from Pay Day Loan Shop to Café (Class A3) Decision : Prior Approval Granted

GREASLEY WARD

Applicant : Hutchinson UK Ltd And EE Ltd 15/00569/TEL Site Address : Hutchinson Telecommunications Mast 100 Baker Road Newthorpe Nottinghamshire Proposal : Proposed telecommunications installation upgrade and associated works Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mr J Cieslik 15/00598/FUL Site Address : 6 Cowper Road Newthorpe Nottinghamshire NG16 2BP Proposal : Construct single storey rear extension Decision : Conditional Permission

KIMBERLEY WARD

Applicant : Mr Malik Zahir Malik Holdings Commercial Limited 15/00549/ROC Site Address : Churchills 39A Main Street Kimberley Nottinghamshire NG16 2NG Proposal : Removal of condition 2 (approved drawings) of planning ref: 14/00708/FUL Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Rev Barbara Holbrook 15/00570/OUT Site Address : Holy Trinity Church Hall Church Hill Kimberley Nottinghamshire Proposal : Outline application to demolish church hall and construct four dwellings - all matters reserved Decision : Refusal

Applicant : Mr K Atkin 15/00603/FUL Site Address : 1 Troon Close Kimberley Nottinghamshire NG16 2PA Proposal : Replace existing window with larger box bay Decision : Conditional Permission

NUTHALL EAST & STRELLEY WARD

Applicant : Mr & Mrs Hadrian Garle 15/00537/FUL Site Address : 36 Mornington Crescent Nuthall Nottinghamshire NG16 1QE Proposal : Construct double garage Decision : Conditional Permission

197

Applicant : Mr Robin Newton 15/00584/FUL Site Address : 2A Gloucester Avenue Nuthall Nottinghamshire NG16 1AL Proposal : Construct single storey rear extension Decision : Conditional Permission

STAPLEFORD NORTH WARD

Applicant : Mr Brian Starbuck 15/00585/FUL Site Address : 73 Moorbridge Lane Stapleford Nottinghamshire NG9 8GR Proposal : Construct single storey side extension Decision : Conditional Permission

STAPLEFORD SOUTH EAST WARD

Applicant : Mr B Zinn 15/00340/FUL Site Address : 168 Nottingham Road Stapleford Nottinghamshire NG9 8AR Proposal : Construct first floor side extension including balcony and conservatory Decision : Conditional Permission

STAPLEFORD SOUTH WEST WARD

Applicant : Mr Ian Jowett Willmark Ltd. 15/00546/FUL Site Address : 93 Derby Road Stapleford Nottinghamshire NG9 7AR Proposal : Construct restaurant (Class A3) on ground floor and three residential flats (Class C3) to first floor Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mr D Wilson 15/00639/CLUP Site Address : 13 Park Street Stapleford Nottinghamshire NG9 8EU Proposal : Certificate of Lawful Development to construct loft conversion Decision : Approval - CLU

TOTON & CHILWELL MEADOWS WARD

Applicant : Mrs Lynn Tytherleigh 15/00577/FUL Site Address : 1 Steven Close Toton Nottinghamshire NG9 6JX Proposal : Constructed garage extension, rear dormer, front porch, pitched roof over the existing double garage, insert five roof lights and convert one garage into living space Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Ms Summers 15/00590/FUL Site Address : 20 Hillview Road Toton Nottingham NG9 6FX Proposal : Raise ridge height and construct side and rear extensions, loft conversion, including juliet balcony (revised scheme) Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mr Andrew Marshall 15/00592/FUL Site Address : 1 Adrian Close Toton Nottinghamshire NG9 6FL Proposal : Construct first floor side extension Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : H3G Ltd And EE Ltd 15/00609/TEL Site Address : Land Front Of Tesco Swiney Way Toton Nottinghamshire NG9 6GX Proposal : Replace existing 12.5 m monopole with new 14.7m phase 4 monopole and an additional cabinet Decision : Conditional Permission

198

WATNALL & NUTHALL WEST WARD

Applicant : Dr Julia Murfitt 15/00541/FUL Site Address : 107 Newdigate Road Watnall Nottinghamshire NG16 1HN Proposal : Retrospective permission for a single storey rear extension Decision : Conditional Permission

Applicant : Mr Keith Baker 15/00563/FUL Site Address : Land To The Rear Of 9 Edward Road Nuthall Nottingham NG16 1DB Proposal : Construct one dwelling with garage (Revised scheme) Decision : Refusal

Applicant : Mrs Christine Burrows 15/00597/FUL Site Address : 129 Newdigate Road Watnall Nottinghamshire NG16 1HN Proposal : Construct enlargement to front porch Decision : Conditional Permission

199