Planning Committee

PLANNING COMMITTEE

AGENDA

Meeting to be held in The Ballroom, Retford Town Hall, DN22 6DB on Wednesday, 7th February 2018 at 6.30 p.m.

(Please note time and venue)

Please turn mobile telephones to silent during meetings. In case of emergency, Members/officers can be contacted on the Council's mobile telephone: 07940 001 705.

In accordance with the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, audio/visual recording and photography at Council meetings is permitted in accordance with the Council’s protocol ‘Filming of Public Meetings’.

1 PLANNING COMMITTEE

Membership 2017/18

Councillors D. K. Brett, H. Burton, G. Clarkson, S. Fielding, G. Freeman, K. H. Isard, G. A. N. Oxby, D. G. Pidwell, M. W. Quigley, S. Scotthorne, A. K. Smith and T. Taylor.

Substitute Members: None

Quorum: 3 Members

Lead Officer for this Meeting

Myles Joyce

Administrator for this Meeting

Cara Hopkinson

NOTE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

(a) Please do not take photographs or make any recordings during the meeting without the prior agreement of the Chair.

(b) Letters attached to Committee reports reflect the views of the authors and not necessarily the views of the District Council.

2 PLANNING COMMITTEE

Wednesday, 7th February 2018

AGENDA

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS * (pages 5 -6) (Members’ and Officers’ attention is drawn to the attached notes and form)

(a) Members (b) Officers

3. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 6TH DECEMBER 2017 * (pages 7 - 18

4. MINUTES OF PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP MEETINGS HELD BETWEEN 13TH NOVEMBER 2017 AND 15TH JANAURY 2018* (pages 19 - 64)

5. OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST * (page 65

SECTION A – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC

Key Decisions

None

Other Decisions

6. REPORT(S) OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION *

(a) Public Interest Test: (Ms B Alderton-Sambrook, Head of Regeneration, has deemed that all Items on the Agenda are not confidential) (b) Appeal Decisions Received (pages 67 - 126) (c) Planning Applications and Associated ltems (pages 127 - 152) (d) Discussion Paper On Planning Performance Agreements (PPAS) and need to Public PPA Charter and Recommendation to Adopt Draft PPA Charter (pages 153 - 172) (e) Development Management Performance Report 2017/18 Quarter 3 (pages 173 - 178)

Exempt Information Items

The press and public are likely to be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following items in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

SECTION B - ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PRIVATE

Key Decisions

None

Other Decisions

None.

7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT

F:\Docs\Members\Ms8\REPORTS\Planning\7th February\Final\planning.ag.doc3 * Report attached

NOTES: 1. The papers enclosed with this Agenda are available in large print if required. 2. Copies can be requested by contacting us on 01909 533252 or by e-mail: [email protected]

F:\Docs\Members\Ms8\REPORTS\Planning\7th February\Final\planning.ag.doc4 Agenda Item No. 2

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

COMMITTEE ………………………………………………………………………………

DATE ……………………………………………………………………..

NAME OF MEMBER : ………………………………………………………………………………

Type of Interest

1. Disclosable Pecuniary 2. Non Pecuniary

Agenda Item Type of Interest No. REASON * (1 or 2)

Signed

Dated

Note:

* When declaring an interest you must also state the nature of your interest.

Completion of this form is to aid the accurate recording of your interest in the Minutes. The signed form should be provided to the Minuting Clerk at the end of the meeting.

A nil return is not required.

It is still your responsibility to disclose any interests which you may have at the commencement of the meeting and at the commencement of the appropriate Agenda item.

F:\Docs\Members\Ms8\REPORTS\Licensing\June Committee\25 declaration of interest.doc DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

HOW TO USE THIS FORM

There are now only two types of Declaration of Interest:

Disclosable Pecuniary Interests ) Details can be found in the Councillors ) Code of Conduct which is contained in ) the Council’s Constitution (a summary is Non Pecuniary Interests ) printed below)

Upon receipt of the attached form you will need to enter the name and date of the Committee and your own name. By looking at the Agenda you will no doubt know immediately which Agenda Items will require you to make a Declaration of Interest.

Fill in the Agenda Item number in the first column of the form.

Enter the subject matter and any explanations you may wish to add in the second column.

In the third column you will need to enter either if you are declaring a disclosable pecuniary interest, or a non pecuniary interest.

The form must then be signed and dated. Please remember that if during the actual meeting you realise that you need to declare an interest on an additional Agenda Item number please simply amend the form during the meeting.

The form must be handed into the Committee Administrator at the end of the meeting.

NB. The following is a summary prepared to assist Members in deciding at the actual meetings their position on INTERESTS it is not a substitute for studying the full explanation regarding INTERESTS, which is contained in the Council’s Constitution and the Code of Conduct for Councillors, which is legally binding.

Members and Officers are welcome to seek, PREFERABLY WELL IN ADVANCE of a meeting advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officer on INTERESTS.

Disclosable Pecuniary Interests Action to be Taken May relate to employment, office, trade, profession or vocation Must disclose to the meeting carried on for profit or gain - existence of the interest May relate to sponsorship - the nature of the interest May relate to contracts - withdraw from the room May relate to interests in land - not seek improperly to influence May relate to licences to occupy land a decision on the matter May relate to corporate tenancies May relate to securities

Non Pecuniary Interests Action to be Taken May relate to any body of which you are a member or in a Must disclose to the meeting position of general control or management and to which you are - existence of the interest appointed or nominated by the Council - the nature of the interest May relate to any person from whom you have received a gift or - not seek improperly to influence hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25 a decision on the matter. A Member may also have a non pecuniary interest where a decision in relation to that business might reasonably be regarded as affecting wellbeing or the wellbeing of other council tax payers, or ratepayers or inhabitants in the electoral division or ward, as the case may be, affected by the decision. . (Note – there are special provisions relating to “Sensitive Interests” which may exclude the above provisions in certain circumstances.)

F:\Docs\Members\Ms8\REPORTS\Licensing\June Committee\26 declaration of interest.doc Agenda Item No.3

DRAFT

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday, 6th December 2017 at Retford Town Hall

Present:

Councillor D Pidwell (Chair) Councillors G Clarkson, S Fielding, G Freeman, K H Isard, G A N Oxby, M W Quigley, S Scotthorne and A Smith.

Officers in attendance: D Askwith, J Elliott, M Freeman, C Hopkinson, M Joyce and S Wormald.

(Meeting commenced at 6.30pm.)

(The Chair welcomed all to the meeting and read out the Fire Evacuation Procedure. He also enquired as to whether any member of the public wished to film the meeting or any part thereof; although there were members of the public present, this was not taken up.)

55. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors G A N Oxby and M W Quigley.

56. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

(a) Members

There were no declarations of interest by officers.

(b) Officers

There were no declarations of interest by officers.

57. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 8th NOVEMBER 2017

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 8th November 2017 be approved.

58. MINUTES OF PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP MEETINGS HELD BETWEEN 16TH OCTOBER AND 6TH NOVEMBER 2017

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Planning Consultation Group meetings held between 16th October and 6th November 2017 be received.

59. OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST

RESOLVED that the Outstanding Minutes be received.

SECTION A – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC

Key Decisions

None.

Other Decisions

7 60. REPORT(S) OF THE DIRECTOR OF REGENERATION AND NEIGHBOURHOODS

(a) Public Interest Test

The Head of Regeneration had deemed that all Items on the Agenda were of a non-confidential nature.

(b) Appeal Decisions Received

Members were presented with two appeal decisions.

The Chair commented that the inspector on both decision supported the officer decisions. He drew Members attention to the inspectors expanded definition of sustainable development.

RESOLVED that the appeal decisions be received.

The Chair advised of a change in Agenda order so that applications A2 and A3 would be taken first.

Application No Applicant Proposal

17/00670/FUL SJB Professional Proposed change of use of land to professional Equine equine services including erection of single storey stable building with hay store, formation of ménage, car parking and vehicular access, land fronting Main Street, Dunham on Trent

Members were advised that the application sought change of use of land to professional equine services. Slides were used to show the site location. The site had been subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

The site is located to the east of Dunham-on-Trent, outside of the development boundary. Access to the site would be from the A57 via Ash Close. The site is currently a grassed field.

The Case Officer presented the proposals and a summary of responses from statutory consultees was given, as detailed in the report. Nottinghamshire County Council Highways, the Environment Agency, Environmental Health, Historic England and the Council’s Tree Officer have no objection. The Council’s Conservation Officer has commented that the development would result in a degree of harm to the setting of the Grade I listed Church of St Oswald and fail to preserve its setting.

Dunham, Ragnall, Fledborough and Darlton Parish Council have objected to the development on the grounds of highway safety. 40 letters of objection from local residents have been received and a petition with 46 signatures.

Members were advised that the site has the potential to bring economic development to the District. National and local planning policy generally supports the development. The impact on the countryside is considered to be minimal and the use requires a rural location.

In relation to residential amenity, Environmental Health have raised no objection. It is considered that the concerns of residents can be addressed. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework this is a balancing act where the harm will be adjudged against the benefits of the proposed development

In regards to the heritage impact the harm is considered to be less than substantial. Existing tree and hedges would provide screening and could be enhanced to mitigate the impact to the Church.

Councillor P Eghan spoke on behalf of the Parish Council. He advised that there are two homes directly across the road from the site and the impact has not been mentioned. It is considered that there would be a degree of harm to the Church therefore the development is failing to protect the heritage asset. He commented that:

 The site is in a flood risk zone.  The proposal is contrary to Policy CS1 as it is outside of the development boundary.  The development would be contrary to Policies CS9 and DM1. There is local objection to the application and other sites available.  The proposal is for a large scale development in a small village.  There are highway safety issues.  Floodlighting is a concern.  There would be noise and smells from the site.  There are protected trees on site.  The development would increase vehicle movements in the area.  The application contravenes policies DM3, DM11, DM13 and paragraph 14 of the Core Strategy.  The applicant does not live in the village.

Mrs C Booth spoke in objection to the development. She advised that:

 The site is outside of the village envelope.  The size of the development would be overbearing in the village.  The size of the development is larger than the whole of Ash Close.  There are concerns about floodlighting.  There would be a huge detrimental impact on wildlife in the vicinity.  Over 100 residents would lose their quiet homes.  Increased traffic, smells and light pollution are a concern.  There is no car parking facility accounted for.  There is no public transport in the village or village facilities. The village is unsustainable for growth.  There are eight or more facilities within 8 miles.  There is no stipulation on working hours.  The application is contrary to Policy DM3 as it would exacerbate highway issues.  There are blind bends in the village and there have been 11 accidents in the past months.  The entrance is dangerous.  There would be an increase in vehicles.  Lives would be put at risk if the development goes ahead.  She asked the Committee to keep the village safe and refuse the application.

Miss S Brumpton spoke as the applicant. She advised that:

 She is a 25 year old with a passion for equestrian.  Her obsession with riding started when visiting horse trials.  In the past six years she has gone from not riding to competing.  She is very hard working and hopes to become professional and compete for GB in the Olympics.  There is no training facility within 25 miles of the area or stables for a team of horses.  The development would give others access to facilities without travelling.  She hopes to launch a career for herself and give others the opportunity.

Members asked questions/ raised issues in relation to:

 Proposed floodlighting.

 Car parking and car park surfacing.  The number of horses to be accommodated in the stable block.  Flood risk.  Job opportunities.  A decision to a refuse another equestrian business in the District on the grounds of the rural location, it was outside of the development boundary and the impact on the character of the area.

In response to questions raised Members were advised that there are pre-commencement conditions proposed which require details of lighting and surfacing for hard surfaces to be submitted to the local authority and agreed in writing before work commences.

The Case Officer advised that the stable block could accommodate a maximum of ten horses, four for the applicant and six to be available for livery.

Members were advised that every application is taken on a case by case basis .The impact of the development is considered to be less than substantial and the benefits are considered to outweigh that harm. It is not considered there are any issues regarding the impact on the landscape.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Grant planning permission subject to the conditions as circulated.

COMMITTEE DECISION – Grant planning permission subject to the conditions as circulated.

Application No Applicant Proposal

16/01077/FUL C.S.Scaffold Proposed new buildings, change of use of land and Limited buildings to create a new tourist attraction including the conversion and extensions to existing brick barns to provide a cafe/ice cream parlour, craft units, toilets, conversion and external alteration to existing dutch barn to use as a farm shop, erect new buildings to create a building for educational use, reception building, stable block with associated ménage and paddock, seventeen holiday lodges, change of use of land for siting of touring caravans, outdoor animal enclosures and adventure play space and crazy golf and alter existing access, Pear Tree Farm and Land to North West, Gainsborough Road, Beckingham

Members were advised that the application proposes a new building, change of use of land and buildings to create a new tourist attraction. Slides were used to show the site location. The site had been subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

The site is located to the west of Beckingham village but outside of any development within open countryside. The site is accessed directly off the main A631 and is on elevated land above the road on undulating land which rises from north to east. The pigeon cote, which is a grade II listed building, is excluded from the red line application site.

The site has a long planning history; details were set out in the report.

The Case Officer presented the proposals and a summary of responses from statutory consultees was given, as detailed in the report. Highways; Nottinghamshire County Council; the Council’s Conservation Officer; the Environment Agency; the Lead Local Flood Authority; the Internal Drainage Board; Environmental Health; and National Air Traffic Safety have no objection.

Beckingham cum Saundy Parish Council supports the application. One local resident has objected to the proposal on highway safety grounds.

The principle of the development in the countryside for this type of development is generally supported. The site is relatively isolated and there would be no adverse impact to residential or visual amenity. The proposal seeks to enhance tourism in the District.

Councillor J Sanger spoke as Ward Member for Beckingham. She commented that the development would enhance the area and hopefully provide employment for local people in the area. The proposal is supported by the Parish Council and villagers.

Mr J Rigby spoke as the agent behalf of the applicant, he advised that:

 The support from Councillor Sanger and the Parish Council is welcomed.  Detailed discussions have been held with the Parish Council.  The client has had success and is a local businessman.  The application seeks to transform a series of redundant farm buildings to a tourist attraction.  The attraction is aimed at local families to be an enjoyable day out and learning opportunity.  The development would have economic benefits.  The tourism sector is underdevelopment and has significant potential.  There has been no objection to access arrangements.  Detailed technical reports have been submitted.  The proposal is consistent with planning policy.

Members commented that:

 The proposal would bring tourism to the area and provide an opportunity for local people.  The proposal is welcomed and situated in a beautiful part of Bassetlaw.  The development would provide jobs in a rural community.  The accommodation should only be for holiday use and conditions need to be robust.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Grant planning permission subject to the conditions as circulated.

COMMITTEE DECISION – Grant planning permission subject to the conditions as circulated and the imposition of the additional condition as follows:

16. Occupiers of holiday lodges and caravans hereby permitted at the site be restricted to a maximum 28 day stay duration in any three month time frame.

(The meeting was adjourned for a short break)

Application No Applicant Proposal

14/00503/OUT Linden Homes Ltd Outline application for the erection of up to 175 dwellings including public open space, attenuation drainage basin and associated works, land west of Tiln Lane, Retford.

Members were advised that the application sought outline planning permission for the erection of up to 175 dwellings including public open space, attenuation drainage basin and associated works. Slides were used to show the site location.

Members were advised that the original application on the site was considered at Planning Committee on 1st October 2014 where Members resolved to grant planning permission subject to

11 a S106 Agreement. Subsequently the applicant submitted a viability assessment and the S106 Agreement was never signed therefore a Decision notice was not issued.

The application was due to be reported to Planning Committee in January 2017 after an initial review of the applicant’s viability assessment by the District Valuer. The applicant and the District Valuer had been unable to agree on the viability assessment, as there was a significant difference between figures Members deferred the application. The viability assessment has now been subject to a further independent assessment.

The applicant has reviewed the overall scheme and are now offering Section 106 contributions as detailed within the report. The application would also be liable for Community Infrastructure Levy however, as this is an outline application the actual amount will depend on the net floor space at the reserved matters stage.

The Case Officer advised that the main difference between the application granted in 2014 and this application is that in 2014 25% affordable housing was proposed, this application would provide 9 affordable houses (5.14%) on site.

Mr D Larder spoke in objection to the application, he advised that:

 J Mann MP held a meeting and told residents that the development would not go ahead as the site is outside of the development boundary and good agricultural land.  Councillors should represent residents.  There are other sites in the area.  Two research studies have not been taken into account. The UK is rapidly running out of land to produce food and this application would destroy Grade II agricultural land. Morrison’s have produced a report to say much of our future food will be locally produced because of global warming and Brexit.  There has been a reduction in the affordable housing contribution which is an extremely important matter.  Traffic rat runs will be created and there are not enough traffic lights.  The Lane is already chaos at school time.

Mr Maynard spoke in support as the applicant, he advised that the application was resolved to grant in Oct 2014 however it become apparent there were issues that impacted viability. Whilst the site may look straightforward there are significant issues for instance drainage, highways and a steep bank that requires earthworks. An independent assessment has been undertaken and Linden Homes are happy to accept the findings. Linden Homes would like condition 8 rewording as there is a small pinch point in terms of ownership that means a 3m cycle way cannot be delivered at that point. They would also like condition 9 rewording to provide flexibility towards highways works.

Members asked questions/ raised issues in relation to:

 The site is outside of the development boundary.  It is frustrating the site has not come forward faster.  The Section 106 Obligations.  Community Infrastructure Levy.  The site is compact for the number of houses proposed.  The Council’s lack of a five year housing land supply.  The proposed cycle path.

In response to the applicants comments about changing the wording of proposed conditions Members were advised that if Members resolved to grant the application any changes would need to be presented to the Planning Consultation Group for approval.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Grant planning permission subject to a legal agreement and the conditions as circulated.

COMMITTEE DECISION – Grant planning permission subject to a legal agreement and the conditions as circulated.

Application No Applicant Proposal

17/00962/OUT Mr S Difuria Outline planning application for residential development and community allotments, land between Walkeringham Road and Vicarage Lane Beckingham

Members were advised that the application sought outline planning permission, with all matters reserved, for residential development and community allotments. The applicant has provided an illustrative layout of the site showing 30 dwellings. Slides were used to show the site location. The site had been subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

The site is located outside of the Beckingham development boundary. Beckingham Bridleway No.15 runs adjacent the eastern boundary of the site. Marsh pond, located 444m to the north east, is a local Wildlife Site.

The Case Officer presented the proposals and a summary of responses from statutory consultees was given, as detailed in the report. No objections have been received from Highways; Rights of Way; the Flood Risk Management Team; Environmental Health; the District Parks Development Officer; the Neighbourhood Planning Officer; Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust and the Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board. Letters of objection have been received from the Parish Council, ward Councillor and seven local residents.

The Case Officer advised that the site is located outside of, but adjacent, the development boundary. The Council currently has a lack of a five year land supply for housing. The proposal therefore is considered to be acceptable in principle subject to a Section 106 Agreement.

Councillor J Sanger read of comments on behalf of Councillor B Sofflet, Beckingham-cum- Saundby Parish Council, who was unable to attend the meeting. Whilst the Parish Council consider this to be the most attractive and suitable development put before them, in the context of the proposed development in the village and the size of the site (30 dwellings) they are asking that planning permission be refused for the development. They have concerns around any increased traffic load to Walkeringham Road, both during the construction phase and afterwards with the increased residential traffic. As a council they have already received unrelated complaints and concerns about the traffic speed and visibility without any additional volume from this development. In keeping with their concerns for the adjacent development the objections are as follows:  Taken within the wider context of proposed development within the village they question the sustainability of the site, and are concerned at the negative and irreversible impact that this will have on the character of the village.  The site sits outside of the existing settlement boundary, which is contrary to Policy CS1 of the Bassetlaw Development Framework, and is currently laid to arable farmland, affording open views across the Trent Valley.  The largest “estate-style” development within the village currently comprises a dozen properties and any development of this scale would not be in keeping with the village character. There is little need for allotment provision within the village (plots are currently vacant), the site would be better served by using the additional space to reduce the density of housing.  They further fail to see how the plans conform with Policy DM9 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework.

 They ask that the Committee also consider the wishes of the 7 local residents directly impacted by the plans that have written in with some 16 concerns, which are laid out in the report.  The District Councillor has also objected in writing to the proposals.  As a Parish Council they are in favour of measured and sustainable development which complements and augments the character of the village. Unfortunately they do not feel that the outlined plans do this, but rather detract from the charm and visual amenity. Should it be approved, they would ask that Members request the single storey properties to be at the western boundary of the site, adjacent to the road with the housing set further back along the eastern side.  A development of this size and nature is not in keeping with the rural setting and would add to the creeping urbanisation of the community.  They do not feel that the services within the village are sufficient to accommodate a population increase of around 10% (assuming 1 person per bedroom).  They ask that planning permission for this application be refused.

Councillor J Sanger spoke as ward Member for Beckingham. She advised that she agrees with the Parish Council’s comments. Bungalows are needed along the front of the site. She commented that she likes the idea of allotments however, will the Parish Council have to maintain them.

Members asked questions in relation to the proposed community allotments. Members raised concerns about the management of the allotments.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Grant subject to a Section 106 Agreement and the conditions as circulated.

Voting for taking this course of action:

FOR: Councillors S Fielding, G Freeman, S Scotthorne and A Smith. AGAINST: Councillors H Burton, G Clarkson, K H Isard, D G Pidwell and T Taylor. ABSTAINED: None.

COMMITTEE DECISION – Refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

 The site is outside of the development boundary.  Lack of sustainability.

FURTHER RESOLVED that the final wording of the reasons for refusal be approved at Planning Consultation Group.

Application No Applicant Proposal

16/00877/FUL J and W Property Residential development for 33 Dwellings, garages, Developments Ltd. landscaping construction of new access and associated works, land to the rear of 1-29 Vicarage Lane Beckingham

Members were advised that the application sought full planning permission for the erection of 33 dwellings. Slides were used to show the site location. The site had been subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

The site is located outside of, but adjacent, the Beckingham Development Boundary. Beckingham Bridleway No. 15 runs adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site.

The Case Officer presented the proposals and a summary of responses from statutory consultees was given, as detailed in the report. No objections have been received from Highways;

Nottinghamshire County Council Education; Nottinghamshire County Council Flood Risk Management Team; the District Parks Development Officer; Environmental Health; National Air Traffic Services; Natural England; Notts Wildlife Trust; Severn Trent Water; and the Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board. A holding objection has been received from Nottinghamshire County Council Rights of Way until information regarding hedgerows is provided. Letters of objection have been received from the District Councillor, previous County Councillor, Parish Council and 16 local residents.

The Case Officer advised that the Council currently has a lack of a five year land supply for housing. The proposal therefore is considered to be acceptable in principle subject to a Section 106 Agreement.

Councillor J Sanger read of comments on behalf of Councillor B Sofflet, Beckingham-cum- Saundby Parish Council, who was unable to attend the meeting. The Parish Council have concerns around any increased traffic load to Vicarage Lane, this is a narrow road with no carriageway demarcation lines, or parking restrictions. In keeping with their concerns for the adjacent development their objections are as follows:  Taken within the wider context of proposed development within the village they would question the sustainability of the site, and are concerned at the negative and irreversible impact that this will have on the character of the village.  The site sits outside of the existing settlement boundary, which is contrary to Policy CS1 of the Bassetlaw Development Framework, and is currently laid to arable farmland, affording open views across the Trent Valley.  The proposed 33 dwellings are, in their opinion, too dense to comply with Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan, a similar sized area to the south and east of the site currently supports 12 single storey dwellings. The largest “estate-style” development within the village currently comprises a dozen properties around Church View on a similarly sized plot.  They further fail to see how the plans conform with Policy DM9 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework.  They would ask that the Committee also consider the wishes of the 16 local residents directly impacted by the plans that have written in with a cumulative spread of some 28 concerns, which are laid out in the report.  A District and County Councillors have also objected in writing to the proposals.  As a Parish Council they are in favour of measured and sustainable development which complements and augments the character of the village.  A development of this size and nature is not in keeping with the rural setting and would add to the creeping urbanisation of the community.  Services within the village are not sufficient to accommodate a population increase of around 10% (assuming 1 person per bedroom).  Once again, they ask that the Committee refuse planning permission for this application.

Councillor J Sanger spoke as ward Member. She advised that:

 There has been no consultation or meaningful input included from villagers.  In 2011 the village said it wanted mainly bungalows and 2/3 bed houses in any new build and they are still saying the same.  This development is mainly 4/5 houses and no affordable housing because it is not economical for the developer. In other words there is not enough profit, therefore the village suffers and villagers are ignored.  The site is a dense, overbearing arrangement totally out of keeping with the village. Parts of this development are tightly packed like old back to back houses of Victorian times. The village is being urbanised outside the village envelope.  The plan goes against a number of policies in the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and the Bassetlaw Development Framework; particularly DM4 which states development must respect the character of the area and not have a detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby residents.

 There are dormer bungalows down Vicarage Lane on the southern boundary of the site and also across the road from the site, why can’t the line of bungalows continue along the frontage of the site?  The plan contains large two storey houses, overshadowing the bungalows across the road taking away their privacy.  The village started a neighbourhood plan about a year and a half ago but most of the planning applications for Beckingham were too far advanced for the plan to make a difference and villagers were despondent and lost interest.  This site and the next one are really the last two fields attached to the village.  This end of the village is busy with traffic but does not have the heavy lorries seen at the southern end of the village, unfortunately it does often have speeding vehicles wishing to avoid the cameras on the dual carriageway.  Beckingham is overdeveloped by sites already approved, making it unsustainable without significant investment. The school is full, the doctor’s surgery at Misterton is at breaking point, there is only a small shop and post office, no public house, a poor bus service and sewage and drainage needing attention.

Mr T Quiltor spoke in objection to the application. He advised that he understands Nottinghamshire County object to the application due to the impact on the village. The development does not meet the affordable housing requirement. The developer is looking at profit over the village interests. The application proposes more bus stops that are not needed.

Mr Jones spoke in support as the applicant. The application has been a three year process working closely with the Planning Department. There have been numerous amendments to the application in consultation with the Planning Department. The number of dwellings overall has been reduced to 33 and a number of houses have been changed to bungalows. They have worked closely with highways to address issues. The developer will provide a range of homes needed in the District.

Members asked questions/ raised issues in relation to:

 The percentage of houses and bungalows.  Affordable housing.  The impact on the character of the village.  The lack of infrastructure in the village.  The size of the gardens.  The site is outside of the development boundary.

Councillor T Taylor clarified that the County Councillor who commented on the application was her predecessor.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement and the conditions as circulated.

Voting for taking this course of action:

FOR: Councillors A Smith. AGAINST: Councillors H Burton, G Clarkson, S Fielding, G Freeman, K H Isard, D G Pidwell, S Scotthorne and T Taylor. ABSTAINED: None.

COMMITTEE DECISION – Refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

 The site is outside of the development boundary.  There is no affordable housing contribution.  Lack of sustainability.  The impact on the character of the village.

FURTHER RESOLVED that the final wording of the reasons for refusal be approved at Planning Consultation Group. Application No Applicant Proposal

17/01156/OUT Mr Smith Outline application all matters reserved for erection of 20 dwellings, land south of Bawtry Road Everton

Members were advised that the application sought outline planning permission with all matters reserved for the erection of 20 dwellings. Slides were used to show the site location. The site had been subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

The proposed site is 1.9 hectares in area. The site is outside of the Everton development boundary adjacent to the Everton Conservation Area. Public footpath Everton FP20 runs along the eastern boundary of the site.

The Case Officer presented the proposals and a summary of responses from statutory consultees was given, as detailed in the report. No objections have been received from Nottinghamshire County Council; the District Conservation Officer; the District Parks Development Officer; Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust; the Environment Agency; and Doncaster Sheffield Airport. Letters of objection have been received from Everton Parish Council, the District Councillor and local residents.

Members were advised that notwithstanding the Council’s shortfall in five year housing land supply, it is considered that the proposed residential development would be at odds with the rural character and appearance of the area. The development would also be likely to result in the unacceptable living conditions for new residents due to noise distance from an existing local business.

Councillor D Bardsley spoke on behalf of Everton Parish Council. He advised that:

 The Parish Council strongly object to the application.  The site is the gateway to the village and important to the Conservation Area.  Planning Policy DM4 states that development should respect its wider surroundings, the proposal relates poorly to the village and the Conservation Officers comments cement that view.  The site is not screened from all views.  The proposal does not compliment the emerging Neighbourhood Plan. A recent appeal decision gave moderated weight to the Plan.  The development fails to comply with the Listed Buildings Act.  The development would harm the character and setting of the Conservation Area.  The harm outweighs the lack of a five year land supply.  The proposal would detract from the character of the village and would not preserve its character.

Mr A Ballarini spoke in objection to the development. He advised that the proposal is contrary to local policy and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that development should enhance the local environment. A footpath crosses the site and the footpath to the north has views across the site which is an important part of the landscape. A Neighbourhood Plan question found that 94% of residents thought the landscape was the most important feature of living in Everton. The site is an introduction to the built form of Bassetlaw and the village. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF states that development should conserve and enhance the natural environment. The Neighbourhood Plan is being development, there has been three calls for land to be put forward and this site has never been identified. The land is grade 3, poorer quality land should be used.

17 In response to questions asked in relation to the potential impact of the existing agricultural business on future residents Members were advised that the building was allowed on appeal in 2013 and could be used at all hours and days of the year. The site is 30m away from the building. In regards to the dwellings granted planning permission on the site in front of this site if these were not implemented the development on the street would not appear linear.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Refuse planning permission for the reasons as listed.

COMMITTEE DECISION – Refuse planning permission for the reasons as listed.

SECTION B – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PRIVATE

Key Decisions

None.

Other Decisions

None.

61. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT

As there was no other urgent business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting.

(Meeting closed at 9.07pm.)

18 Agenda Item No.4 (i)

PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP

Minutes of the meeting held on Monday, 13th November 2017 at Worksop Town Hall

Present: Councillors K H Isard, G A N Oxby, D G Pidwell and A Smith.

Officers in attendance: J Elliott and C Hopkinson.

(Meeting opened at 4.00pm.)

77. APOLOGIES

There were no apologies for absence received.

78. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Application No Proposal

16/01365/VPO4 Application to modify affordable housing contribution requirement of the Section 106 Agreement for planning application 14/01369/OUT, land to the north of Station Road, Beckingham

Members were presented with the proposed wording for the reasons for refusal. Members resolved to refuse planning permission at the previous meeting of Planning Committee on 8th November 2017.

Initial officer recommendation – Approve the reasons for refusal- refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

16/01372/VPO4 Application to modify affordable housing contribution requirement of the Section 106 Agreement for planning application 14/00630/OUT, land off Station Road, Beckingham

Members were presented with the proposed wording for the reasons for refusal. Members resolved to refuse planning permission at the previous meeting of Planning Committee on 8th November 2017.

Initial officer recommendation – Approve the reasons for refusal- refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01286/RSB Erect two storey detached four bedroomed dwelling with detached garage block, construct new access and associated landscaping design (resubmission of p.a 16/01651/FUL), land to the east of Fingle House, Fingle Street, North Leverton

Members were advised that the application sought to erect a two storey detached four bedroomed dwelling. A location map and elevations were tabled.

19 Members were advised that an application on the site had previously been presented to the Group and referred to Planning Committee in August 2017 where Members resolved to refuse planning permission. The previous application was for a slightly larger and more modern style dwelling.

A summary of comments received was given:

 Anglian Water have no objection.  Historic England have no comments.  The Internal Drainage Board have commented that the site is outside of their catchment area.  Six letters of objection have been received from local residents on the grounds of: the detrimental impact to the character of the area; the site is outside of the development boundary; access to the footpath; risk of flooding; over intensification of the site; design; overlooking due to the balconies; and the proposed office is out of keeping with the area.  Six letters of support have been received commenting that the proposal would not unduly have an impact on highway safety issues, the access has previously been used by farm vehicles and the proposal would help to sustain the village.  The applicant has submitted a letter in support confirming that they have right of way over the land.  The Parish Council has no objection.  Environmental Health have recommended a condition in relation to the hours of construction and an informative regarding contaminated land.  The Council’s Conservation Officer has commented that the site is within the setting of the Grade I listed church however they have no objection to the application.  Rights of Way have no objection to the proposed access.  Highways have no objection subject to improvements to the junction at Fingle Street.

The Principal Planner advised Members of the previous reasons for refusal. This scheme has been amended from the original in terms of the design. The design of the house in this scheme is a more traditional form.

Members were advised of the proposed conditions. North Leverton is classed as a rural service centre. The site is close to the development boundary and would be a continuation of the group of houses on Fingle Street.

Members made comments in relation to the flood risk and the positive improvement to the junction.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01260/RSB First floor extension over existing garage, erect single storey front extension to hallway and create new access (resubmission of 17/01260/HSE), Grange Place, Main Street, Bothamsall

Members were advised that the application sought to erect a first floor and single storey front extension to a relatively modern bungalow. A location map, elevations, floorplans and photographs were tabled.

Members were advised that the bungalow currently has shared access; it is proposed to create a separate access. The site is within the development boundary.

A summary of comments received was given:

20  A local resident has commented that they would like more information about the size and positioning of the Velux roof lights. Members were advised that these windows would be obscurely glazed.  Another local resident has made comments regarding the impact on privacy and loss of amenity. They have no objections provided they do not reduce the height of the boundary hedge.  The Parish Council neither object nor support the proposal. They have commented that they are concerned the development is out of keeping and has the potential for loss of light and privacy. Due to the complicated history of the site they have asked that the application be considered by the Planning Committee.

In response to questions raised regarding the history of the site Members were advised that the dwelling has previously had a new roof and extensions. The proposal is considered acceptable in the setting and the distance between the neighbouring property if considered to be sufficient.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01267/COU Change of use of car park to form storage of paving slabs and other building materials and retention of 2.0m fence, Paving Stones Direct UK, Unit4, Turner Drive, Worksop

Members were advised that the application sought change of the use to form a storage area. The use is currently unauthorised; the application seeks to retain the change of use. The site was previously owned by the Council. A location map, plans and photographs were tabled.

Members were advised that there is currently an application to erect a single storey office building. There is also an unauthorised portacabin on site.

A summary of comments received was given:

 Letters of objection have been received from local residents on the grounds of: loss of privacy; noise and disturbance; increased traffic; intrusiveness; overcrowding of the site; highway safety; dust; and polluted air. A lot of objections are based on the fact that the land has previously been used to access properties and as an informal parking area.  Highways have no objection subject to parking provision.  Environmental Health have commented that there have been no complaints received from residents prior to the submission of the application. They have recommended a conditions for hours of operation and deliveries, lighting and additional information relating to potential noise and dust.  The ward Councillor has objected on behalf of a local resident on the grounds of the potential for noise and dust, the change of use would expand the industrial area into an area that has only ever been used as residential parking and the height of the fence could cause a safety issue is there is an emergency at a property of Carlton Road as previously available escape routes have been blocked.  The applicant’s agent has confirmed that the applicant owns the land.  A letter of support has been received from M&D Autos stating that Paving Stones Direct have improved the area since they arrived and keep the site clean and tidy.

Elected Members asked questions in relation to potential dust and residents who have been dispersed from the parking area. The Principal Planner advised of the proposed conditions. Further information regarding dust will be added as an informative. In terms of parking residents have no right of way over the land.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01111/COU Change of use of part of residential garage into a dog grooming business, 17 Glebe Close, Worksop

Members were advised that the application sought change of use of part of a residential double garage to a dog grooming business. A location map was tabled.

The applicant has confirmed in an email that there will be one part time worker who is a resident at the property; there would be no additional cars for employees. The overlapping of customers could occur but measures can be implemented to minimise this. It is intended to keep the business small to two dogs per day in the first and second year and to a maximum of three dogs per day occasionally, but this is not anticipated until at least year three. The customer base is targeting the local St Anne’s estate which would encage customers to walk their dogs to the property. In terms of parking the applicant has one car and space for an additional three cars on the drive. There is also a shared space adjacent to the property.

Highways have no objection subject to the operation details as stated in the applicants email.

Environmental Health have no objection.

The neighbour has commented that they support small home-run businesses however have concerns about the potential size that the business could grow into.

Members were advised that if granted the application would be conditioned as per the email to no more than three dogs groomed per day. The hours of operation would be conditioned to between 9.00am and 5.00pm Monday to Fridays.

In response to questions raised regarding external advertising and signage Members were advised that this can be added as an informative.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01476/CDM Variation of condition 3 of planning permission 01/53/04/00005 for the cessation date for their operations to be extended until 24th May 2026, Bevercotes Energy Park, land off West Drayton Avenue, Bevercotes

Members were advised that the application is a Nottinghamshire County Council matter, the District Council is a consultee. The application seeks to vary a condition of previously approved planning permission to extend methane extraction and electricity generation.

Initial officer recommendation – Raise no objection - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

22 17/01475/CDM Variation of condition 3 of planning permission 01/53/04/00008 for the cessation date for their operations to be extended until 24th May 2026, Bevercotes Energy Park, land off West Drayton Avenue, Bevercotes

Initial officer recommendation – Raise no objection - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01446/CDM Erection of detached two-classroom building with ramped access, alterations to conservatory, additional car parking spaces, new play area and associated landscape and hard surfacing works, North Wheatley C of E School, Sturton Road, South Wheatley

Members were advised that the application is a Nottinghamshire County Council matter, the District Council is a consultee. The application seeks to erect a detached two-classroom building with ramped access, alterations to the existing conservatory, additional car parking spaces, new play area and associated landscape and hard surfacing works. A location map, elevations and photographs were tabled.

Members were advised that there is a listed building within the locality. The proposed building is modern in style and would be sat behind the existing building.

Initial officer recommendation – Raise no objection - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

79. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT

As there was no other business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting.

(The meeting closed at 4:42pm.)

23 24 Agenda Item No.4(ii)

PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP

Minutes of the meeting held on Monday, 20th November 2017 at Worksop Town Hall

Present: Councillors S Fielding, K H Isard and A Smith.

Officers in attendance: M Joyce and B Pinkney.

(Meeting opened at 4.00pm.)

80. APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Councillor D G Pidwell.

81. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor A Smith declared a non-pecuniary interest in planning applications 17/00845/OUT.

82. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Application No Proposal

17/01167/VOC Vary condition 1 of planning application 16/01487/RES to amend approved drawings for minor amendments to the positioning of dwellings and garages on plots 194-197, land at Gateford Park, Ashes Park Avenue, Worksop.

Members were advised that the application sought to vary condition 1 of planning application 16/01487/RES to amend approved drawings for minor amendments to the positioning of dwellings and garages on plots 194-197. A site plan was tabled.

Members were advised that no objections had been raised by the following:

 Nottinghamshire County Council Highways;  Nottinghamshire Flood Risk Management Team;  Highways England;  District Environmental Health Officer;  Environment Agency;  Sport England;  Historic England.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01266/COU Change of use of agricultural building to form new detached dwelling with associated garaging and amenity space, Willow Farm, Town Street, Cottam, Retford.

Members were advised that the application sought change of use of agricultural building to form a new detached dwelling with associated garaging and amenity space. A site plan, elevations and photographs were tabled.

25 Members were advised that Highways raised no objection subject to conditions relating to access width, surfacing, drainage, dropped kerb, off street parking provision and visibility splays.

Environmental Health have recommended that a condition be added to the application relating to hours of operation for the construction activities and a note to be included regarding the potential discovery of contaminated land.

Members were advised that the Parish Council support the application.

Members were advised that the recommendation is to refuse the application as it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to the aims and objectives of policy DM2 of the BCS which restricts the conversion of modern, purpose built agricultural or industrial buildings into residential use.

Initial officer recommendation – Refuse Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01032/FUL Retention of mobile home for agricultural occupancy for a period of three years and retention of external decking, land to the north of Fox Covert Lane, Misterton, South Yorkshire.

Members were advised that the application sought to retain mobile home for agricultural occupancy for a period of three years and retain external decking. Photographs were tabled.

It was noted that the application had been deferred at PCG on 16th October 2017 for additional information relating to a business plan. Further information had been provided by the applicant.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01309/RSB Erection of a two storey front extension to End Terrace House (Resubmission of planning application 17/00812/HSE) 17A Windyridge, Everton, Doncaster, South Yorkshire.

Members were advised that the application sought to erect a two storey front extension. Elevations were tabled.

It was noted that the application is a resubmission of planning application 17/00812/HSE.

Members were advised that Everton Parish Council had raised objection relating to the size of the extension, out of character with the area and the loss of light to adjoining properties.

The Conservation Officer has not objected to the application as it has been considered that the proposal would be not detriment to heritage assets in the locality.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

26 Application No Proposal

17/00845/OUT Outline application with all matters reserved for up to six dwellings, land fronting Harworth Cemetery and adjacent to Styrrup Road, Harworth.

Members were advised that the application sought all matters reserved for up to six dwellings. Site plans were tabled.

Members were advised that the Parish Council had raised comments regarding the access road and pavement leading up to the cemetery. This access road is part of the land owned by the Town Council and not Highways. Therefore, the proposed layout on plan B of a private road would not be approved by the Town Council.

The Parish Council raised no objection subject to the following concerns being addressed I preparation of the full planning application:

 Speeding traffic coming into Haworth from stirrup (over the brow of the hill which is close to the development) and extension of the 30 mph limit.  Screening of the development down the cemetery access road and along the rear boundary backing onto the cemetery.  Less housing on the development; and set further back on the plot to enable larger driveways so it doesn’t encourage on road parking for any additional cars.  The new boundaries fronting Styrrup Road do not obstruct driver’s vision when leaving the cemetery access road.

Two letters of objection had been received from local resident’s raising concern regarding the following issues:

 Plan A requires a dropped kerb to six entrances on Styrrup Road just below the brow of the hill with busy traffic at certain times of the day.  Plan B would alleviate this but would be more sensible for all new house drive entrances to be off the existing cemetery access road, to allow for landscaping.  The rear vehicular access would also prevent the rear gardens looking over the graves in order to site family gardens away from graves.

Members were advised that an objection had been received from land immediately to the north of the application site raising the following concerns:

 Neighbouring property is 1 Metre lower than the application site flooding has occurred from the field in the past.  Due to the difference in land level the kitchen window would be overshadowed and privacy would be comprised.  Highway safety issues – there is a difficulty leaving the driveway and additional vehicles serving proposed development would make this worse.

Severn Trent Water raised no objection subject to conditions.

It was noted that the application site is outside the settlement boundary.

Members were advised that the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies CS1, CS9, DM4 (Design and Appearance) and DM9 (Landscape).

Initial officer recommendation – Refuse Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

27 Application No Proposal

17/01291/FUL Erection of detached dormer bungalow with detached double garage to rear and erection of 1.2 metre high boundary walls and construct new access, land at The Beeches, Great North Road, Ranskill.

Members were advised that the application sought to erect a detached dormer with detached double garage to the rear and to erect 1.2 metre high boundary walls and construct new access. A location map, site plan, elevations and photographs were tabled.

Ranskill Parish Council have no objections.

County Highways have no objection subject to conditions.

Members were advised that a letter had been received from a local resident not objecting to the proposal but requesting that construction works take place only between the hours of 8am and 5pm and not at weekends. A request that the access to the site is sufficiently distanced from the North Road bus stop had been made.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01307/HSE Erection of a single storey side extension with external wall rendering, 88 Milne Road, Bircotes.

Members were advised that the application sought to erect a single storey side extension with external wall rendering. A location map, elevations and photographs were tabled.

Harworth and Bircotes Town Council have no objections.

Members were advised that Notts County Council had concerns with the original plans however, after being re-consulted on the amended plans highways have no longer any concerns.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/00670/FUL Proposed change of use of land to Professional Equine Services including the erection of a single storey stable building with hay store, formation of a ménage and car park and creation of vehicle access, land fronting Main Street, Dunham On Trent, Nottinghamshire.

Members were advised that the application sought change of use of land to professional equine services including the erection of a single storey stable building with hay store, formation of a ménage and car park and creation of a vehicle access. Location map and site plans were tabled.

The Environmental Agency and Tree Officer have no objections.

Members were advised that Highways and Environment Health raised no objection subject to conditions.

28 The Conservation Officer raised comments suggesting that the proposed development will result in a degree of harm to the setting of Grade I listed Church of St Oswald and thereby fail to preserve its setting. The degree of harm is considered to be less than substantial in National Planning Policy Framework policy terms for which no public/heritage benefits had been demonstrated that could be considered to overweigh the harm.

Members were advised that the Parish Council have raised objection on the grounds of highway safety.

Councillor K Isard had made a request for the application to be deferred to a future Planning Committee.

Following discussion members agreed to defer the application to a future Planning Committee.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Defer to future Planning Committee.

Application No Proposal

17/00487/FUL Construction of a Drive-Thru Burger King Restaurant with associated Parking, north corner of Tesco car park, Gateford Road, Worksop.

Members were advised that the application sought to construct a Drive-Thru Burger King Restaurant with associated parking. Site plans and elevations were tabled.

Nottinghamshire County Council Highways have no objections.

Members were advised that Environmental Health have raised no objection subject to conditions.

Four letters of objection had been received from local residents raising the following concerns:

 Increased levels of traffic and noise 24 hours a day;  Potential light pollution and additional litter problems;  Excessive noise, smells and disturbance, detrimental to residential amenity;  Overlooking and loss of privacy;  Pedestrian safety concerns, detrimental to highway safety;  No net increase in job creation, detrimental impact on town centre;  Highway safety concerns, close to a school;  Potential for anti-social behaviour;  No need to additional Burger King;  Increased traffic through Bonemill Lane Junction, which serves many businesses, used by HGV’s, difficult junction and restricted visibility.

Members were advised that one letter of objection from a local business, Pandrol UK Ltd had been received raising the following concerns:

 Proposal does not adequately address safe vehicular access to the site;  Highly likely that customers will use Bonemill Lane which has a narrow entrance and tight turning circle which is already used by Tesco customers;  Increased use will increase safety risk;  As a large business they rely on frequent HGV access, therefore a traffic survey should be taken;  Bonemill Lane is not an adopted road, increased cost of wear and tear.

Members were advised that a condition is imposed to limit the hours of operation to 8pm-11pm daily and to limit delivery hours to 8am-6pm, Monday – Saturday.

29 Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01304/HSE Single storey flat roof rear extension, Applegarth, High Street, South Leverton, Retford

Members were advised that the application sought to erect a single storey flat roof rear extension. Site plans, photographs and elevations were tabled.

Members were advised that the Parish Council had raised objection on the following grounds:

 A rendered surface finish for the extension construction would contravene the South Leverton Design Statement.  New building materials should be in keeping with surrounding buildings, which are predominantly of red brick construction.  Do not support the practice of retro submission of planning applications.

A letter of objection had been received from one local resident raising concern regarding the following issues:

 Object over the rendering of entire property and extension.  Exterior rendering is not in keeping with South Leverton Village Design Statement.  Work has commenced and nearly completed before planning permission has been granted.

Members were advised that a letter of support had been received from a local resident stating that plenty of other houses within the village have rendering, therefore see no reason to object.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

16/01077/FUL Proposed new buildings, change of use of land and buildings to create a new tourist attraction including the conversion and extensions to existing brick barns to provide a Café/Ice Cream Parlour, craft units, toilets, conversion and external alterations to existing Dutch Barn to use as farm shop. Erect new buildings to create a building for educational use, reception building, stable block with associated ménage and paddock. Seventeen holiday lodges, change of use of land for siting of touring caravans, outdoor animal enclosures and adventure play space, crazy golf and to alter existing access. Pear Tree Farm and Land North West of Gainsborough Road, Beckingham.

Members were advised that the application sought to erect new buildings, change of use of land and buildings to create a new tourist attraction including the conversion and extensions to existing brick barns to provide a café/ice cream parlour, craft units, toilets, conversion and external alterations to existing Dutch barn to use as farm shop. Erect new buildings to create a building for educational use, reception building, stable block with associated ménage and paddock. Erection of seventeen holiday lodges, change of use of land for siting of touring caravans, outdoor animal enclosures and adventure play space, crazy golf and to alter existing access. Site plans and elevations were tabled.

30 Members were advised that in August 2013 and January 2013 planning permission and listed building consent was refused for restoration and reconstruction of original farm including replacement farmhouse, repair and reconstruction of original farm buildings and new landscaping works. In May 2011 planning permission was granted for the retention of concrete thrust walls, pad, ramp, apron and re-sheeting of existing building with insertion of roller shutter doors. In June 2009 planning permission was refused to retain use of land for storage of building materials. In March 2009 planning permission had been granted for the erection of a detached dwelling and to alter existing access. In January 2009 planning permission had been refused for the retention and completion of onsite roadway, however it was allowed on appeal.

Nottinghamshire County Council Highways and the Environment Agency have no objections.

Members were advised that the Conservation Officer had raised no objection; however, feel that it is a missed opportunity to include the listed building within the development.

The Lead Local Flood Authority and Internal Drainage Board have no objection subject to the imposition of a condition in respect of surface water drainage.

Members were advised that Beckingham Cum Saundby Parish Council remains fully supportive of the application.

Members were advised that one letter of objection had been received from a local resident raising objection on highway grounds, that is, inadequate walking and cycling provision, 50mph speed limit, needs sustainable access, should include NCC Planning Obligation Strategy contribution.

Members were advised that Councillor Simpson had commented that the proposal would eliminate access to surrounding agricultural land.

Members agreed to defer the application to a future Planning Committee.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Defer to future Planning Committee.

83. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT

As there was no other business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting.

(The meeting closed at 5:09pm.)

31 32 Agenda Item No.4(iii)

PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP

Minutes of the meeting held on Monday, 27th November 2017 at Worksop Town Hall

Present: Councillors S Scotthorne, A Smith and T Taylor.

Officers in attendance: C Hopkinson and M Joyce.

(Meeting opened at 4.00pm.)

84. APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Councillors G A N Oxby and D G Pidwell.

85. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor S Scotthorne declared a non-pecuniary interest in planning application 15/01477/OUT, he remained in the meeting.

86. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Application No Proposal

17/00575/OUT Outline application to erect 7 x 2 bed dwellings (all matters reserved), Wood Yard, Cemetery Road, Langold

Members were advised that the application sought outline planning permission to erect seven two bed dwellings. A location map and site plans were tabled.

A summary of comments received was given:

 Environmental Heath have no objection however have recommended that an assessment is carried out in relation to contamination.  Highways are satisfied that satisfactory access can be provided to serve the development.  The Parish Council have no objection.  A letter of objection has been received to the grounds that the design of the houses would not sell, building works may restrict access into the estates, and construction noise. They have recommended that double yellow lines are provided to prevent parking on highway safety grounds.  An email of support has been received commenting that the development of the site would improve the appearance of the area and they supports the scheme however have concerns regarding privacy, increase in traffic and parking provision.

In terms of the principle the location is considered to be acceptable. No details have been provided at this stage and would be submitted with the reserved matters application. The Council currently has a lack of a five year land supply of housing; Policy CS1 supports additional permissions where applications would help to address the shortfall.

Members were advised that as the application is for less than ten dwellings there would be no requirement for an affordable housing contribution.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01531/CDM Variation of condition 1 p.a 53/11/00008 for cessation date of their observations to extend until 25.04.2026, Bevercotes Energy Park, West Drayton Avenue, West Drayton

Initial officer recommendation – Raise no objection - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01056/FUL Conversion and alterations to dovecot building to create additional rooms and join by glass link, The Old Dairy, Church Hill, North Wheatley

Members were advised that the application sought permission for the conversion and alteration to the dovecot building to create additional rooms and join by glass link. A location map and site layout and elevations were tabled. An associated listed building consent application followed.

A summary of comments received was given:

 Highways have no objection in principle. They have suggested that a third parking space be provided for use by the extended unit.  North and South Wheatley Parish Council are broadly in support of the application but would like consideration of: o The extension suggests more cars and need for parking. o There would be a concern if any part of the building became a separate dwelling in the future. o The construction phase may be an issue with scaffolding needing to be erected on Church Hill.

Members were advised that the proposal is considered acceptable. It is not considered that there would a detrimental impact in terms of visual or residential amenity. In terms of heritage the proposal is considered to protect and enhance the historic environment and would bring the building back into use.

The Interim Development Team Manager advised of the proposed conditions. A condition would be imposed to ensure that the dwelling is not occupied for any other purpose other than ancillary to the residential use of the existing dwelling. More information regarding the link would be requested prior to commencement of the development.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01057/LBA Conversion and alterations to dovecot building to create additional rooms and join by glass link, The Old Dairy, Church Hill, North Wheatley

34 Members were advised that the application sought listed building consent for the conversion and alteration to the dovecot building to create additional rooms and join by glass link in association with the preceding application.

Members were advised that the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of the listed building. In terms of heritage the proposal is considered to protect and enhance the historic environment and would bring the building back into use.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Listed Building Consent - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/005559/FUL Erect two storey building containing two ground floor restaurants, first floor gym and two storey coffee shop, shared landscaping car parking and access, land at Highgrounds Road, Rhodesia

Members were advised that the application sought to erect a two storey building containing two ground floor restaurants, first floor gym and two storey coffee shop, shared landscaping car parking and access. A location map was tabled.

A summary of comments received was given:

 Environmental Health have no objection subjection to conditions.  Rhodesia Parish Council have concerns in relation to the busy road, highway safety and have commented that the area can be heavily congested.  Highways initially had concerns however subsequently plans have been amended and they have no objection subject to conditions.

Members were advised that the site is within the development boundary. There are pedestrian crossing facilities and bus links in the area. The proposal would create 50 new jobs.

In terms of visual amenity officers have no concerns. Plans have been amended to improve the design. There would be no impact in terms of residential amenity.

The Interim Development Manager advised that an ecology appraisal has been submitted. Mitigation measures would be put in place to minimise the impact on wildlife.

The application would be CIL liable.

Members were advised of the proposed conditions.

Members raised concerns regarding the access and flow of traffic at the busy junction. The Interim Development Manager noted that Highways have no objection.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

15/01477/OUT Request to vary conditions, land north of Thievesdale Lane and west of Blyth Road, Worksop

35 Members were advised that the application sought to vary conditions of a previously approved planning application. Details of the conditions and proposed changes were circulated to Members. Members were advised that the changes are minor.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

87. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT

As there was no other business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting.

(The meeting closed at 4:50pm.)

36 Agenda Item No.4(iv)

PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP

Minutes of the meeting held on Monday, 4th December 2017 at Worksop Town Hall

Present: Councillors D G Pidwell and A Smith.

Officers in attendance: M Joyce and B Pinkney.

(Meeting opened at 4.00pm.)

84. APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Councillors K H Isard and T Taylor.

85. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor D G Pidwell declared a non-pecuniary interest in planning application 17/00001/FUL.

86. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Application No Proposal

17/01570/CDM Erect two classroom single storey rear extension, extended area of outdoor play, relocation of sheds, cycle parking and fencing. Clarborough Primary School, Hillview Crescent, Clarborough, Retford, Nottinghamshire.

Members were advised that the application sought to erect a single storey rear extension to accommodate for two classrooms, and extended area for outdoor play, relocation of sheds, cycle parking and fencing. A location map and site plans were tabled.

Members were advised that the planning applications recommendation is to raise no objection.

Initial officer recommendation – Raise No Objection - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/00856/FUL Demolition of existing stable block and pole barn, erect three detached garages with store, detached greenhouse, extend existing garden wall and create two gated accesses and erect stable block within paddock area. The Manor House access road to Fledborough, Fledborough, Newark.

Members were advised that the application sought to demolish the existing stable block and pole barn, erect three detached garages with store, detached greenhouse, extend existing garden wall. Create two gated accesses and erect stable block within the paddock area. Site plans and elevations were tabled.

Members were advised that the Conservation officer had concerns with the original plans submitted. However, the conservation officer was re-consulted once the amended plans had been submitted and made comments suggesting that the structure is better located than the original plans. Conservation had suggested that a condition be imposed on the application to ensure that the structure is painted/stained a dark colour to guarantee that it is a recessive element in the countryside.

37 The Parish Council have no objections.

Members were advised that Environmental Health raised no objection subject to a condition being imposed that all construction works be carried out between 8:00am-6:00pm Monday – Friday, 8:00am-1:00pm on Saturdays and no work should be carried out on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission Subject to Conditions - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/00857/LBA Demolition of existing stable block and pole barn, erect three detached garages with store, detached greenhouse, extend existing garden wall and create two gated accesses and erect stable block within paddock area. The Manor House access road to Fledborough, Fledborough, Newark.

Members were advised that the application is a Listed Building Application in association with the previous application.

The Parish Council have no objections.

The Conservation officer and Environmental health had raised comments on the same grounds as the previous application.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01381/VOC Variation of condition 1 of planning application 16/01381/RES to amend approved drawings for minor amendments to 98 plots for alterations to dwellings including revised eaves detailing and elevational alterations. Land at Gateford Park, Ashes Park Avenue, Worksop.

Members were advised that the application sought to vary condition 1 of planning application 16/01381/RES to amend approved drawings for minor amendments to 98 plots for alterations to dwellings including revised eaves detailing and elevational amendments. A location map and elevations were tabled.

No objections had been received from all statutory consultations.

Members were advised that the proposal relates primarily to the amendments to the design of the houses. The changes are as follows:

 The removal of bay windows;  The addition of bay windows and the addition of blind windows;  Substitution of dormer windows for roof lights;  The reduction in roof pitches;  Removal of render from four plots;  Substitution of facing bricks.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

38 Application No Proposal

17/00001/FUL Proposed demolition of dilapidated dwelling and garage and the erection of replacement dwelling/garage block and attached annex. Breck House, Blyth Road, Worksop.

Members were advised that the application sought to demolish the existing dwelling and garage and the erection of a replacement dwelling, garage block and attached annex. A location map, site plans and elevations were tabled.

The proposed dwelling will have four bedrooms with a fifth bedroom forming part of the proposed annex over the garage. A new access from the B6045 has been created to replace the old access and a 2m high frontage boundary wall has been erected without the benefit of planning permission.

Nottinghamshire County Council Highways have raised no objection subject to the imposition of conditions.

Members were advised that Carlton-in-Lindrick Parish Council have raised concerns regarding the following:

 Extensive sight clearance works have already taken place at the property including the demolition of tree’s and garden areas.  A substantial boundary wall has been constructed at the front of the site and is not aware of any planning permission approved for the construction.  The existing building on the site is described as a derelict building; there could be a view that that dereliction has been manufactured to justify the submission of the present application.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01464/VOC Variation of conditions 2, 4, 6, 8 and removal of condition 9 on appeal decision APP/A3010/W/16/315336 following refusal of 16/00286/FUL. The Bungalow, Brough Lane, Elkesley, Retford.

Members were advised that the application sought to vary conditions 2, 4, 6, 8 and remove condition 9 on appeal decision APP/A3010/W/315336 following refusal of 16/00286/FUL. Site plans were tabled.

The proposed variations of conditions 2, 4, 6 and 8 would facilitate changes to the access arrangements by reducing the extent of the road improvements on Brough Lane, Reducing the drive width from 6.46m to 5m and omitting the retaining wall on site frontage.

Nottinghamshire County Council Highways have no objections.

Members were advised that Elkesley Parish Council have raised objection to the application on the following grounds:

 The carriage way width is 2.8m and the junction onto Lawnwood Lane is a blind bend;  Increase likelihood of accidents;  Brough Lane is not just a lightly trafficked recreational footpath;  Vehicles often travel in excess of 30mph;  Development is overly intensive;

39  Widening of Brough Lane is essential for highway safety;  Brough Lane already provides access to the sewage works;  Large vehicles already use the lane;  Existing residents already have to reverse out onto the lane;  The lane should be resurfaced;  No logical reason for changing the conditions.

Three letters of objection had also been received from local resident’s raising concern regarding the following issues:

 Increase in use of the lane would be detrimental to highway safety;  Traffic does not adhere to the speed limit;  Four additional properties would require a turning point for emergency vehicles;  The wheelie bin collection point would site adjacent to the bedroom window of the existing bungalow;  Adverse impact on wildlife;  Traffic often exceeds 30mph;  The reduce passing bay width is inadequate;  The surrounding road network is unsuitable to accommodate the increase in traffic.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01264/RSB Erect single storey detached office building (Resubmission of planning application 17/00932/FUL) Unit 4 Turner Drive, Worksop.

Members were advised that the application is a resubmission of planning application 17/00932/FUL. The application sought to erect a single storey detached office building. A location map and photographs were tabled.

Members were advised that Nottinghamshire County Council Highways have no objections with the amended plans.

One letter of objection had been received from a local resident raising concern regarding noise levels, loss of privacy, over development, highway safety and the access. It had been noted that these issues had been addressed in the change of use application.

Members were advised that one letter of support had been received from a local resident stating that the proposal would benefit the parking and turning point in the area.

Two storey forms of temporary site of office cabins will be in place while the offices are being built. A condition will be imposed to remove the temporary cabins 12 months from the date the application is granted whatever stage the development is at.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

87. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT

As there was no other business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting.

(The meeting closed at 4:35pm.)

40 Agenda Item No.4(v)

PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP

Minutes of the meeting held on Monday, 11th December 2017 at Worksop Town Hall

Present: Councillors K H Isard, D G Pidwell and A Smith.

Officers in attendance: M Joyce and B Pinkney.

(Meeting opened at 4.00pm.)

88. APOLOGIES

There were no apologies for absence.

89. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Application No Proposal

17/01200/FUL Demolition of existing stores and erections of new stores/garages, 10 Bar Road North, Beckingham.

Members were advised that the application sought to demolish a garage/store and metal shed used in connection with an existing business at the site and erect a new range of stores/garaging. Site plans and photographs were tabled.

Members were advised that in 1984 planning permission had been granted to retain the use of the building as an engineering business. It was noted that the business had recently been taken over.

The site lies within the Beckingham Development Boundary.

It was noted that number 10 Bar Road and 12 Bar Road (Holme House) are grade 2 listed buildings.

Members were advised that the Conservation Officer had no concerns with the application as the existing building range contributes little to the setting. However, it was suggested that a condition be imposed for the use of timber windows with a painted finish only as the use of PVC windows would fail to preserve the setting of the listed building.

A letter of support had been received from an adjoining resident as it is considered that the proposal would be an improvement to the grade 2 listed setting.

Members were advised that a letter of objection had also been received from a local resident raising concern on the following grounds:

 A commercial development in a residential area.  Charity Farm is a listed property.  Holme House adjoining is also a listed ‘gentlemen’s residence’.  Multiple cars attending the site are parked on the pavements on both sides of Bar Road North preventing safe passage for pedestrians and vehicular access to nearby properties most days up to 5pm.  Delivery and collection vehicles have difficulty manoeuvring within the highway.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

41 Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

(Councillor K H Isard joined the meeting)

Application No Proposal

17/01353/HSE Retain first floor rear extension, 136 Potter Street, Worksop.

Members were advised that the application sought to retain a first floor, flat roof rear extension. Site plans, elevations and photographs were tabled.

It was noted that the site is within the conservation area.

Members were advised that the Conservation Officer raised no objections.

Two objections from local residents had been received on the grounds of encroachment onto adjacent property, obstruction of right of way, quality of the building works and unsightly appearance.

Members raised questions regarding the building regulations. The Principle Planner informed members that a notice had been submitted in July 2017 for building regulations however, the application is currently invalid.

Members discussed issues with the application and agreed to defer the application to a future planning committee.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Defer to future Planning Committee.

Application No Proposal

16/00877/FUL Residential development for 33 dwellings, garages, landscaping, construction of new access and associated works, land to the rear of 1 to 29 Vicarage Lane, Beckingham.

Members were advised that the application sought to agree reasons for refusal.

Members were advised that the application had been overturned at Planning Committee on 6th December 2017 and proposed reasons for refusal were tabled.

Initial officer recommendation – Agree reasons for refusal – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Agree reasons for refusal, as follows:

Reason 1: Policy CS1 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that distribution of new development in Bassetlaw will be in accordance with the aims of the settlement hierarchy, in order to ensure that the scale of new development is appropriate to the size and function of the settlements in which it is to be located. Policy DM4 states that all major development will need to demonstrate that it is of a scale appropriate to the existing settlement. Similar advice is contained in paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas.

The proposed development together with the existing residential permissions would result in a disproportionate expansion of Beckingham, a village which has a limited range of facilities and

42 services. If permitted the development would be contrary to policies CS1 and DM4 of the LDF and advice contained in the NPPF.

Reason 2: The Bassetlaw Local Development Framework contains policy DM4, which states that all new development should respect its wider surroundings in relation to historic development patterns and landscape character and be of a scale appropriate to the existing settlement.

In addition policy DM9 states that that new development proposals in and adjoining the countryside will be expected to be designed so as to be sensitive to their landscape setting and expected to enhance the distinctive qualities of the landscape character policy zone in which they would be situated.

The site in question is identified in the Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment as Mid- Nottinghamshire Farmlands Policy Zone 03: Beckingham. As part of its aims to conserve the open rural character of the landscape, it recommends that new development should be of an appropriate design and scale and concentrated around the existing settlement of Beckingham.

It is considered that the development in question relates poorly to the existing settlement of Beckingham and would appear as an unduly large mass and isolated estate sited on the edge of the village. If permitted, the development would detract from the character and appearance of the village and its setting and would conflict with the aims of the policies outlined above.

Reason 3: The Bassetlaw Local Development Framework contains policy DM4, which states that new development should respect its context in terms of historic development patterns, building plot sizes and density. The proposed development, by reason of its form and density, would appear at odds with the character and appearance of this part of the village. The development if permitted would be contrary to the aims of the policy outlined above.

Reason 4: Policy CS8 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that all housing development resulting in a net gain of one or more units, will be required to contribute towards the achievement of an affordable housing target of at least 35% for Beckingham. The application makes no such provision and would therefore be contrary to this policy and would conflict with the objectives of the Local Development Framework.

Application No Proposal

17/00962/OUT Proposed outline application (All Matters Reserved) for residential development and community allotments, between Walkeringham Road and Vicarage Lane Beckingham.

Members were advised that the application sought to agree reasons for refusal.

Members were advised that the outline application had been overturned at planning committee on 6th December 2017 and proposed reasons for refusal were tabled.

Initial officer recommendation – Agree reasons for refusal - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Agree reasons for refusal, as follows:

Reason 1: Policy CS1 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that distribution of new development in Bassetlaw, will be in accordance with the aims of the settlement hierarchy, in order to ensure that the scale of new development is appropriate to the size and function of the settlements in which it is to be located. Policy DM4 states that all major development will need to demonstrate that it is of a scale appropriate to the existing settlement. Similar advice is contained

43 in paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas.

The proposed development together with the existing residential permissions would result in a disproportionate expansion of Beckingham, a village which has a limited range of facilities and services. If permitted the development would be contrary to policies CS1 and DM4 of the LDF and advice contained in the NPPF.

Application No Proposal

17/01391/VOC Variation of condition 2 of planning application 16/00977/FUL for substitution of approved drawings, proposed office building to form phase II of the Retford Enterprise Centre, Retford Enterprise Centre, Randall Way, Retford.

Members were advised that the application sought to vary condition 2 of planning application 16/00977/FUL for the substitution of approved drawings, proposed office building to form phase II of the Retford Enterprise Centre. Elevations and photographs were tabled.

Members were advised that the application had been presented to PCG as it is a Bassetlaw District Council application.

It was noted that the variation to condition 2 of planning application 16/00977/FUL will result in cosmetic changes to the overall design.

Members were advised that Nottinghamshire County Council Highways and Environmental Health have no objections.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

44 Application No Proposal

17/00813/FUL Construct a new access for ambulance and servicing parkin, Ashley Care Centre, Sunnyside, Worksop.

Members were advised that the application sought to construct a new vehicle access point and vehicle egress point for emergency vehicles onto Sunnyside through an existing dwarf wall and railings. Site plans and photographs were tabled.

Members were advised that the Tree Officer had indicated that there are no trees within the area of development which should be impacted. There is an early mature sycamore growing at the front of the site but this is outside the development area by a significant distance therefore should not be impacted.

The Council’s Conservation Officer had no concerns on the basis that the amended plans show no new structures would be erected.

Members were advised that Nottinghamshire County Council Highways raised no objections subject to conditions on the grounds of visibility splays, controlled access scheme, the servicing area must be surfaced in a hard-bound material and must be fronted with a dropped kerb vehicular crossing.

Members were advised that 40 letters of objection had been received from local residents raising concern regarding the following issues:

 The proposal would result in a danger to highway safety as vehicles are always parked on the northern edge of the carriageway restricting access for emergency vehicles.  Service vehicles to the care home park on-street, exacerbating the above concern. The access to lower car park should be wider.  The existing access points are adequate for vehicles to access, manoeuvre within the site and exit the site in a safe manner.  Protected tree on the site within close proximity to the proposed new access.  The proposal would result in the emergency vehicles manoeuvring on Sunnyside, to the detriment of highway safety.  Parking restrictions should be in place on Sunnyside to enable residents to access their properties with a vehicle.

Members raised questions regarding the manoeuvring of emergency vehicles. The Principle Planner informed members that Highways will control this; vehicles will enter from the eastern side and exit through the western side.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

90. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT

As there was no other business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting.

(The meeting closed at 4:36pm.)

45 46 Agenda Item No.4(vi)

PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP

Minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, 19th December 2017 at Worksop Town Hall

Present: Councillors K H Isard, D G Pidwell and A Smith.

Officers in attendance: Y Browne, A Broadhead, J Hamilton, M Joyce and B Pinkney (Case officers attended the meeting to present their planning applications).

(Meeting opened at 4.00pm.)

91. APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Councillor H Burton.

92. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Application No Proposal

17/01333/COU Conversion of existing outbuildings into a single two bedroom residential dwelling at Jockey House Cottage, Brickyard Road, Gamston.

Members were advised that the application sought to convert existing outbuildings into a two bedroom residential dwelling. A location map, site plan, elevations and photographs were tabled.

It was noted that the cottage is part of an isolated complex of former farm buildings based originally on Jockey House. The original house had been converted into two dwellings, Jockey House and Jockey House Cottage.

The proposed conversion will provide a dwelling with a low maintenance garden area and parking for at least two cars. Additional parking area for the original dwelling Jockey House Cottage is also proposed.

Members were advised that the farm buildings are all non-designated heritage assets in line with the council’s adopted non-designated heritage asset criteria.

It was noted that the proposal includes a section of the neighbouring property’s roof to be pantiles continued over with the same material for visual amenity.

Members were advised that the Council’s Conservation Officer is supportive of the conversion of the outbuilding, as this would ensure the heritage asset’s long term survival and maintenance.

Two letters of objection had been received from local residents raising concern regarding the following:

 Loss of privacy and overlooking to the applicants conversion.  Loss of privacy and restriction to use objectors own garden.  Drainage of surface water.  Roofing materials and construction.  Party wall.  Increase of noise.  Rising damp.

Members were advised that the proposed conditions address the concerns.

47 Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01468/FUL Demolition of a building and retention of hardstanding for a parking area, 27 Union Street, Retford.

Members were advised that the application sought to demolish the existing building and retain a hardstanding for a car parking area. A design access statement was tabled.

Members were advised that the Council’s Conservation Officer had commented that existing buildings are mid-20th century and are of no historic or architectural interest. The proposal would have no impact on the character of the conservation area or setting of the nearby listed buildings. On this basis, Conservation has no concerns.

Historic England had commented based on the information provided, Historic England is of the view that they do not need to be consulted under the relevant statutory provisions.

Members were advised that a letter of support had been received from a local resident that although increased activity and noise levels are anticipated, they do not object to the proposal.

A letter of objection had also been received from a local resident raising concern on the following grounds:

 Car park would not be an asset to the area.  The street is already congested.  Surface is already eroded.  Existing building is an eyesore and would welcome a new dwelling on the site.  Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01460/FUL Construct car park for contractor’s vehicles for a temporary period of 18 months, land adjacent to Lowtown View off Lowtown Street, Worksop. Members were advised that the application sought to construct a new car park for contractor’s vehicles for a temporary period of 18 months. A location map and photographs were tabled.

It was noted that this is a planning application on behalf of Bassetlaw District Council.

Members were advised that the proposal to construct a car park is required to accommodate contractor’s vehicles whilst works are underway on the new extra care facility. The grass would be removed and the ground would be excavated and compacted hard core would be laid as temporary finish surface. Once the temporary period of 18 months comes to an end the hard core would be removed, and new top soil and grass seeds/new turf would be laid.

Environmental Health had recommended that a condition be imposed for construction hours in order to safeguard the amenity of local residents. Members were advised that this would be attached on the application as an informative note rather than a condition.

48 Members were advised that Highways have no objections to the proposal. However, they have requested that the car park is served from a dropped kerb access and is surfaced in a hard bound material.

One letter of objection had been received from the occupant of the dwelling to the south of the applicant’s site stating that the land is owned by 1 Lowtown View. The Estates department were consulted and sent an email to confirm that the deeds show that the land is registered to Bassetlaw District Council.

Members were advised that the application site is within the development boundary and is currently a grass area not in use.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission subject to conditions – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/00853/FUL Proposed detached dwelling, land west of 2 Long Lane, Carlton in Lindrick.

Members were advised that the application sought to erect a detached dwelling. Site plans, elevations and photographs were tabled.

It was noted that there is a non-designated heritage asset to the side of the site.

Members were advised that the application had previously been refused planning permission, the outline application was then granted on appeal. An application for the erection of a large dwelling had been granted in 2015.

The Planning Officer informed members that close work with the applicant and agent had taken place in order to get a proposal that is more in character with the area.

Highways have raised no objection subject to conditions.

Environmental Health had recommended that a condition be imposed for construction hours. Members were advised that this would be attached on the application as an informative note rather than a condition.

Members were advised that Conservation raised objection to the original scheme, however, they have not made any comments on the amended scheme.

The Parish Council have no objections.

Members were advised that one letter of objection had been received from a local resident on the following grounds:

 Loss of privacy.  Proposed dwelling projects further forward that objectors dwelling.  Proposed dwelling is double the length of neighbouring property.  Neighbours fence is not the boundary.  Built in brick.  Maintenance of the garage.  Footprint increased on amended application.

Members were advised that a condition regarding the removal of PD rights will be imposed to the application to prevent further development.

49 Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission subject to conditions – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/00589/LBA Proposed demolition of two agricultural buildings, renovation and change of use to two existing agricultural buildings into two dwellings plus eight proposed dwellings, Moorgate House, Tiln Lane, Retford.

Members were advised that the application sought to demolish two agricultural buildings, renovation and change of use of two existing agricultural buildings into two dwellings plus eight proposed dwellings. A location map, site plan and elevations were tabled.

Conservation would support the application, subject to the position of the right-hand window on the threshing barn being amended to reflect the position of the existing opening. Once this has been done, conservation would have no concerns.

Members were advised that the agent had asked for PCG to be made aware that the application site is highly deliverable; will contribute to the Council’s housing supply and subject to the Council’s cooperation, the site could be completed within 3-5 years.

The Retford Civic Society has no concerns with the conversion of the existing buildings but objects to the proposed erection of new dwellings.

Members were advised that the Rights of Way Officer had commented that the proposed change of use and renovations to the listed buildings on this development site will not affect East Retford Footpath.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/00588/FUL Proposed demolition of two agricultural buildings, renovation and change of use to two existing agricultural buildings into two dwellings plus eight proposed dwellings, Moorgate House, Tiln Lane, Retford.

Members were advised that conservation have no concerns with the conversion of the potato store, threshing barn, stables and amendments to the outbuildings but object to the eight new dwellings.

The Retford Civic Society has no concerns with the conversion of the existing buildings but objects to the proposed erection of new dwellings.

50 Members were advised that Natural England have no objections.

The Highways Authority considers that the application should be refused as the proposed access arrangements and lack on footway on Tiln Lane are likely to result in pedestrian and vehicular conflict to the detriment of highway safety.

Members were advised that the application is recommended for refusal on the following grounds;

 Contrary to policies CS1 and CS9 of the LDF and to the advice contained in paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  Notwithstanding the opinion of Brown and Co, the information submitted would fail to satisfy part B of DM2 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework.  Proposed access arrangements and lack on footway on Tiln Lane are likely to result in pedestrian and vehicular conflict to the detriment of highway safety.

Initial officer recommendation – Refuse planning permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01225/OUT Outline application with some matters reserved for the residential development of five dwellings, land adjacent to Gilberts Croft, Breck Lane, Mattersey Thorpe, Doncaster.

Members were advised that the application sought outline planning permission for the erection of five detached dwellings. A location map was tabled.

Members were advised that Doncaster Sheffield Airport has raised no objections subject to a condition requiring a crane or high reach equipment over 10 metres in height being approved by the airport before use.

Environmental Health has raised no objections subject to an hours of construction works condition and contamination site investigation condition being attached to the permission.

The Conservation Officer has no concerns subject to conditions requiring the appearance, scale, layout and landscaping being submitted and agreed.

Members were advised that the Parish Council supports the application.

It was noted that the Mattersey and Mattersey Thorpe Neighbourhood Plan is still in the early stages, therefore, the proposal will not have much impact.

Members were advised that two letters of objection had been received from local residents raising concerns regarding the following issues:

 Overlooking and loss of privacy to occupiers of adjoin property.  The site is not a preferred option for inclusion in the Neighbourhood plan. At a meeting of Neighbourhood plan steering committee, the site received a negative response when identified for possible inclusion in the Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Process.  Undeveloped land has become a residential/neighbourhood amenity for the whole community and should remain so.  More dwellings would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

51  Additional vehicles on the poor surrounding highway network will result in danger to highway safety in an area with reduced public transport.  Additional flooding in the area.

(B Pinkney left the meeting, J Hamilton joined the meeting.)

An application for nine dwellings on the site had been refused in 2013; an appeal had been dismissed in 2014.

Initial officer recommendation – Refuse planning permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01284/COU Change of use from stables to holiday cottage – Red Roofs, Church Street, East Markham

Members were advised that the application sought permission for a change of use from stables to a single holiday cottage with a small extension on the west side, incorporating the existing stone boundary wall. A location map and drawings were tabled.

The Conservation Officer has commented that the building is a 1920’s single storey building with a pantiled roof. The site is within the Conservation Area and the building contributes positively to it. There are several listed buildings in the vicinity, including St John’s Church, the Manor, the Old Rectory and Norwood Cottage, and there is an adjacent footpath. The Conservation Officer has expressed concern over the proposed number of roof lights and has asked that these be reduced from five to two.

The Environmental Health Officer has not raised any objections.

East Markham Parish Council has raised objections on the grounds that the proposal would detract from the area; also the entrance to the parking area and the walls would not provide a suitable visibility splay. The Parish Council believes that this is an attempt to convert these stables into a dwelling for permanent occupation, and has asked that strict conditions restricting the sale of the building as a stand-alone building and conditions restricting the number of weeks that it can be occupied as a holiday let be imposed.

The principle of conversion has been established by the previous permission. The extensions would fall within remaining permitted development rights. Standard conditions regarding commencement of works would apply.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant change of use permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/00830/COU Conversion to hotel, restaurant and bar – former Police Station, Exchange Street, Retford

Members were advised that the application sought a change of use for the former Police Station to a twelve-bedroomed hotel, restaurant and bar. A location map and amended drawings were tabled.

The Conservation Officer has not raised any objections and feels that the proposal would help to preserve the character of the Conservation Area and the setting of nearby listed buildings.

The Environmental Health Officer has not raised any objections, subject to the standard condition regarding working hours.

The Highways Authority considers the layout of five parking spaces on the amended proposal is acceptable.

The nearby theatre does not oppose the proposed change of use but has concerns in relation to any change of parking arrangement on the public highway.

Officers consider that the proposal is in keeping with the commercial activities within Retford’s town centre boundary. The only proposed external works to the building are to replace the front door and replace the single roller shutter facing Chancery Lane with a new window. The stone signage above the front entrance is to be retained. It is not considered that the proposed development will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents.

CIL charge is not liable for this application as no new floor space will be created.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01109/OUT Outline application for up to five dwellings – land west of The Barn, Ollerton Road, Tuxford

Members were advised that the application sought outline permission with all matters reserved for proposed residential development for up to five dwellings on land to the west of The Barn, Ollerton Road, Tuxford. A location map and drawings were tabled.

The Highways Authority has significant concerns about whether the necessary visibility splays can be achieved in Access Option 1 but does not raise any objections in principle for Access Option 2.

Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board has not raised any objections.

Tuxford Town Council supports the proposal subject to the public right of way access is maintained.

The Conservation Officer considers there is insufficient information to fully assess the impact on the significance of the site and the wider Tuxford Conservation Area. It is considered that the modern features of the proposed dwellings do not reflect the traditional buildings in the vicinity; also the large dwelling to the east would appear overly large in this locality. An alternative scheme of a farmhouse and barn range arrangement would be better suited to the area.

The site lies outside the Tuxford development boundary and is not included in the Tuxford Neighbourhood Plan.

Officers consider that the proposal will not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Tuxford Conservation Area, due to its inappropriate form and scale.

Initial officer recommendation – Refuse outline planning permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

93. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT

As there was no other business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting.

(The meeting closed at 5.25pm.)

54 Agenda Item No.4(vii)

PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP

Minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, 2nd January 2018 at Worksop Town Hall

Present: Councillors G Clarkson, K H Isard, D G Pidwell and A Smith.

Officers in attendance: M Freeman and B Pinkney.

(Meeting opened at 4.00pm.)

94. APOLOGIES

There were no apologies for absence received.

95. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Application No Proposal

17/01306/OUT Outline application with some matters reserved including means of access to erect two dwellings at Marsh Dene, Stockwith Road, Misterton.

Members were advised that the application sought outline permission with some matters reserved including means of access to erect two dwellings. A location map and photographs were tabled.

Members were advised that the Environment Agency had raised no objection subject to a condition being imposed regarding details of finished floor levels, and identification and provision of safe routes from the site.

Nottinghamshire County Council Highways had raised no objection subject to conditions being imposed regarding visibility splays, details of drainage, surfacing and dropped kerb provisions.

Trent Valley Drainage has raised no objection.

Members were advised that two letters of objection had been received from a local resident raising concern regarding the following issues:

 Flooding and drainage.  Significant evidence of ineffective water drainage within the area.  The flooding plan on the application is out of date.  The building is poorly considered and thought out; the dwelling could impact on both new and historic homes.  If the proposed development next door is approved this would further impact the potential for this property and the remaining properties on the road to have an increased risk of flooding.  If planning is approved trees T9 and T10 should be maintained and T8 removed and replaced to protect the wildlife within the area.

It was noted that due to the site location being within a flood zone the dwellings have been designed so that only non-habitable rooms are on the ground floor, with habitable rooms above.

The application site is on a straight stretch on Stockwith Road that is still subject to a 30mph speed limit. Highways Authority had initial concerns that the visibility splays may not be achievable due to land ownership to the west of the site. Based on Highways comments an amended plan had been received which shows the provision of 2.4m x 43m visibility plays.

55 Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01512/HSE Demolition of garage and construction of ground floor side extension at 8 South Moor Road, Walkeringham.

Members were advised that the application sought to demolish existing garage and construct a ground floor side extension. A location map and photographs were tabled.

It was noted that the application had been presented to PCG as it is a Bassetlaw District Council/A1 Housing application.

Members were advised that the proposed flat roofed side extension is to provide ground floor sleeping and washing facilities for disabled use. A ramp to the front door will also be fitted.

Members were advised that the Parish Council have no objections.

Issues regarding parking had been raised; amended plans demonstrate how two cars can park on the front of the property.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01510/HSE Erect a two storey and single storey side extension and attached garage at Yew Tree Cottage, 36 Town Street, Lound.

Members were advised that the application sought to erect a two storey and single storey side extension and attached garage. A location map, elevations and photographs were tabled.

It was noted that the application is a resubmission of an identical application. The application had been granted planning permission in January 2015; therefore the application is almost out of date.

Members were advised that the Conservation officer raised no objection subject to a condition requiring timber windows and doors.

One letter of objection had been received from a neighbouring property raising concern regarding the following issues:

 The new wall which adjoins the boundary will be built on the neighbours land.  The attached site plan from 1982 shows the extension will encroach.  If planning permission was granted it will allow a developer to knock down the neighbours wall.  By extending the cottage to have three bedrooms and a garage it will leave the property with no outdoor space.

Members were advised that Lound Parish Council have raised no objections.

Members were advised that there are no highway issues to consider, parking is available to the front and the proposal includes a garage which a small car would fit.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission subject to conditions – refer to PCG.

56 Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01503/PDN Notification of prior approval for the change of use of an agricultural building to one dwelling, Habblesthorpe Grange, Magpie Lane, North Leverton.

Members were advised that the application sought notification of prior approval for the change of use of an agricultural building to one dwelling. A location map, elevations and photographs were tabled.

The Parish Council support the application.

Members were advised that the Environment Agency raised objection to the application until a satisfactory Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted.

Nottinghamshire County Council Highway raised no objection to the principle of converting the building into residential use; the applicant must ensure that adequate parking and manoeuvring space is retained for use of agricultural vehicles/HGV’S associated with adjacent farm buildings.

Environmental Health has recommended a condition for hours of construction and an informative on the potential discovery of contaminated land be imposed on the application.

The site will be accessed from crew yard, leading to an area for car parking and a large garden area to the side and rear of the building.

Members were advised that the application is recommended refusal due to noise impacts, flooding, desirability and external appearance.

Initial officer recommendation – Refuse Planning Permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

96. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT

As there was no other business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting.

(The meeting closed at 4.34pm.)

57 58 Agenda Item No.4(viii)

PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP

Minutes of the meeting held on Monday 8th January 2018 at Worksop Town Hall

Present: Councillors K H Isard, D G Pidwell and A Smith.

Officers in attendance: M Joyce and B Pinkney.

(Meeting opened at 4.05pm.)

97. APOLOGIES

There were no apologies for absence received.

98. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Application No Proposal

17/01721/CDM Mineral review planning application to retain existing oil production site planning permission 1/54/87/8D and site offices/mess cabin planning permission 1/54/12/00002. Wellsite, 4 Farleys Wood, West Markham.

Members were advised that the application will be determined by Nottinghamshire County Council.

Members were advised that as part of the review process, an application for a new set of conditions is required be made by the 8th January 2018.

It was noted that the production of oil from the oil well, with no change to the layout or current operations, is considered to be acceptable in principle.

Initial officer recommendation – Raise no objection - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01059/OUT Outline Application with all Matters Reserved for 3no. 2 Bed Terraced Houses, 2no. 2 Bed Semi-Detached Houses with Integral Garage and 2no. 3 Bed Detached Houses

Members were advised that the application sought outline planning permission with all matters reserved for the erection of three, two bed terraced houses, two, two bed semi-detached houses with integral garages and two, three bed detached houses. A location map, site plans and photographs were tabled.

Planning permission had been withdrawn for five 2 bed dwellings and two 3 bed dwellings in April 2016.

Nottinghamshire County Council Highways have no objections subject to a condition requiring the provision of visibility plays at the junction.

Members were advised that a response from the Lead Local Flood Authority is not needed due to the scale of the development.

59 The Environmental Health Officer has requested that a condition should be imposed on the permission restricting hours of construction works and noise generation.

Members were advised that one letter of objection had been received from a local resident on the following grounds:

 Result in increase in traffic.  The area already suffers from congestion associated with the industrial site.  Neighbouring properties may get damaged.  Increase noise and disturbance.  Would be detrimental to local wildlife.

Network Rail have no objections to the application subject to the provision of double yellow lines on the site frontage and the implementation of measures to safeguard the adjacent railway line during congestion.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01481/HSE Erection of a two storey side extension, 16 Lexington Gardens, Tuxford.

Members were advised that the application sought to erect a two storey side extension. A location map and site plans were tabled.

Members were advised that the Town Council support the application.

It was noted that the development site is within the development boundary.

The proposed side extension with be situated on a corner, this will impact on the visual amenity and the character of the local area.

The Development Team Manager advised members of the draft reasons for refusal.

Initial officer recommendation – Refuse planning permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

14/00503/OUT Outline application for the erection of up to 175 dwellings including public open space, attenuation drainage basin and associated works. Land West of Tiln Lane, Retford.

Members were advised that the application sought to vary conditions 8 and 9 of previously approved planning application 14/00503/OUT.

Members were advised that Highways have made recommendations to amend condition 8 so that there is a 3 metre wide footway link to Bolham Lane.

Members were advised that it had been recommended that condition 9 remains the same and to amend condition 8 of planning application 14/00503/OUT.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission – refer to PCG.

60 Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

99. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT

As there was no other business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting.

(The meeting closed at 4.24pm.)

61 62 Agenda Item No.4(ix)

PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP

Minutes of the meeting held on Monday 15th January 2018 at Worksop Town Hall

Present: Councillors G Freeman, K H Isard and D G Pidwell.

Officers in attendance: M Joyce and B Pinkney.

(Meeting opened at 4.00pm.)

100. APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Councillor A Smith.

101. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Application No Proposal

17/01445/HSE Change of use of sports pavilion to domestic use with two storey side extension and garage extension to domestic dwelling at sports pavilion and Grange View House, 15A Grange View, Harworth.

Members were advised that the application seeks permission to change the use of the sports pavilion to domestic use with a two storey side extension and garage extension to the existing dwelling. A site plan, elevations and photographs were tabled.

Harworth and Bircotes Town Council and Highways have raised no objections.

Members were advised that Sports England firstly raised a holding objection and commented that the application involves a loss of the sports pavilion at the playing fields site and raised two issues; does the loss of the sports pavilion raise issues for continued use of the site as a playing field given the loss of changing facilities. The loss of facility may impact on useable playing field area either directly or indirectly. Updated reports had been received from Sports England after they had consulted Sheffield Hallamshire Football Association. Having reassessed the application, Sports England is now satisfied and has removed their holding objection.

A Comment had been received from a neighbouring property regarding the rear boundary of the development. A suggestion had been made for a condition to be attached to agree boundary treatment on the remainder of the northern boundary and western boundary to protect the privacy of the occupiers.

Members were advised that the officer recommendation for this application is to grant subject to conditions. Draft conditions were presented to members.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission subject to conditions - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01352/FUL Retain 2 Vehicle crossings/culverts over Field Edge Dyke off White water Lane, Blyth,

Members were advised that the application sought to retain the formation of 2 vehicle crossings/culverts. Site plans were tabled.

63 Members were advised that the Parish Council had raised no objections providing that the water course is not blocked up at any time.

Nottinghamshire County Council Highways Authority has commented that the developments do not affect safety on the all-purposes public highway.

The Flood Risk Management Officer commented on the application stating that any development that proposes to alter an ordinary watercourse in a manner that will have a detrimental effect on the flow of water should be discussed with the Flood Risk Management Team at Nottinghamshire County Council. Further comments outlined that this application falls under the responsibility of Axeholme and North Nottinghamshire Internal Drainage Board, after consultation no objections were raised.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

102. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT

As there was no other business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting.

(The meeting closed at 4.10pm.)

64 Agenda Item No. 5

PLANNING COMMITTEE

7th February 2018

OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST

Members please note that the updated positions are shown in bold type following each item. (DTM = Development Team Manager)

Min. No. Date Subject Decision Officer Responsible

None.

66 Agenda Item No.6(b)(i)

PLANNING COMMITTEE

7th February 2018

INFORMATION REPORT

APPEAL DECISION RECEIVED

17/00824/HSE Mr L Henry Appeal against the refusal of planning permission for 2 storey rear extension to provide study, replacement UPVC windows from white to grey anthracite with brick cantor equal cills, Corner Barn, Welham Road, Welham, DN22 0SB. DECISION: Appeal DISMISSED by the Inspector. The Inspector considered the main issue The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of ‘Corner Barn’, a non-designated heritage.

The Inspector considered that:

The proposed design of the 2-storey addition does not reflect the simple architectural form and linear nature of the existing structure. The open sided nature of the ground floor element would represent an incongruous addition to the host property ‘Corner Barn’.

The design fails to reflect the traditional character of the host property and consequently detracts from the existing architectural character and appearance of ‘Corner Barn.’ In addition, notwithstanding its modest size, the proposed addition does not appear as subservient to the host property by virtue of the proposed ridge height matching that of the existing building

The appeal proposal would be visible from the public realm when passing along the A620. Although these views are limited to an extent by the orientation of ‘Corner Barn’ to the public highway and by the existing cart shed, the proposal will still be visible and would represent an incongruous addition which I conclude would harm the character and appearance of the host property.

The Council in its reasons for refusal has cited Policies DM4 and DM8 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD (the DPD). Policy DM4 on design and character is consistent with the Framework. Policy DM8 relating to the historic environment is not however entirely consistent with the Framework as it does not distinguish between designated and non-designated heritage assets in terms of the criteria to be assessed. It also does not refer to the principle of both harm and benefits of a proposal being taken into account in the decision making process. Consequently, this limits the weight that can be attached to Policy DM8.

The appeal proposal conflicts with Policy DM4 of the DPD, which seeks, amongst other things, that new development should respect its architectural context. It would also conflict with paragraph 135 of the Framework through harming the significance in terms of the aesthetic appeal arising from the architectural interest of ‘Corner Barn’ as a non- designated heritage asset. The appeal proposal would fail to comply with Policy DM8 of

67 the DPD in respect of harm to the significance of ‘Corner Barn’ as a non-designated heritage asset. Even if ‘Corner Barn’ was not defined as a non-designated heritage asset I still find that the proposal would be unacceptable.

A copy of the Inspector’s decision letters follow this report.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse Planning Permission.

FINALISED DECISION LEVEL: Delegated

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 December 2017 by Rachael A Bust BSc (Hons) MA MSc LLM MIEnvSci MInstLM MCMI MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 12 January 2018

Appeal Ref: APP/A3010/D/17/3183214 “Corner Barn” Welham Road, Welham DN22 0SB  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Lawrie Henery against the decision of Bassetlaw District Council.  The application Ref 17/00824/HSE, dated 8 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 3 August 2017.  The development proposed was originally described as “2 storey rear extension to provide study, replacement UPVC windows from white to grey anthracite with brick cantor equal cills.”

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary and Procedural Matters

2. The description of development has changed through the determination of the application and in the submission of this appeal. I note that the main parties do not agree as to how the proposed development should be described. I am clear from the plans submitted what the appeal proposal entails, consequently in accordance with established practice in the heading above I use the description of development as set out on the original planning application form.

3. The Council in its decision notice within the reason for refusal number 3 incorrectly refers to a property known as ‘Riverbank Cottage.’ As this reason for refusal does not relate to the appeal site, I have not had regard to it in the determination of this appeal.

Main Issue

4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of ‘Corner Barn’, a non-designated heritage asset.

Reasons

5. ‘Corner Barn’ is a brick and pantile former barn which was converted to a dwelling in 1978. The Council identifies that the barn was partially rebuilt when converted. Originally the barn formed part of a larger complex of agricultural buildings associated with ‘Welham Grange.’

6. The Council has identified ‘Corner Barn’ as a non-designated heritage asset by virtue of its historic and architectural interest with its significance arising from aesthetic appeal and rarity. The National Planning Policy Framework at https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 69 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/D/17/3183214

paragraph 135 advises that ‘in weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset’.

7. The Council established criteria to be used to identify non-designated heritage assets1. The criteria have been subject to public consultation and as such they reflect the advice set out in Planning Practice Guidance. Accordingly the criteria can be given significant weight in decision making. However, there is no evidence before me that the list of buildings/structures and features identified as non-designated heritage assets itself has ever been subject to public consultation. Consequently this limits the weight that I can attribute to the list itself within my determination.

8. The description of ‘Corner Barn’ from the list of non-designated heritage assets identifies the barn to have both historic and architectural interest. The description does not however substantiate the reasons for this interest. The barn largely retains its original architectural character, although it was partially rebuilt when converted and some alterations took place. Accordingly, I agree that the barn has some remaining architectural interest. However, taking account of the criteria set out for ‘historic interest’ other than being of 17th century origin, I am not persuaded that a former agricultural barn meets the established criteria in section 5.12. I have not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate that the building has a connection with people or previous use in the manner described within this particular criterion.

9. In terms of significance as a non-designated heritage asset the Council refer to 2 of the 5 criteria for measuring significance, namely aesthetic appeal and rarity. Having regard to the Council’s criteria there is no evidence before me to suggest that ‘Corner Barn’ meets the criteria of rarity. Turning to aesthetic appeal, the building is in a good physical condition. The significant number of windows and other openings has in my view somewhat diminished, but not destroyed as the appellant contends, the aesthetic appeal that would arise from its original function as an agricultural building. I agree with the Council that there is some merit in ‘Corner Barn’ being included with the list of non- designated heritage assets and I have therefore treated as such.

10. The appeal proposal involves a 2-storey addition to the eastern elevation together with the replacement of the existing UPVC windows from white to grey anthracite. The 2-storey addition would create a study at first floor level suspended upon supporting piers. The ground floor would be an open sided entrance area. The aspect of dispute between the parties in this appeal relates to the 2-storey addition.

11. The proposed design of the 2-storey addition does not reflect the simple architectural form and linear nature of the existing structure. The open sided nature of the ground floor element would represent an incongruous addition to the host property. Whilst I recognise that the design takes its lead from the nearby open fronted cart shed, however this design feature does not reflect the character and appearance of ‘Corner Barn’ itself. The first floor element is visually and architecturally dominated by the proposed number and arrangement of window openings. This design fails to reflect the traditional

1 Bassetlaw District Council, Non-Designated Heritage Assets: Criteria, January 2011 (updated November 2016). 2 Bassetlaw District Council, Non-Designated Heritage Assets: Criteria, January 2011 (updated November 2016). https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 70 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/D/17/3183214

character of the host property and consequently detracts from the existing architectural character and appearance of ‘Corner Barn.’ In addition, notwithstanding its modest size, the proposed addition does not appear as subservient to the host property by virtue of the proposed ridge height matching that of the existing building.

12. The appeal proposal would be visible from the public realm when passing along the A620. Although these views are limited to an extent by the orientation of ‘Corner Barn’ to the public highway and by the existing cart shed, the proposal will still be visible and would represent an incongruous addition which I conclude would harm the character and appearance of the host property.

13. The appellant has drawn my attention to a planning application granted3 to reinstate the roof of the cart shed. I have been provided with a copy of the decision notice but no further details. At the time of my site visit I saw that these works had commenced. Whilst the reinstatement of the missing element of roof structure of the cart shed will provide additional screening to ‘Corner Barn’ itself, the proposed 2-storey addition would still be visible.

14. The Council in its reasons for refusal has cited Policies DM4 and DM8 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD (the DPD). As this pre-dates the publication of the Framework it is necessary to assess the conformity of the referenced DPD policies against the Framework as required by paragraph 215 of the Framework. I am satisfied that Policy DM4 on design and character is consistent with the Framework. Policy DM8 relating to the historic environment is not however entirely consistent with the Framework. It does not distinguish between designated and non-designated heritage assets in terms of the criteria to be assessed. It also does not refer to the principle of both harm and benefits of a proposal being taken into account in the decision making process. Consequently, this limits the weight that can be attached to Policy DM8.

15. The appeal proposal conflicts with Policy DM4 of the DPD, which seeks, amongst other things, that new development should respect its architectural context. It would also conflict with paragraph 135 of the Framework through harming the significance in terms of the aesthetic appeal arising from the architectural interest of ‘Corner Barn’ as a non-designated heritage asset. The appeal proposal would fail to comply with Policy DM8 of the DPD in respect of harm to the significance of ‘Corner Barn’ as a non-designated heritage asset. Even if ‘Corner Barn’ was not defined as a non-designated heritage asset I still find that the proposal would be unacceptable.

Other matters

16. I have had regard to the statutory duty set out in s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The appeal proposal lies within the setting of ‘Welham Grange’, ‘Welham Hall’ and the ‘Coach House’ at ‘Welham Hall’ which are all Grade II Listed Buildings. I note that the Council’s Conservation Officer takes the view that the appeal proposal would not preserve the overall setting of nearby Listed Buildings; most notably ‘Welham Grange’. Notwithstanding this advice, the Officer Delegated Report and the decision notice do not clearly identify the impact of the appeal proposal on the

3 17/00978/HSE granted 4 October 2017 for “Reinstate Pantile Roof to Existing Outbuilding Structure (Outbuilding Walls and Piers Already in Place).” https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 71 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/D/17/3183214

setting of these designated heritage assets. Given the arrangement of buildings and the distance between the proposed addition and the 3 Grade II Listed Buildings, I find that the appeal proposal would have a neutral effect on the setting of the Listed Buildings.

17. I note that the appellant has suggested that he would be willing to consider amendments to the design to seek to try and address the reasons for refusal. It is not the purpose of the appeal process to engage in the consideration of alternatives. I must consider the appeal proposal on the basis of the plans which formed the planning application to the Council.

18. I have had regard to the appellant’s desire to increase the utility of the building through the benefit of additional space. However, this does not outweigh the harm that I have identified.

Conclusion

19. Taking all matters into consideration, relevant local and national planning policies and the development plan as a whole, the appeal is dismissed. Rachael A Bust

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 72 Agenda Item No. 6(b) (ii)

PLANNING COMMITTEE

7th February 2018

INFORMATION REPORT

APPEAL DECISION RECEIVED

16/01678/FUL Mr and Mrs Appeal against refusal to grant planning permission Hird for the retention of rebuilt barn structure to form dwelling, land at The Barn, Pond Farm, Little Gringley, Retford, DN22 0DU

DECISION: Planning Appeal ALLOWED by the Inspector. Two Enforcement Notice Appeals ALLOWED by the Inspector; the enforcement notice is corrected, is quashed and planning permission is granted.

The Inspector considered the main issues in this case was whether the enforcement notices should be upheld; whether the dwelling was a sustainable location for housing having regard to accessibility of services and facilities; and whether the development was harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

The Inspector considered that:

Following approval of a Prior Approval application in 2015 for the conversion of an existing barn within the Pond Farm complex, the barn subsequently ‘collapsed’, and the appellants constructed a new dwelling on the footprint of the former barn. Engineering works were carried out to lower the ground level; the new dwelling was built onto this lower ground level, but on completion the height above AOD was the same as the previous structure. The appellants claimed that no bricks were imported off-site, they were utilised from the previous structure. A stone driveway was formed up to the dwelling, served off a new access.

There was no liaison with the Council as to whether planning permission was required and the dwelling was largely complete when the Council first became aware of the situation. The appellants went on to complete and occupy the dwelling in July 2016.

The Inspector was of the view that the development should be regarded as the erection of a new dwelling, rather than a change of use or conversion.

The Inspector considered the circumstances to be exceptional, and was satisfied that the appellants made a genuine attempt to implement their permitted development rights for the conversion before the unintended collapse of the building in December 2016.

In the Inspectors view, the appellants did not act at all prudently in continuing building operations without first contacting the Council. They appear to have believed that because part of the original structure remained they could continue. This has been their home for 18 months and, given the unfortunate circumstances described above, he was

73 satisfied that what now amounts to a replacement dwelling, should be allowed to remain on this site.

The dwelling has the benefit of making a small contribution to the significant housing shortfall in the District, consistent with the social role of sustainable development.

The dwelling has provided employment and adds to the spending power of the locality, consistent with the economic role of sustainable development.

The Inspector agreed with the Council that due to the dwelling being constructed on lower ground level that it appears more prominent when seen from close range, but he did not regard it as more prominent within its wider rural setting.

With regards to design, the present design has more fenestration than was originally envisaged. The Inspector considered that the design was not unacceptable as a dwelling but it had diminished the former agricultural character. To offset this, attempts were made to restore brickwork design features, as found on the original building, reclaimed bricks, natural clay tiles, wood effect PVC windows and doors.

The Inspector concluded that the development was not unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and despite conflict with the aims of the development plan, the unusual circumstances of this case lead him to the view that, on balance, the appeals should be allowed.

Conditions were added relating to the provision of bird and bat boxes; removal of Permitted Development Rights – Classes A – H inclusive, and fences/wall/gates; and a formal landscaping plan within three months from the date of the appeal.

Copies of the Inspector’s decision letter follows this report.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

FINALISED DECISION LEVEL: Delegated

Appeal Decisions Hearing Held on 10 January 2018 Site visit made on 10 January 2018 by B.S.Rogers BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 12 January 2018

Appeal A Ref: APP/A3010/C/17/3177396 Appeal B Ref: APP/A3010/C/17/3177397 Land at The Barn, Pond Farm, Little Gringley, Retford, DN22 0DU  The appeals are made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.  Appeal A is made by Mr Stuart Hird and Appeal B by Mrs Kathleen Hird against an enforcement notice issued by Bassetlaw District Council.  The enforcement notice was issued on 17 May 2017.  The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning permission, the demolition of an existing barn and the erection of a new replacement dwelling and access road.  The requirements of the notice are (in brief): (i). demolish the new detached dwelling; (ii). remove the materials, rubble and waste arising from the demolition; (iii). remove the newly created hard surfaced access road and return the land to a grassed paddock; and (iv). Remove all the rubble, waste and materials arising from the removal of the access road.  The period for compliance with the requirements is six (6) calendar months.  The appeals are proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(a), (b), (f), & (g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. Summary of Decision: The appeals are allowed, the enforcement notice is corrected and is quashed and planning permission is granted.

Appeal C Ref: APP/A3010/W/17/3177393 Land at The Barn, Pond Farm, Little Gringley, Retford, DN22 0DU  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Stuart Hird and Mrs Kathleen Hird against the decision of Bassetlaw District Council.  The application Ref:16/01678/FUL, dated 29 November 2016, was refused by notice dated 24 January 2017.  The development proposed is regularisation and retention of rebuilt barn structure to form dwelling. Summary of Decision: The appeal is allowed.

Preliminary matter

1. At the hearing, ground (b) of Appeals A & B was withdrawn by the appellants.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 75 Appeal Decisions APP/A3010/C/17/3177396, APP/A3010/W/17/3177393

Appeals A & B ground (a) and Appeal C

Background

2. In December 2014, the Council responded to an application for prior approval made by the appellants in relation to the change of use of an existing barn to a dwelling, under the provisions of Class MB of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995,as amended, by confirming that the development was permitted development (LPA ref: 14/01433/PDN). A condition was imposed requiring details of all on-site vehicular areas, including the proposed access, and the sewage treatment system to be submitted. There was no indication that prior approval was required for details of the design and external appearance, albeit that Class N requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the details provided in the application. The only details of the works to be undertaken were in written form, on the application form and accompanying ‘Support Statement and Description of Works’.

3. The appellants subsequently received Building Regulations approval via an Approved Inspector (ref: IN/15/01214). Under this regime, it appears that the Council is notified but does not receive copies of the approved plans. Work commenced in late October/early November 2016 but in December, most of the structure collapsed, following a period of exceptionally heavy rain and an apparent ground slip of the clay subsoil. The only surviving parts of the original building appear to have been most of the western gable wall and part of the southern wall.

4. Once the site was made safe and cleared of rubble, the appellants went on to construct the dwelling which now exists on site. There was no liaison with the Council as to whether planning permission was required and the dwelling was largely complete when the Council first became aware of the situation. The appellants went on to complete and occupy the dwelling in July 2016.

5. Because of the small proportion of the original barn that was retained after the collapse and the extent of re-building works that have taken place, I am firmly of the view that the development that has now taken place should quite properly be regarded as the erection of a new dwelling, rather than a change of use or conversion. The description of development in Appeal C does not properly reflect this and the description of development in Appeals A & B is more accurate, subject to correcting it to read ‘demolition of most of an existing barn’.

6. The main issues in these appeals are i. whether the development is in a suitable location for housing, having regard to the accessibility of services and facilities; and ii. the impact on the character and appearance of the area.

Suitable location

7. The appeal site is in Little Gringley, a small, loosely defined, agricultural hamlet; it has no defined development boundary. The site is in the centre of a large, grassed paddock in the remaining area of Pond Farm, which no longer appears to be in agricultural use. Besides the original farmhouse, there is on the land a small barn, a pair of derelict cottages and a larger barn which has a

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 76 Appeal Decisions APP/A3010/C/17/3177396, APP/A3010/W/17/3177393

recent prior approval under Class Q of the 2015 GPDO for change of use to a dwelling.

8. The development plan is the Core Strategy & Development Management Policies DPD (2011) [CS], which appears broadly consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF]. Policy CS1 sets out the settlement hierarchy and Little Gringley is regarded as a rural settlement with no community facilities of its own, which is subject to the restrictive Policy CS9. Although the Council has a deliverable housing supply of only 3.7 years, and in accordance with para.49 of the NPPF, relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date, the appellants conceded that, had there not been a barn on site, planning permission would be most unlikely to be granted for the erection of a new dwelling on this rural site.

9. Policy DM3 allows for the replacement of an existing building, subject to a number of criteria. However, following the collapse of most of the barn, there was effectively no building to replace.

10. In the present case, I consider the circumstances to be exceptional. I am satisfied that the appellants made a genuine attempt to implement their Class MB permitted development rights before the unintended collapse of the building in December 2016. By that time, their building contractors had been working on site for some 7-8 weeks, had carried out extensive conversion works, including renovating and re-tiling the roof, and were in the process of concreting the ground floor prior to their Christmas break. Up to the date of the collapse, the appellants had incurred building costs of over £30,000. Making the building site safe and clearance of the rubble incurred substantial additional costs.

11. In my view, the appellants did not act at all prudently in continuing building operations without first contacting the Council. They appear to have believed, erroneously that, because part of the original structure remained, they could continue. Nevertheless, this has been their home for some 18 months and, given the unfortunate circumstances described above, I am satisfied that what now amounts to a replacement dwelling, should be allowed to remain on this site. It has the benefit of making a small contribution to the significant housing shortfall in the District, consistent with the social role of sustainable development. It has provided employment and adds to the spending power of the locality, consistent with the economic role of sustainable development. Although the occupants must rely on the use of the private car, the NPPF recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas. Accordingly, in the specific circumstances of this case, on the first main issue, I find this a suitable location for a dwelling.

Character and appearance

12. The development plan at Policies DM4 and DM9, requires new development to be of high quality design, having regard to local character and distinctiveness and landscape character. The appeal site is not in a conservation area and nor is there any landscape designation.

13. The Council conceded that, with hindsight, it ought to have required a plan of the conversion works when the appellants sought prior approval under Class MB in 2014. Without such a plan, there was no clear and unambiguous definition of the finished appearance of the dwelling, as originally intended.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 77 Appeal Decisions APP/A3010/C/17/3177396, APP/A3010/W/17/3177393

The written indication was that the building was generally in a good condition and highly suitable for a conversion to domestic use. However, it indicated that a new clay pantile roof would be needed and new floors installed. It was stated that “It is unusual for a barn to have quite so many apertures and it is therefore unlikely that any new openings would be required and if there were to be any these would be kept to an absolute minimum, possibly no more than 2”. It was also stated that “… all windows and doors are to be removed and replaced with pre-treated timber double glazed frames with either paint or stain finish.”

14. There was a plan produced for the Building Regulations approval in March 2015. Compared to the original building survey, it showed 3 new window openings and a new doorway. At the hearing, the Council indicated that, had this plan been adhered to, it would not have taken enforcement action. I note, incidentally, that on this plan the windows and doors were indicated to be UPVC units. The building contractor was in the process of implementing this plan when the collapse occurred.

15. As a contributory cause of the collapse was the high external ground level, particularly adjacent to the North elevation, a decision was made by the appellants and their contractor to lower the surrounding ground level and install protective drainage. A consequence of this is that the present building now appears taller, even though the eaves and ridge heights are the same as those of the original building; the footprint remains the same. Whilst I agree with the Council that the building appears more prominent when seen from close range, I do not regard it as more prominent in its wider rural setting. The Council has suggested a condition requiring landscaping which is, in any event, capable of offering some mitigation of the impact of the building.

16. Turning to the design and materials, the present design has more fenestration than was originally envisaged, albeit that this does not appear to take it beyond the scope for installing fenestration as set out in part MB.1(i) of Class MB. The design is not unacceptable as a dwelling but it has diminished the former agricultural character. In any event, this was probably a consequence of the conversion, even had the Building Regulations plan been implemented. To offset this, attempts have been made to restore brickwork design features, as found on the original building.

17. Where the walls have been rebuilt, they are faced in brickwork reclaimed from the original building; there has been no imported brickwork. The roof is faced in natural clay pantiles, which will weather over time. The window frames and doors are formed from a wood effect UPVC. This differs from what was indicated in the written description of the Class MB works but, as indicated above, is as per the Building Regulation drawing. Whilst I agree with the Council that traditional timber windows would have been more appropriate for a barn conversion, it appears to be the case that every dwelling in the hamlet, including the original Pond Farmhouse, has UPVC windows. From the distance from which this building can be viewed, including from the public footpath around the perimeter of the paddock, I form the view that the use of wood effect UPVC in lieu of stained timber is not so harmful as to require its replacement.

18. The new access driveway was indicated on the prior approval site plan and was stated to be constructed of recycled aggregate topped with gravel. The route,

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 78 Appeal Decisions APP/A3010/C/17/3177396, APP/A3010/W/17/3177393

as constructed, differs slightly. It is formed of hardcore but is yet to be gravelled. To my mind, the drive is not unduly conspicuous; it is actually shorter than originally intended. A finished gravel surface will appear acceptable in this rural location.

19. I conclude on the second main issue that the development is not unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

Conclusion

20. In conclusion, despite conflict with the aims of the development plan, the unusual circumstances of this case lead me to the view that, on balance, the appeals should succeed.

Conditions

21. In addition to the landscape condition referred to above, the Council has suggested 3 other conditions. It is agreed that in the interests of biodiversity, a scheme for bat boxes/roosts should be agreed and implemented. Because of the need to preserve the rural character of the area, the removal of permitted development rights to extend the building or erect outbuildings or fences or other means of enclosure is necessary.

Appeals A & B grounds (f) and (g)

22. Because of my conclusion above, there is no need to go on to consider the appeals on grounds (f) and (g).

Formal Decisions

Appeals A & B

23. The enforcement notice is corrected by inserting the words ‘most of’ before ‘an existing barn’ in the alleged breach. Subject to this correction, the appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is quashed and planning permission is granted on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended for the development already carried out, namely the demolition of most of an existing barn and the erection of a new replacement dwelling and access road on land at The Barn, Pond Farm, Little Gringley, Retford, Notts, DN22 0DU, referred to in the notice, subject to the following 4 conditions:

(1) Within three months of the date of this permission, a scheme for the provision of bat boxes/roost units within the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved bat boxes/roost units shall then be installed and retained for the life of this development;

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A – H inclusive of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order), no building, extension or structure shall be erected or placed within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby permitted.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 79 Appeal Decisions APP/A3010/C/17/3177396, APP/A3010/W/17/3177393

fence, wall, gate or other means of enclosure shall be erected on the site, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(4) Within three months of the date of this permission, a scheme for the landscape treatment of the site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme shall be fully implemented within nine months of the date of the permission. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of a size and species similar to those originally required to be planted.

Appeal C

24. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of most of an existing barn and the erection of a new replacement dwelling and access road on land at The Barn, Pond Farm, Little Gringley, Retford, Notts, DN22 0DU, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref:16/01678/FUL, dated 29 November 2016, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the same 4 conditions applicable to Appeals A and B. B.S.Rogers

Inspector

------

Appearances

For the appellants:

Mr D.Kitson - Derek Kitson Architectural Technologist Ltd

Mr K.Clark - Misura Ltd Building Contractors

Mr S.Hird - Appellant

Ms K.Hird - Appellant

For the Council:

Mr T.Wells - Planning Enforcement Officer, Bassetlaw D.C.

Ms K.Gregory - Planning Officer, Bassetlaw D.C.

Documents

1. Attendance List

2. Copies of plans submitted for Building Regulations approval in 2015

3. Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement – December 2017

4. Braintree v SSCLG and Others [2017] EWHC 2743 (Admin)

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6 80 Agenda Item No.6(b)(iii)

PLANNING COMMITTEE

7th February 2018

INFORMATION REPORT

APPEAL DECISION RECEIVED

16/01592/COU Mr Appeal against refusal to grant planning permission J Matthews Change of use of A1 Retail Shop to A5 Hot Food Takeaway The Corner Pocket Snooker Club Doncaster Road

DECISION: Appeal DISMISSED by the Inspector.

The Inspector considered the main issue in this case was the effect of the proposal on the vitality and viability of the designated primary shopping area.

The Inspector acknowledged that this was a thriving shopping area with very few empty units and the relevant development plan policy in this case is Policy CS5 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Plan Document 2011. That policy states that non-retail uses will be resisted in Langold Centre’s Primary Frontages, other than when it is demonstrated to the Council’s satisfaction that they will serve to improve the attraction of the town centre as a retail destination.

No advertising or marketing details of the unit had been submitted and in the absence of any convincing evidence to justify a departure from policy the appeal was dismissed.

Copies of the Inspector’s decision letter follows this report.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

FINALISED DECISION LEVEL: Delegated

81 82

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 November 2017 by Susan Ashworth BA (Hons) BPL MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 11 January 2018

Appeal Ref: APP/A3010/W/17/3183119 The Corner Pocket Snooker Club, Doncaster Road, Langold, Nottinghamshire S81 9QL  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr James Mathews against the decision of Bassetlaw District Council.  The application Ref 16/01592/COU, dated 10 November 2016, was refused by notice dated 7 March 2017.  The development proposed is change of use to hot food takeaway.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue

2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the vitality and viability of the designated primary shopping area.

Reasons

3. The appeal site is a two-storey unit which forms part of a larger sports/social club, formerly the ‘Corner Pocket Snooker Club’, which includes another retail unit. The building, which occupies a corner position, lies within the village centre, within parades of shops designated as ‘Primary Frontage’. The proposal seeks to change the use of the unit to a hot food takeaway.

4. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise1. The relevant development plan policy in this case is Policy CS5 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Management Development Plan Document 2011. That policy states that non- retail uses will be resisted in Langold Centre’s Primary Frontages, other than when it is demonstrated to the Council’s satisfaction that they will serve to improve the attraction of the town centre as a retail destination.

5. The shopping area presently offers a range of shops and services including three take-away premises. The use of the appeal premises as a retail and booking facility associated with the snooker club ceased in June 2016. The unit is now unused and has a blank frontage with no visible shop window. I understand that the unit was advertised for a period of over 18 months

1 Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 83 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/17/3183119

although there are no details of the advertising or marketing before me and I cannot therefore be sure how extensive it was.

6. I saw at my site visit that this is a thriving shopping area with very few empty units, which appears to indicate that it is attractive to both retailers and shoppers. The unit is a reasonable size with storage facilities at first floor level and I am unconvinced on the basis of the evidence before me that the unit is unviable or unattractive as a retail outlet. Although competition between businesses is not a planning matter, there are already other take-away establishments in the area to serve the community. I acknowledge that being empty, the unit is not currently making a contribution to the economy or social function of the village, although it has only been vacant for a relatively short period of time. Notwithstanding this, the unit does not physically detract from the character or appearance of the area but rather has a neutral effect.

7. There are no details of the proposed take-away, nor of the sports/social club before me, and whilst I acknowledge that the use may be attractive to patrons of the club, I am unconvinced, on the evidence before me, that it would improve the attractiveness of the centre as a retail destination. As such the proposal is contrary to policy CS5 of the DPD as set out above.

8. In the absence of any convincing evidence to justify a departure from policy it therefore follows that the appeal should fail.

9. For these reasons, and taking into account all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. S Ashworth

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 84 Agenda Item No.6(b) (v)

PLANNING COMMITTEE,

7th February 2018

INFORMATION REPORT

APPEAL DECISION RECEIVED

17/00040/RSB Mrs K Appeal against the refusal of planning permission for Booth the demolition of existing building and the erection of two storey dwelling – Telephone Exchange, Cross Street, Sturton-le-Steeple.

DECISION: Appeal ALLOWED by the Inspector.

The Inspector considered the main issues were whether the proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of an employment site; and whether the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on protected species.

The Inspector considered that:

Given the state of repair at the appeal site and the ten or so years since it was used for employment purposes, I consider there is no reasonable prospect for the site to come back into employment use. In its present condition, the site is detrimental to the character and appearance of the wider area and the proposal represents an opportunity to improve the site and make a positive contribution to the area.

The requirement in Policy DM7 of the Local Plan to market a property for a period of twelve months builds in delay to the planning process. The core planning principles in paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), advise that planning decision should be dealt with efficiently and encourages the effective use of land by re-using previously developed brownfield sites. Paragraph 22 of the Framework indicates that planning policies should avoid the long-term protection of sites allocated for employment uses where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.

The Framework policies are material considerations to which I attach significant weight. Given the conflict, and on the evidence before me, I consider that the Framework policies outweigh the requirements of Policy DM7 of the Local Plan and indicate that the application should be determined in other than in strict accordance with the Local Plan policy.

At the time of making the application subject to this appeal, the appellant did not submit any ecological survey addressing the potential impact on protected species or assessing the ecological value of the site.

However, since the date of the refusal notice the appellant has provided an assessment by Estrada Ecology Limited that assessed the ecological value of the site as low. The assessment recommended a survey of potential bat activity but excluded the possibility of other protected species being present.

85 I have no evidence before me to suggest that the proposed development would adversely affect or result in the loss of protected species. Consequently, the proposal would accord with Policy DM9 of the Local Plan.

A copy of the Inspector’s decision letters follow this report.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse Planning Permission.

FINALISED DECISION LEVEL: Delegated

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 December 2017 by D Guiver LLB(Hons) Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 11 January 2018

Appeal Ref: APP/A3010/W/17/3182369 Telephone Exchange, Cross Street, Sturton-le-Steeple DN22 9HW  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Kevin Booth against the decision of Bassetlaw District Council.  The application Ref 17/00040/RSB, dated 11 January 2017, was refused by notice dated 9 May 2017.  The development proposed is to demolish existing building and erect two-storey dwelling with detached single-storey garage.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to demolish existing building and erect two-storey dwelling with detached single-storey garage at Telephone Exchange, Cross Street, Sturton-le-Steeple DN22 9HW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/00040/RSB, dated 11 January 2017, subject to the conditions in the attached Schedule.

Main Issues

2. The main issues are:

 whether the proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of an employment site; and

 whether the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on protected species.

Reasons

Employment Site

3. Policy DM7 of the Bassetlaw District Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD 2011 (the Local Plan) seeks to ensure that existing and vacant employment sites within the district are retained for future economic development.

4. The Policy allows for changes of use and redevelopment in limited circumstances including, amongst other things, where it can be demonstrated that a site is no longer capable of accommodating economic development uses. Any demonstration should be supported by evidence that all reasonable efforts have been made to sell or let the site or premises for economic development purposes at a realistic price for a period of at least twelve months. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 87 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/17/3182369

5. The appeal site comprises a vacant former telephone exchange that initially fell into disuse when telecommunications converted from analogue to digital transmission. Thereafter the site had a number of short-term industrial and commercial uses before finally ceasing to be used for employment purposes ten or so years ago.

6. The building is constructed of a variety of materials, principally brick to a height of three metres or so comprising approximately two-thirds of the exterior construction, the remainder being timber. A run of timber-framed windows sits atop the wall around much of the building and other areas are clad with tiles apparently made from roofing felt. The roof is also covered with roofing felt.

7. Since becoming vacant the building has fallen into disrepair and has suffered significant water penetration. A drain serving the property appears to have collapsed and is blocked with vegetation. The timber construction and window frames are in a poor state of repair and a number of the window panes have been replaced with painted panels.

8. Internally the building is in poor decorative repair and there is clear evidence of water damage, apparently from burst pipes, which would require repair. Beyond the building the hard surfaces on the site are deteriorating and the land is overgrown.

9. An initial estimate for repairs and renovation required to bring the site up to a reasonable standard suggested a cost in the region of £50,000, but this would not address significant design issues such as timber walls which are less secure than brickwork. The overall state of the roof is unclear but there is clearly some deterioration at the edges.

10. The appellant has provided two letters from commercial letting agents who state that the condition of the property is such that it is not in a condition to be let. If the works identified above were undertaken, commercial letting might expect to achieve a rental income of £10,000 per annum. However, the sum of £50,000 for repairs is an estimate and the eventual figure could be considerably higher.

11. Given the state of repair at the appeal site and the ten or so years since it was used for employment purposes, I consider there is no reasonable prospect for the site to come back into employment use. In its present condition the site is detrimental to the character and appearance of the wider area and the proposal represents an opportunity to improve the site and make a positive contribution to the area.

12. The requirement in Policy DM7 of the Local Plan to market a property for a period of twelve months builds in delay to the planning process. The core planning principles in paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), advise that planning decision should be dealt with efficiently (bullet point 1) and encourages the effective use of land by re-using previously developed brownfield sites (bullet Point 8). Paragraph 22 of the Framework indicates that planning policies should avoid the long-term protection of sites allocated for employment uses where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 88 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/17/3182369

13. The Framework policies are material considerations to which I attach significant weight. Given the conflict, and on the evidence before me, I consider that the Framework policies outweigh the requirements of Policy DM7 of the Local Plan and indicate that the application should be determined in other than in strict accordance with the Local Plan policy.

Protected Species

14. Policy DM9 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that development does not adversely affect or result in the loss of protected species.

15. At the time of making the application subject to this appeal, the appellant did not submit any ecological survey addressing the potential impact on protected species or assessing the ecological value of the site.

16. However, since the date of the refusal notice the appellant has provided an assessment by Estrada Ecology Limited that assessed the ecological value of the site as low. The assessment recommended a survey of potential bat activity but excluded the possibility of other protected species being present.

17. The appellant also provided a contemporaneous bat survey report by Estrada Ecology Limited which found no evidence of bat activity at the site and concluded that the site was of negligible value for bat colonies, save in one area of the building where it was determined to be very low.

18. The Council has not questioned the veracity of the ecological assessment or the bat survey report and therefore I have no evidence before me to suggest that the proposed development would adversely affect or result in the loss of protected species. Consequently, the proposal would accord with Policy DM9 of the Local Plan.

Conditions

19. The conditions set out in the accompanying schedule are based on those suggested by the Council. Where necessary I have amended the wording of these in the interests of precision and clarity in order to comply with the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance.

20. In the interests of proper planning I have imposed the standard condition in respect of time limits. For certainty I have imposed a condition requiring compliance with the plans. To protect the character and appearance of the area I have imposed a condition relating to the submission and approval of facing materials and a further condition restricting the exercise of permitted developments rights.

21. However, I have not imposed a condition in relation to timber doors and window frames or guttering and downpipe materials as this is not necessary to protect the character of the area or the setting of any heritage assets. Where timber doors are required for the garage, these are clearly specified on the approved plan. Given the conclusions of the ecological survey assessing the value of the site as low I do consider it is unnecessary to impose a condition for the retention of any hedges.

22. Given evidence of a Roman road in the proximity of the appeal site I have imposed a condition relating to a written scheme of investigation for

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 89 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/17/3182369

archaeological remains. In the interests of proper drainage and given the existing problem of a collapsed drain on the site I have imposed a condition relating to the removal of foul and surface water. In the interests of highway safety I have imposed conditions to ensure that parking and turning will be provided.

23. While paragraph 118 of the Framework refers to both conservation and enhancement of biodiversity, given the uncontested results of the ecological assessment and the bat survey report it would not be reasonable or necessary to impose a condition relating to bat boxes on the site.

Other Matters

24. I have taken account of comments by interested parties regarding the size of the proposed dwelling and the need for smaller housing in the village, but these do not alter my conclusion.

25. The appeal site is within the setting of two Grade II listed buildings, namely the former barn and stable and cottage at Cross Street Cottage which lie approximately 40m to the south. There are also two additional non-designated heritage assets close by, namely the former Blacksmiths Arms opposite the appeal site and the former Methodist Church to the north-west.

26. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that for proposals affecting listed buildings or their setting, special regard is had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Paragraph 135 of the Framework also requires consideration of the impact of proposals on the significance of non-designated heritage assets.

27. The Council’s conservation officer has given advice on the proposal, which the appellant has adopted, other than with regard to window frames and external doors. Some dwellings nearby already have uPVC windows and doors and therefore I consider it unnecessary to require the sole use of timber at the appeal site.

28. Moreover, the existing building detracts significantly from the appearance of the area and setting of the heritage assets, and the proposal represents a significant opportunity to improve the area. I note that the Council does not consider the setting of the heritage assets to be a reason for refusal.

Conclusion

29. For the reasons given above, and taking into account all other matters, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed. D Guiver

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 90 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/17/3182369

Schedule 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: R-01; R-02; R-03; R-04; R-05 Rev A; and R-10 Rev B. 3) No development shall take place until samples of all external facing materials have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The relevant works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved sample details. 4) No development shall take place until a Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions - and: i) the programme and methodology of site investigation and recording; ii) the programme for post investigation assessment; iii) the provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording; iv) the provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation; v) the provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation; vi) the nomination of a competent person or persons/organization to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation. 5) Development shall not commence until drainage works for foul and surface water shall have been carried out in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 6) The building shall not be occupied until the area shown marked ‘Paving/Tarmacadam’ on drawing no. R-05 Rev A has been drained and surfaced in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and that area shall thereafter be kept available at all times for the parking of vehicles. 7) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development or alteration under Classes A to E other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be erected or placed within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby permitted.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 91 92 Agenda Item No.6 (b) (vi)

PLANNING COMMITTEE

7th February 2018

INFORMATION REPORT

APPEAL DECISION RECEIVED

16/00356/FUL Mr David Appeal against a served enforcement notice. The Edgar breach of planning control, in the notice, is without Keeling planning permission the unauthorised change of use of a former paddock for the siting of a residential log cabin, caravan, shipping container and workshop buildings, land adjacent 24 Blyth Road, Ranby, Retford, DN22 8JH

DECISION: Appeal allowed, the enforcement notice as corrected is quashed, and planning permission is granted.

The Inspector considered the main issues in this case were the following:

 Whether the development is in an acceptable location having regard to the development plan and national planning policy;

 Whether the development is sustainable;

 Whether the personal circumstances of the appellant, including consideration of the public sector equality duty, justify retention of the development.

Regarding the first issue, the Planning Inspector concluded that the location of the appeal site is generally supported by the Framework’s policies. Given the marked shortfall in the Council’s housing land supply, the advice about how to treat the development plan deemed to be out of date, and the particular characteristics of the site and its surroundings, the Inspector stated that greater weight was given to the Framework’s policies on this matter.

Turning to whether the development is sustainable, the Inspector concluded the development is sustainable.

Regarding the applicants personal circumstances, the Inspector gave little weight to the appellants need to live at the appeal site.

The Inspector concluded that the appeal should succeed and planning permission is granted for that part of the deemed application relating to the residential log cabin.

Copies of the Inspector’s decision letter follows this report.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Undetermined FIRST APPEAL DETREMINED AGAINST PLANNING APPLICATION: Dismissed FINALISED DECISION LEVEL: Non determination

Appeal Decision Hearing held on 21 November 2017 Site visit made on 21 November 2017 by Grahame Kean B.A. (Hons), PgCert CIPFA, Solicitor HCA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 12 January 2018

Appeal Ref: APP/A3010/C/17/3173163 Land adjacent 24 Blyth Road, Ranby, Retford, Nottinghamshire DN22 8JH  The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.  The appeal is made by Mr David Edgar Keeling against an enforcement notice issued by Bassetlaw District Council.  The enforcement notice was issued on 2 March 2017.  The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning permission, the unauthorised change of use of a former paddock for the siting of a residential log cabin, caravan, shipping container and workshop buildings.  The requirements of the notice are: (i) Cease using the Land for residential purposes. (ii) Remove the log cabin and the decking area from The Land along with associated fixtures, fittings and footings. (iii) Remove the shipping container and the remaining buildings from The Land along with any associated fixtures, fittings and footings. (iv) Remover (sic) all the non-agricultural vehicles from The Land. (v) Remove all the domestic tools and equipment and any other extraneous items from The Land. (vi) Remove all the rubbish, waste and materials from The Land arising from the removal of (ii to iv) above from (sic). (vii) Remove all other accumulated rubbish, waste and materials from The Land.  The period for compliance with the requirements is six (6) calendar months after this notice takes effect.  The appeal is proceeding on the ground set out in section 174(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

Summary of decision

1. The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice as corrected is quashed, and planning permission is granted as set out below in the Formal Decision.

Procedural matter

2. After the hearing I asked the parties to comment on the extent of the shortfall in the Council’s housing land supply which was a matter briefly discussed at the hearing. Neither party required the hearing to be re-opened and each was content to rely on their written comments made in response to my invitation. These comments have been taken into account in determining the appeal.

Matters concerning the enforcement notice

3. At the site visit it became apparent that the land subject to the notice as outlined in red on the plan covered a greater area than was occupied by the

94 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/C/17/3173163

appellant and targeted by the Council. It was therefore agreed that the plan should be amended to limit the southern boundary of the appeal site so as to coincide with the black line immediately to the north as shown on the plan.

4. The notice alleges the siting of workshop buildings, however it was agreed that all the buildings were brought onto the land to facilitate a material change of use to a residential property. I saw that these outbuildings contained the usual garden tools and equipment, as well as several old compressors with which the appellant said he liked to tinker. They are tidily kept in a timber shed and lean-to in the middle of the site and other modestly sized outbuildings inside the front boundary. For the avoidance of doubt I will amend the description of the breach of planning control to make clear the character of these buildings. This change and the alteration to the plan can be made without injustice to the parties by exercising powers to correct the notice under s176 of the 1990 Act.

5. The appellant stayed on the appeal site in a “transit style” caravan whilst the log cabin was being built. It is unlikely that this was a building as the notice implies but it has been removed from the site and it is not sought to reintroduce it. As was pointed out to the parties in advance of the hearing, the siting of a caravan might be in any event ancillary to a lawful use of the land. As for the container this has been removed or dismantled and some parts appear to be subsumed within the outbuildings at the front of the site.

6. Consequently the appellant seeks permission for the residential log cabin and the outbuildings. Under s177(1)(a) of the 1990 Act I have powers to grant permission in respect of the matters stated in the enforcement notice as constituting a breach of planning control, whether in relation to the whole or any part of those matters or in relation to the whole or any part of the land to which the notice relates. Accordingly the development to be considered in this appeal is the residential log cabin and outbuildings on the reduced area of land shown on the corrected plan.

7. Other amendments, agreed by the parties so as to streamline the requirements of the notice and correct typographical errors, are unnecessary to deal with further given my decision to quash the notice and allow the appeal.

The appeal on ground (a) and the deemed planning application

Background and main issues

8. The appeal site is on the outskirts of the small village of Ranby. A previous appeal decision dismissed an appeal by Mr Keeling against refusal of permission for similar development as is under consideration in this appeal.1

9. The appellant was a market trader but due to ill-health he has not been in employment for some time. His appeal statement contended that the appeal site fulfilled an essential need for a rural worker to live at or near his place of work. However this line of argument was not pursued at the hearing and I therefore no longer treat as relevant Policy DM1 of the Bassetlaw District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD 2011 (CS), cited by the Council as a reason for issuing the notice.

10. The main issues are therefore:

1 APP/A3010/W/16/3163346 dated 14 February 2017

2 95 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/C/17/3173163

a) Whether the development is in an acceptable location having regard to the development plan and national planning policy;

b) Whether the development is sustainable;

c) Whether the personal circumstances of the appellant, including consideration of the public sector equality duty, justify retention of the development.

Is the development in an acceptable location?

11. As the Inspector noted in the previous appeal decision the appeal site is outside any defined settlement boundary. In fact there is no settlement boundary defined for Ranby in the Proposals Map. CS Policy CS1 sets out a settlement hierarchy that restricts development to inside defined development boundaries. The supporting text for Policy CS1 only supports development in All Other Settlements such as Ranby that meets social, economic and environmental needs within these rural communities.

12. The Council places significant weight on this policy as well as CS Policy CS9 which does not support new housing in All Other Settlements on the grounds that they have limited or no service/facility provision and rely on other settlements for such needs. Policy CS9 also states that new housing in such areas is likely to increase the need to travel to access even basic services.

13. However Policy CS1 states in terms that additional permissions for sites may be granted where it is demonstrated that the development would be of benefit in addressing a shortfall in the District’s five-year housing land supply. The Council’s current Five Year Housing Land Supply statement dates from 1 April 2016 and confirms that the district only has a 3.4 year supply and a shortfall of 1,126 dwellings. Although a single new dwelling contributes only modestly, the extent of the shortfall is in my view an important factor to bear in mind.

14. Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) advises that housing 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 deliverable housing sites. Policies CS1 and CS9 are relevant policies for this purpose, and where such policies are deemed out‑of‑date, Paragraph 14 of the Framework advises that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

15. The Framework at Paragraph 55 advises that housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. New isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided absent special circumstances.

16. The word “isolated” is not defined in the Framework but it has been held in the recent Braintree case”2 that the word should be given its ordinary objective meaning of “far away from other places, buildings or people; remote.” The appeal site has a pre-existing use as paddock land and is formed from sub- dividing the plot of 24 Blyth Road. Whereas the reasons for issue of the notice

2 Braintree District Council v SSCLG & Ors [2017] EWHC 2743 (Admin)

3 96 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/C/17/3173163

included that the nearest dwelling was 110m from the site3, it was agreed at the site visit that the house at No 24 was only 25 to 30m away. The site is about 600m north of the established developed area of Ranby. This section of Blyth Road contains a ribbon of five residential properties on one side of the road, a cul-de-sac that has a remote feel to it, being in the hinterland of the busy A1 that runs parallel to it. However the dwelling is on a road where there are several dwellings nearby. In overall terms the development would not in my view result in a new isolated home in the countryside under Paragraph 55.

17. The development conflicts with Policies CS1 and CS9 as it is not found within a defined settlement boundary and would not accord with the development plan’s strict approach of focussing development hierarchically in designated settlements. In the previous appeal decision it was implicit that the site was isolated since the Inspector went on to consider the rural worker’s exception contained in Paragraph 55. However I have exercised my own judgement having seen the site, and come to a different view with the benefit of the more recent decision in Braintree and having heard substantive evidence about the environs of the site, not discussed in the earlier decision.

18. The location of the appeal site is generally supported by the Framework’s policies provided that it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities within the wider aim to promote sustainable development in such areas. Given the marked shortfall in the Council’s housing land supply, the advice about how to treat development plan policies deemed to be out of date, and the particular characteristics of the site and its surroundings, I give greater weight to the Framework’s policies on this matter.

Whether development is sustainable

19. Paragraph 17 of the Framework says that Councils should actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling. The previous Inspector had no evidence put to her to demonstrate that the site had good accessibility to services by these modes of transport, however I heard evidence at this appeal that there is a bus stop about eight minutes’ walk from the appeal site, with direct connections to Worksop and Retford five miles or so away. Ranby itself has a public house at its centre, a village hall4 and on its outskirts, a preparatory school. I saw that a gate to the rear of the site gives access to the Chesterfield Canal towpath which has a direct link south to the centre of Ranby. The canal takes a more meandering route eastwards to Retford and westwards to Worksop.

20. The village has undeniably limited facilities and a car is likely to continue to be needed to access services in the larger settlements, however the impacts are not disproportionately adverse given the modest scale of the development. The three dimensions of sustainability: social, economic and environmental, are mutually interdependent and to be considered as a whole. The dwelling contributes to social sustainability given its proximity to other homes and to a limited extent economically, due to its professional construction and support that occupiers could give incrementally to maintaining the vitality of the village.

21. The Council does not object to the character or appearance of the development. The subdivision of the adjacent plot has resulted in a new

3 Probably a misreading of the delegated report which notes this distance in relation to dwellings north of the site. 4 Written evidence from a neighbouring occupier.

4 97 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/C/17/3173163

dwelling on land which may not be previously developed land as defined in the Framework, but optimises the potential of the site to accommodate development. According to comments from neighbours the paddock was evidently a dumping ground for various waste materials before the change of use took place. The change has resulted in a tidy and well-maintained plot which the Council’s planning officer said “may have enhanced” the character and appearance of the site. The dwelling and outbuildings are mostly built from eco-friendly materials, have a low profile and design consistent with a rural setting and are largely screened from public views.

22. Considering all these factors, I conclude that the development is sustainable. Personal circumstances

23. I have thus far found no unacceptable harm caused by the development and in such a case it would normally be superfluous to deal with this issue. However it was the focus of much discussion at the hearing and its relevance disputed, so it may be helpful to both parties to understand my approach to the matter.

24. In the previous appeal which was dealt with by written representations earlier this year, the Inspector noted that the appellant had been in hospital with mental health problems and that the log-cabin would provide a peaceful environment for him. However she had no medical evidence before her and gave the personal circumstances of the appellant limited weight.

25. In this appeal I have had the benefit of listening to and questioning the appellant and a community psychiatric nurse who gave cogent evidence of his current depressive illness and ongoing treatment. The underlying cause of his condition clearly has to do with the tragic circumstances of the loss of close members of his family. However I was urged to consider “the ongoing and protracted situation” with regard to his accommodation and that his personal need to live at the appeal site would relieve the uncertainty and stress he has suffered since he was bereaved and gave up fixed accommodation in Worksop.

26. The appellant’s need for settled accommodation, irrespective of how he found himself in his current position, is undoubtedly significant. The Council points out that if the notice were upheld he should seek accommodation from its housing department before the compliance period expires, acknowledging that it may have a duty to rehouse him as a vulnerable person. I see no reason why that should not be the case. Yet if he had to seek alternative private accommodation I do not consider, as is suggested, that the requirement for a bond would be an insuperable difficulty. A bond may be beyond his means, however rent deposit schemes exist to assist in such cases and I was given no reason to suppose that such a scheme, which from experience is commonly run by councils, housing associations or charities, might not be accessible to him. I also bear in mind, as did the previous Inspector that the use sought is permanent and so a decision based on personal need would rarely be justified.

27. I also have regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which includes the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to advance equality of opportunity and good relations between people who share a protected characteristic, which can include a person’s mental ill-health, and people who do not. I accept that the severity of the appellant’s condition substantially adversely affects his ability to carry on day-to-day activities and to be forced to move home would cause him

5 98 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/C/17/3173163

much stress and anxiety but it does not follow from the PSED that the appeal should succeed. The negative impacts that would arise, although serious would not in my opinion be so disproportionately felt as opposed to others who, for one reason or another lose their accommodation, that it should here displace the principle that planning is concerned with land use in the public rather than the private interest. The equality implications therefore add little weight.

28. Consequently whilst I have the utmost sympathy for his circumstances I give little weight to the appellant’s expressed need to live on the appeal site.

Planning balance and conclusion

29. The weight given to CS Policies CS1 and CS9, where they seek to impose a blanket restriction on new housing in some settlements, should be reduced given the Framework’s support for rural homes that could contribute to social sustainability due to their proximity to other homes. The Framework highlights the need to boost significantly the supply of housing. The new unit makes a small contribution to the Council’s housing supply and has economic benefits in its construction and through limited support to local facilities. The dwelling and outbuildings would neither be out of keeping with the surrounding development nor harm the character or appearance of the wider countryside. In overall terms the development is sustainable.

30. Given the shortfall in the Council’s five year housing land supply, and that the relevant policies in the development are deemed out of date, I have assessed whether any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole. However there are no significant adverse impacts that would outweigh the benefits identified. Had I found that the issues were more finely balanced, it is unlikely that the personal needs of the appellant would have been of sufficient weight to tip the balance in favour of the appeal.

31. Representations were made that to dismiss the appeal would violate the appellant’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998. However, as I have decided to allow the appeal and grant planning permission, my decision would not lead to any violation.

Overall Conclusion

32. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed and I shall grant planning permission for that part of the deemed application relating to the residential log cabin and outbuildings.

Formal Decision

33. It is directed that the enforcement notice is corrected by the substitution of the plan annexed to this decision for the plan attached to the enforcement notice.

34. It is further directed that in the description of breach of planning control in the notice, “workshop buildings” is deleted and replaced with ”outbuildings used for purposes incidental to its residential use”.

35. Subject to these corrections the enforcement notice is quashed and planning permission is granted on the application deemed to have been made under s177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended insofar as it relates to the change of use of a former paddock for the siting of a residential log cabin and outbuildings

6 99 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/C/17/3173163

used for purposes incidental to its residential use, as shown edged red on the corrected plan attached to the enforcement notice on Land adjacent 24 Blyth Road, Ranby, Retford, Nottinghamshire DN22 8JH. Grahame Kean

INSPECTOR

7 100 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/C/17/3173163

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr John Campbell Barrister, Rope Walk Chambers, Nottingham

Mr David Keeling Appellant

Mr Derek Gascoigne Community Psychiatric Nurse

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr Miles Joyce Interim District Team Manager

Ms Amanda Broadhead Planner, Development Team

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING

1. Core Strategy Proposals Map

2. Revised Block Plan

3. Delegated Report

8 101 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/C/17/3173163

______Plan

This is the plan referred to in my decision dated: 12 January 2018 by Grahame Kean B.A. (Hons), PgCert CIPFA, Solicitor HCA

Land adjacent 24 Blyth Road, Ranby, Retford, Nottinghamshire DN22 8JH

Appeal Ref: APP/A3010/C/17/3173163

Scale: Not to Scale ______

9 102 Agenda Item No.6(vii)

PLANNING COMMITTEE,

7th February 2018

INFORMATION REPORT

APPEAL DECISION RECEIVED

17/00765/FUL Mr Appeal against the refusal of planning permission for P Drewery the retention of the siting of one caravan and one tent for a period of three years for temporary residential accommodation, Land at Dog Island Ramper Road, Saundby.

DECISION: Appeal DISMISSED by the Inspector.

The Inspector considered the main issues were whether the proposed development is appropriate for this location, the effect of the development on the scheduled monument and whether the development would be at risk of flooding.

The Inspector concluded that:

No cogent evidence has been put forward as to why it is necessary to provide on-site storage or welfare facilities in this open countryside location. I conclude that the appeal development is not an appropriate form of development in this location. It is contrary to Policies CS1 and DM3 of the DPD, these policies, amongst other things, seek to focus new development into settlements and protect the countryside.

I find that the setting of the scheduled monument is not enhanced by the presence of these structures. Consequently, there is conflict with Policy DM8 of the DPD which seeks to protect and enhance the historic environment and secure its long-term future. There are no clear public benefits which may demonstrably outweigh the harm to the Scheduled Monument.

Paragraph 040 of the PPG suggests that proposals that are likely to increase the number of people living or working in areas of flood risk require particularly careful consideration, as they could increase the scale of any evacuation required. The Environment Agency has drawn my attention to the area being classified as a “danger for all” such that wading through flood water to rescue people would not be an option because of the rate of rise, depth and velocity of flood waters, therefore such areas pose a danger to all people including the Emergency Services. The appeal development would therefore be at an unacceptable risk from flooding. Consequently, there is conflict with Policy DM12 of the DPD, which seeks, amongst other things, to direct new development away from areas at risk from flooding.

A copy of the Inspector’s decision letters follow this report.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse Planning Permission.

FINALISED DECISION LEVEL: Delegated

103 104 105 106 107 108 Agenda Item No.6(b) (viii)

PLANNING COMMITTEE,

7th February 2018

INFORMATION REPORT

APPEAL DECISION RECEIVED

17/00933/RSB Mr&Mrs Appeal against the refusal of planning permission to Morris erect 1.5 storey extension with rear enclosed balcony, rear dormer, increase height of detached double garage and alterations to dwelling, Greenfields, Main Street, Laneham, DN22 0ND DECISION: Appeal DISMISSED by the Inspector in relation to the proposed extension and ALLOWED insofar as it relates to the balcony, rear dormer and alteration to the dwelling. The Inspector considered the main issues were the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, having particular regard to the street scene on Main Street; and The living conditions of adjoining occupiers having particular regard to outlook.

The Inspector considered that:

The proposed extension would not be subordinate in scale or form to the existing dwelling and the wide projecting front gable would dominate the front elevation. The side and rear elevations would have a complex appearance with varying eaves levels, ridge heights and roof pitches. The varied roof forms, the junctions between them and the half hipped feature would look awkward and contrived and out of keeping with simple gabled roof form of the existing property.

It would have an imposing and unduly dominant appearance which would be unsympathetic to the more traditional and simple roof form and narrow gable span of Miles End Cottage. Whilst the appellant considers that the existing dwelling has a limited impact on the street scene, the proposed extension would have an imposing and jarring effect when viewed from either direction on Main Street

Whilst the proposed alterations to the garage would not conflict with Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Document (CS). However, the harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene would be contrary to Policy DM4 of the CS. It would also fail to accord with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that new development should be of high quality design and add to the overall quality of an area

Notwithstanding that the hipped roof would slope away from the boundary, due to the eaves and ridge height of the 1.5 storey section and its proximity to the common boundary, the proposed extension would increase the sense of enclosure and have an overbearing effect when viewed from the outdoor area and rear garden area of Miles End Cottage. This would be materially harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of that property, contrary to the requirement in Policy DM4 of the CS that new development

109 should not have a detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby residents. It would not meet the requirements of the Framework to achieve a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.

A copy of the Inspector’s decision letters follow this report.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse Planning Permission.

FINALISED DECISION LEVEL: Delegated

110

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 December 2017 by Sarah Housden BA (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 21th December 2017

Appeal Ref: APP/A3010/D/17/3187502 Greenfields, Main Street, Laneham DN22 OND  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs A Morris against the decision of Bassetlaw District Council.  The application Ref 17/00933/RSB, dated 5 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 6 September 2017.  The development proposed is ‘erect 1.5 storey extension with rear enclosed balcony, rear dormer, increase height of detached double garage and alterations to dwelling’.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the proposed extension with rear enclosed balcony, rear dormer and alterations to dwelling. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the alterations to the detached double garage and planning permission is granted for increasing the height of the detached double garage at Greenfields, Main Street, Laneham DN22 OND in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/00933/RSB dated 5 July 2017, and the plans submitted with it (so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted), subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: Drawing No AM542 A102 Revision P3 in so far as this relates to the proposed alterations to the garage.

Procedural Matters

2. A previous scheme for a 1.5 storey extension, rear dormer and alterations was dismissed on appeal in January 20171. That scheme proposed a different form and scale of development and whilst I have had regard to it in coming to my decision, I have assessed the proposal based on the circumstances of the site and the details of the scheme before me.

3. For the reasons that follow, I find the proposed alterations to the existing garage to be acceptable and from the plans it appears that this part of the scheme is capable of being constructed independently of the extension, dormer window and other alterations to the main dwelling. In these circumstances, it

1 Appeal Reference APP/A3010/D/16/3163669 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 111 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/D/17/3187502

would be appropriate for me to issue a split decision and I therefore grant planning permission for the proposed increase in the height of the detached double garage subject to conditions which are explained below.

Main Issues

4. The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposals on:

 The character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, having particular regard to the street scene on Main Street; and

 The living conditions of adjoining occupiers having particular regard to outlook.

Reasons

Character and appearance

5. The appeal site lies to the south of Main Street which is characterised by a linear pattern of development comprising farmhouses, cottages and more recent development of varying styles and materials. The position of buildings at the back edge of the pavement behind grassed verges creates a tight knit and rural character and appearance. More recent properties are set further back from the road resulting in a more staggered building line.

6. The existing dwelling is a detached bungalow with accommodation in the roof. By reason of its modest appearance and proportions and position set well back from the road between Miles End Cottage and Bracken House, it has an unassuming and unobtrusive character and appearance.

7. The existing double garage is located at the end of the rear garden alongside the detached outbuilding in the garden of Bracken House. The proposed pitched roof would improve its overall appearance and would be in keeping with the roof form of the main dwelling.

8. The appeal scheme also includes a dormer window on the rear roof slope and an extension to the east side of the dwelling. This comprises a 1.5 storey section to the front and a single storey section to the rear with a balcony space above. In order to reduce the impact of the proposed extension compared with the previous appeal scheme, the roof form of the 1.5 storey section has been re-designed to incorporate a hip to the front and a very shallow pitched section behind. The eaves height of the single storey section has been reduced to 2.2 metres with an enclosing side wall to prevent any overlooking of the outdoor area to the rear of Miles End Cottage.

9. Due to the variation in the age, style and materials of properties on Main Street, I concur with the appellant’s view that a contemporary design could be accommodated in this location. In addition, I have no reason to dispute that the extension, dormer window and alterations would be constructed to a high standard including sustainable design features. A rendered finish has been used on a number of properties along Main Street and would therefore be appropriate for the appeal property.

10. However, good design also includes paying due regard to the form, scale and proportions of the existing dwelling. The proposed extension would not be subordinate in scale or form to the existing dwelling and the wide projecting front gable would dominate the front elevation. The side and rear elevations

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 112 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/D/17/3187502

would have a complex appearance with varying eaves levels, ridge heights and roof pitches. The varied roof forms, the junctions between them and the half hipped feature would look awkward and contrived and out of keeping with simple gabled roof form of the existing property.

11. Although set back from the road, due to the limited distance between the side wall of the proposed extension and the common boundary with Miles End Cottage it would be viewed in conjunction with the cottage. It would have an imposing and unduly dominant appearance which would be unsympathetic to the more traditional and simple roof form and narrow gable span of Miles End Cottage. Whilst the appellant considers that the existing dwelling has a limited impact on the street scene, the proposed extension would have an imposing and jarring effect when viewed from either direction on Main Street.

12. A number of alterations have been made to address the concerns expressed by the previous appeal Inspector in relation to the cramped layout and relationship with the adjoining property. However, the adjustments have resulted in a contrived and awkward design. Whilst acknowledging the appellant’s wish to transform the appearance of the property, the appeal scheme fails to respect the unassuming and modest character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the adjoining property Miles End Cottage.

13. I conclude that the proposed alterations to the garage would not conflict with Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Document (CS). Amongst other things, Policy DM4 seeks to ensure that new development is of a high quality design that respects the wider surroundings and is appropriate for its context in terms of height, scale, mass and detailing.

14. However, the harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene would be contrary to Policy DM4 of the CS. It would also fail to accord with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that new development should be of high quality design and add to the overall quality of an area.

Living Conditions

15. The increase in the height of the garage would be limited and would not be harmful to the outlook currently enjoyed by the occupiers of Bracken House or Miles End Cottage. This part of the appeal proposal would comply with Policy DM4 of the CS.

16. The 1.5 storey section of the proposed extension would extend approximately 3 metres back from the rear wall of Miles End Cottage. Whilst only the single storey section would be visible when viewed from the rear patio door of Miles End Cottage, the higher section would be visible from the outdoor area immediately outside the patio door and from the rear garden.

17. Notwithstanding that the hipped roof would slope away from the boundary, due to the eaves and ridge height of the 1.5 storey section and its proximity to the common boundary, the proposed extension would increase the sense of enclosure and have an overbearing effect when viewed from the outdoor area and rear garden area of Miles End Cottage. This would be materially harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of that property.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 113 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/D/17/3187502

18. I conclude in relation to the second main issue in this case that the proposed extension would be contrary to the requirement in Policy DM4 of the CS that new development should not have a detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby residents. It would not meet the requirements of the Framework to achieve a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.

Conclusion

19. For the reasons set out above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed insofar as it relates to the proposed increase in the height of the garage but dismissed insofar as it relates to the extension, dormer window and other alterations to the main dwelling.

Conditions

20. In addition to the standard time limit condition, a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. The use of slate coloured profiled metal sheeting for the garage roof as specified in the planning application form would be acceptable in this location and no further conditions are required.

Sarah Housden

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 114 Agenda Item No. 6(b) (ix)

PLANNING COMMITTEE

7th February 2018

INFORMATION REPORT

APPEAL DECISION RECEIVED

17/00353/OUT Mr and Mrs Appeal against refusal to grant outline planning M Hearn permission (all matters reserved) for the residential development of land at High Street Walkeringham.

DECISION: Appeal allowed and planning permission granted.

COST DECISION: The application for costs is allowed.

The Inspector considered the main issues in this case were the following:

 Effect of the development upon the risk of flooding;

 The location of the development having regard to the principles of sustainable development;

Regarding the first issue, the proposal is in outline form only so the exact design of these measures cannot be detailed. However, the Council’s Local Lead Flood Authority advisor stated that he had no objections to the application subject to the FRA being implemented and evidence of infiltration tests being submitted. Furthermore, the Council’s District Engineer also raised no objections, subject to a suitable SuDs.

Since the previous Appeal Decision, the Walkeringham Flood Alleviation Scheme has been completed and is fully operational. Additionally, the number of dwellings proposed is of low density for the overall site, and having regard to the indicative layout, there would appear to be substantial areas of undeveloped garden ground. There also seems to be space for green infrastructure that could incorporate attenuation measures, such as swales or ponds.

Therefore, based on the evidence presented, and having carefully considered the neighbouring and parish council objections, I am satisfied that a suitable SuDs scheme could be designed that would ensure the proposal would not exacerbate existing land drainage in the village. These matters could be controlled by condition, yet I note that the UU also provides an obligation towards a satisfactory SuDS.

Save for the reasons for refusal, the Council have provided no further evidence regarding increases to ground level and finished floor level of the dwellings. Given the proposal is outline only, this matter would be assessed at reserved matters stage and I have given this limited weight in my assessment.

The proposal would be compliant with Policy DM12 of the DPD and with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks to ensure that flood risk is not

115 increased elsewhere; and 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, including through the planning of green infrastructure.

Policy CS8 of the DPD states that any future development within a Rural Service Centre will be of a scale appropriate to the current size and role of that settlement and limited to that which will sustain local employment, community services and facilities. Thus there is a conflict with this part of the development plan policy.

However, Policy CS1 of the DPD details that additional permissions may be granted where it is demonstrated to the Council’s satisfaction that a development proposal will be of benefit in addressing a shortfall in the District’s five-year housing supply.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. In these circumstances paragraph 49 of the Framework establishes that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date. As such, a presumption in favour of sustainable development applies; and the test in the fourth bullet point of paragraph 14 of the Framework is engaged, so that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The Council contend that the addition of this proposal, in combination with another development under construction in the village for 32 dwellings, would require new and existing residents to travel to other centres as Walkeringham could not sustain the increase with its existing services and facilities.

The village is supported by services that include a public house, village hall, playground, outreach post office, an aged care facility and primary school. For a rural village, these are good facilities, and I concur with the previous Inspector that the site is relatively sustainable. Furthermore, the location of the site is central to the village, being opposite the primary school.

Whilst there would be a marginal increase in the population, I have been presented with very little substantive evidence why this would lead to the existing services in the village being unable to cope

The DPD recognises that rural service centres do not meet all of the day-to-day needs of their communities, but provide a level of service provision above that of other rural settlements.

Moreover, the development would provide a contribution towards education and public open space that would help to sustain and enhance services in the village. The provision of 35% affordable housing would also be of great social benefit and would accord with Policy CS8 of the DPD.

Whilst there would be a conflict with part of Policy CS8 of the DPD; in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as I have found there to be little adverse effects, the benefits of the proposal in boosting housing supply would outweigh this conflict. Thus the proposal is compliance with the NPPF as a whole.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Recommended Approval FINALISED DECISION LEVEL: Committee Overturn-REFUSE

116

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 January 2018 by Katie McDonald MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26th January 2018

Appeal Ref: APP/A3010/W/17/3184900 Land and properties at High Street, Walkeringham DN10 4LJ  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs M Hearn against the decision of Bassetlaw District Council.  The application Ref 17/00353/OUT, dated 7 March 2017, was refused by notice dated 31 August 2017.  The development proposed was originally described as the residential development of land at High Street, Walkeringham.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the residential development of land and properties at High Street, Walkeringham DN10 4LJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/00353/OUT, dated 7 March 2017, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.

Application for costs

2. An application for costs was made by Mr & Mrs M Hearn against Bassetlaw District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Procedural Matters

3. The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. However, in Part E of the appeal form it is stated that the description of development has not changed but, nevertheless, a different wording has been entered. Neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed. Accordingly, I have used the one given on the original application.

4. The application is in outline with all matters to be reserved for later approval and I have dealt with the appeal on that basis. An illustrative site plan and High Street elevation has been submitted with the proposal and I have had regard to them in so far as they are relevant to my consideration of the principle of the proposal at the site.

5. I note the previous Appeal Decision1 at this site. Given the similarities between the proposals, I find it to be a material consideration.

6. A Unilateral Undertaking (UU) has been received (dated 8 January 2018). The Council has raised no comments to the document and I have had regard to it in my assessment.

1 APP/A3010/W/15/3138073 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 117 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/17/3184900

Main Issues

7. The main issues are the: i) Effect of the development upon the risk of flooding; and ii) The location of the development, having regard to the principles of sustainable development.

Reasons

8. The site is an open field enclosed by residential development to the south, north and west and is bounded by hedgerows and fencing. Access to the site is adjacent to the Walkeringham Methodist Chapel, a non-designated heritage asset. There is a surface water dyke that runs alongside High Street. Walkeringham is a fairly large rural village characterised by pockets of dispersed development, and is identified as a rural service centre in the Bassetlaw District Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD (December 2011) (DPD).

Risk of flooding

9. The site is located in Flood Zone 1, yet it is susceptible to pluvial flooding. The Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy2 (FRA) indicates that the site is underlain by Brick Clay deposits of the Mercian Mudstone Group. As the ground is relatively impermeable, the surface water is and would be discharged into the existing land drainage system. The FRA proposes various methods in which the proposal could incorporate a sustainable drainage system (SuDs) that would control surface water run off close to where it falls and mimic natural drainage as closely as possible by means of attenuating the flow.

10. As the proposal is in outline form only, the exact design of these measures cannot be detailed. However, the Council’s Local Lead Flood Authority advisor stated that he had no objections to the application subject to the FRA being implemented and evidence of infiltration tests being submitted. Furthermore, the Council’s District Engineer also raised no objections, subject to a suitable SuDs.

11. I understand that since the previous Appeal Decision, the Walkeringham Flood Alleviation Scheme has been completed and is fully operational. Additionally, the number of dwellings proposed is of low density for the overall site, and having regard to the indicative layout, there would appear to be substantial areas of undeveloped garden ground. There also seems to be space for green infrastructure that could incorporate attenuation measures, such as swales or ponds.

12. Therefore, based on the evidence presented, and having carefully considered the neighbouring and parish council objections, I am satisfied that a suitable SuDs scheme could be designed that would ensure the proposal would not exacerbate existing land drainage in the village. These matters could be controlled by condition, yet I note that the UU also provides an obligation towards a satisfactory SuDS.

13. Save for the reasons for refusal, the Council have provided no further evidence regarding increases to ground level and finished floor level of the dwellings.

2 Davenport Consultancy https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 118 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/17/3184900

Given the proposal is outline only, this matter would be assessed at reserved matters stage and I have given this limited weight in my assessment.

14. Consequently, the proposal would have an acceptable effect upon flood risk and surface water drainage, compliant with Policy DM12 of the DPD. This policy seeks to ensure that existing drainage and sewerage issues are not exacerbated by new development pressures. I also find compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks to ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere; and 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, including through the planning of green infrastructure.

Location of development

15. Policy CS8 of the DPD states that any future development within a Rural Service Centre will be of a scale appropriate to the current size and role of that settlement and limited to that which will sustain local employment, community services and facilities. It also details that residential development proposals will be supported within the development boundary. Whilst the site is surrounded by development, it is located outside of the Walkeringham development boundary. Thus there is a conflict with this part of the development plan policy.

16. However, Policy CS1 of the DPD details that additional permissions may be granted where it is demonstrated to the Council’s satisfaction that a development proposal will be of benefit in addressing a shortfall in the District’s five-year housing supply.

17. The Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. In these circumstances paragraph 49 of the Framework establishes that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date. As such, a presumption in favour of sustainable development applies; and the test in the fourth bullet point of paragraph 14 of the Framework is engaged, so that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

18. The Council contend that the addition of this proposal, in combination with another development under construction in the village for 32 dwellings, would require new and existing residents to travel to other centres as Walkeringham could not sustain the increase with its existing services and facilities.

19. The Framework sets out that in order to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

20. The village is supported by services that include a public house, village hall, playground, outreach post office, an aged care facility and primary school. For a rural village, these are good facilities, and I concur with the previous Inspector that the site is relatively sustainable. Furthermore, the location of the site is central to the village, being opposite the primary school.

21. Whilst there would be a marginal increase in the population, I have been presented with very little substantive evidence why this would lead to the existing services in the village being unable to cope.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 119 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/17/3184900

22. To my mind, even in combination with other approved development, the effect of the development is unlikely to be so severe as to require residents to travel elsewhere to access services that the village already provides. Conversely, I consider that new residents would help to support the existing services and facilities, contributing towards the economic dimension of sustainability. There would also be a modest benefit to the local economy during the construction.

23. For other services and facilities, there is likely to be a need to travel. However, the DPD recognises that rural service centres do not meet all of the day-to-day needs of their communities, but provide a level of service provision above that of other rural settlements.

24. Moreover, the development would provide a contribution towards education and public open space that would help to sustain and enhance services in the village. The provision of 35% affordable housing would also be of great social benefit and would accord with Policy CS8 of the DPD.

25. Having regard to the acceptability of the proposal in terms of flood risk, and there being no harm demonstrated in relation to the effect of the proposal upon character and appearance, I also find the proposal would positively contribute towards the environmental dimension of sustainability.

26. Consequently, whilst there would be a conflict with part of Policy CS8 of the DPD; in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as I have found there to be little adverse effects, the benefits of the proposal in boosting housing supply would outweigh this conflict. Thus the proposal represents sustainable development and I find compliance with the Framework taken as a whole.

Other Matters

Unilateral Undertaking

27. The UU states that 35% of the dwellings within the proposal would be affordable, and obliges to pay an education contribution of £34,365 towards improving the primary school provision of 5 local schools, SuDs and an off-site public open space contribution of £6,492.50.

28. As set out in my reasoning above, the obligations would ensure that the development is sustainable, contributing towards both social and environmental dimensions of sustainability.

29. Therefore, based on the evidence presented, I am satisfied that the need for a planning obligation would meet the tests set out in paragraph 204 of the Framework and Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.

Others considerations

30. The Committee report notes that the significance of the Walkeringham Methodist Chapel as a non-designated heritage asset is derived from its historic and architectural interest, its aesthetic appeal, representativeness, association and its integrity. As the proposal is outline only, I agree with the Council’s Conservation Officer that the reserved matters could be designed to take account of the setting of the Chapel to ensure that its significance is not detrimentally affected.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 120 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/17/3184900

31. I have noted the lack of objection by the Highways Officer and find that the proposal would not lead to an unacceptable effect upon highway safety nor an increase in congestion or parking problems, subject to there being no vehicular access from High Street.

32. I have assessed the proposal on the basis of 14 dwellings and any increase to this number would be subject to a new planning application.

33. Foul drainage would be subject to a condition that requires details to be submitted. Details relating to the design and the appearance of dwellings, and their subsequent effect upon neighbouring living conditions are not before me. This proposal is an outline application and such matters would be assessed in the subsequent reserved matters application.

34. I have little evidence that there is a limited broadband, water, gas or electricity supply, little capacity at the doctor’s surgery or that there is an unavailability of local employment, and I give these matters very little weight. I note that there may be other sites in the area that residents would prefer to see developed, however, I have assessed the proposal on its own merits.

35. Construction noise and traffic would be temporary, and the Council could require a construction method statement to be submitted by condition following approval of the reserved matters or indeed these matters could be presented at reserved matters.

36. Given my findings above, I have had little regard to the Land Availability Assessment. The Walkeringham Neighbourhood Plan has not been drafted and I have also given this matter very limited weight in my assessment.

Conditions

37. In order to avoid the risk of contamination and ensure that the site is safe, a ground assessment of the site is necessary, and dependent upon the results of the site investigations, remediation and validation of remediation would also be required. To ensure the proposal poses no risks to protected species a survey and, if required mitigation, would also be necessary. Conditions 4, 5 and 6 are required to be pre-commencement conditions as it is fundamental that these details are provided before any development commences.

38. A scheme for the SuDs is required, along with details for the disposal of sewage in order that the site is drained in a satisfactory manner.

39. A condition regarding the timing of site clearance is necessary in order to protect nesting birds.

40. To avoid vehicular conflict on High Street with the junction of Mill Baulk Road opposite and traffic associated with Walkeringham Primary School, vehicular access should be limited to North Moor Drive.

41. The hedges and tress on the boundary of the site should be retained in the interests of visual amenity.

42. I have not included a condition regarding landscaping being implemented as this matter can be assessed and conditioned as necessary at the reserved matters stage.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 121 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/17/3184900

Conclusion

43. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

Katie McDonald

INSPECTOR

Schedule of Conditions 1) Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved. 2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than 3 years from the date of this permission. 3) The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. 4) No development shall commence until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This assessment must be undertaken by a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner, in accordance with British Standard BS 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice and the Environment Agency’s Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR 11) (or equivalent British Standard and Model Procedures if replaced), and shall assess any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The assessment shall include: i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; ii) the potential risks to:  human health;  property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes;  adjoining land;  ground waters and surface waters;  ecological systems; and  archaeological sites and ancient monuments. 5) No development shall take place where (following the risk assessment) land affected by contamination is found which poses risks identified as unacceptable in the risk assessment, until a detailed remediation scheme shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include an appraisal of remediation options, identification of the preferred option(s), the proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, and a description and programme of the works to be undertaken including the verification plan. The remediation scheme shall be sufficiently detailed and thorough to

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6 122 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/17/3184900

ensure that upon completion the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to its intended use. If required, the approved remediation scheme shall be carried out and upon completion a verification report by a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is occupied. 6) No development shall commence until an ecological survey has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The survey shall be carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist to establish whether or not any protected species of mammal, reptile or bat are present within the site. If the survey results confirm that protected species are present, prior to the commencement of any development details of working design, method and timetable to mitigate undue disturbance to the protected species (the ‘mitigation measures’) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved mitigation measures shall be implemented. 7) No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until surface water drainage works shall have been implemented in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The sustainable drainage scheme shall: i) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; ii) include a timetable for its implementation; and, iii) provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. 8) None of the dwellings hereby permitted shall be occupied until works for the disposal of sewage shall have been provided on the site to serve the development hereby permitted, in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 9) All site clearance work shall be undertaken outside the bird-breeding season (March - September inclusive). If clearance works are to be carried out during this time, prior to the commencement of any development, a scheme regarding the method and specification of clearance shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Clearance works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. 10) There shall be no vehicular access to High Street. 11) The existing trees and hedges on the boundaries of the application site shall be retained.

End of Schedule

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7 123 124

Costs Decision Site visit made on 9 January 2018 by Katie McDonald MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26th January 2018

Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/A3010/W/17/3184900 Land and properties at High Street, Walkeringham DN10 4LJ  The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).  The application is made by Mr & Mrs Hearn for a full award of costs against Bassetlaw District Council.  The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for development originally described as the residential development of land at High Street, Walkeringham.

Decision

1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below. Reasons

2. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that costs may be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.

3. Local planning authorities are at risk of an award of costs if they behave unreasonably with respect to the substance of the matter under appeal, for example, by unreasonably refusing or failing to determine planning applications, or by unreasonably defending appeals.

4. The applicant submits that the Council have acted unreasonably by refusing the proposal without having adequate planning grounds to do so.

5. The Council’s Planning Committee refused planning permission contrary to officer recommendation. While the Council is not duty bound to follow its officer’s recommendations, if a different decision is reached the Council must clearly demonstrate on planning grounds why a proposal is unacceptable and substantiate that reasoning.

6. Furthermore, as the Council does not have a 5 year housing land supply, paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework would have required them to have demonstrated why any adverse impacts of granting planning permission would have significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits.

7. The reasons for refusal are long but they do describe the Council’s concerns and the relevant development plan policies are set out. However, in their submissions, save for repeating the reasons for refusal, the Council does not provide any objective analysis or evidence on planning grounds to substantiate the asserted planning harm on both of the reasons for refusal. Furthermore,

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 125 Costs Decision APP/A3010/W/17/3184900

whilst they do loosely apply the ‘tilted’ balance under paragraph 14 of the Framework their reasoning is also unsupported by any objective analysis.

8. I also find that the the matters raised in the previous Appeal Decision1 at the site for a similar development have been adequately addressed within this proposal, by addressing the flood risk and providing affordable housing.

9. Given my findings on the appeal, I have taken little account of the Land Availability Assessment as nothing turned on this matter.

10. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has been demonstrated and that a full award of costs is justified.

Costs Order

11. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Bassetlaw District Council shall pay to Mr & Mrs Hearn, the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this; such costs to be assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed.

12. The applicant is now invited to submit to Bassetlaw District Council, to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount.

Katie McDonald

INSPECTOR

1 APP/A3010/W/15/3138073

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 126 BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL INDEX FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE 7.2.2018 ______

No. Ref No. Applicant Location and Recommendation Description

A1 17/01353/HSE Mr. D Reed Retention of first floor rear Grant retrospective extension planning permission pages 129 - 134 136 Potter Street, Worksop

A2 16/01676/VP08 c/o Rapleys Application to modify Grant modifications LLP Planning obligation and subsequent deed of variation under Ref. pages 135 - 144 02/09/00033

Former Vesuvius Works, Sandy Lane, Worksop

A3 17/01652/VOC c/o Rapleys Application to vary Grant subject to LLP condition 9 of planning conditions approval under Ref. 02/09/00033 pages 145 - 152 Former Vesuvius Works, Sandy Lane, Worksop

127 128 ITEM SUBJECT OF A SITE VISIT

Item No: a1

Application No: 17/01353/HSE Application Type: Full Planning Permission

Proposal Retain First Floor Rear Extension Location 136 Potter Street, Worksop, Nottinghamshire

Recommendation: Grant with Conditions

Case Officer: David Askwith

Web Link: http://publicaccess.bassetlaw.gov.uk/onlineapplications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=first Page

THE APPLICATION

The application site lies within the development boundary of Worksop, as defined in the Core Strategy, and within the Worksop Conservation Area. The application seeks retrospective planning permission to retain a first floor rear extension on one of a small terrace of properties fronting onto Potter Street, number 136. There are listed buildings in the vicinity of the application site including Priory Gatehouse (grade I) and the Prior Cross (grade II) to the north east of the site.

The proposed rear extension is over the existing ground floor rear projection, across the full width of the property, and has a flat roof construction with brick walls to the flanks and a weather board finish to the south facing elevation with a centrally positioned white upvc window. The extension enables the formation of an additional bedroom.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Part 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that the Government is committed to securing sustainable economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity. It also reinforces the position that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Part 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to ensure good design. Part 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to ensure that the historic environment is conserved and enhanced.

Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that all major development proposals will need to demonstrate that they make clear functional and physical links with the existing settlement and surrounding area; complement and enhance the character of the built, historic and natural environment; are of a scale appropriate to the existing settlement and surrounding area and provide a qualitative improvement to the existing range of houses, services, facilities and open space.

Policy DM8 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that the historic environment shall be protected and enhanced to secure its long term future and that any development that would be detrimental to the significance of the heritage asset or its setting, will not be supported.

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\7TH FEBRUARY\A1 COMMITTEE REPORT POTTER STREET.DOC

129 This is reiterated in paragraph 132 of Part 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that any harm or loss to heritage assets should require clear and convincing justification.

Supplementary Planning Documents Successful Places – Guide to housing layout and design (2013)

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

There is no recent relevant planning application history associated with the site.

RESPONSES OF STATUTORY BODIES

BASSETLAW CONSERVATION has commented as follows:-

136 Potter Street is within the Worksop Conservation Area (last designated 6th April, 2011) and is within the setting of several listed buildings (including the Priory Gatehouse, grade I, and the Priory Cross, grade II). The proposal is for the retention of an extension on the rear of No. 136. The structure is well screened from view from the road and the majority is not visible. On this basis, it is considered that there is no impact on the character of the Conservation Area nor on the setting of nearby listed buildings. Therefore, Conservation has no concerns.

In reaching these views, I have had regard to Sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, policy DM8 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy, Section 12 of the NPPF and guidance contained in the Worksop Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan.

Copies of the above comments are available for inspection either on the Council’s web page or in the Council offices.

OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED

One LETTER OF OBJECTION has been received from a local resident, summarised as follows:-

1. A sewer pipe has been installed on my property 2. The entry into the shared manhole is incorrect 3. A window is still not blocked up 4. Interconnecting door not properly sealed up 5. No tie bars or footings, insufficient footings 6. A section of my roof has been removed causing damage 7. Access right has been refused 8. Solid gable wall built is cracking 9. Applicant refused to show me his plans 10. Concerned about cavalier attitude to work undertaken 11. Eye-soar in conservation area, poor construction

One LETTER OF OBJECTION has been received from a concerned party, summarised as follows:-

1. Following a recent visit, the renovation is an eye-soar 2. Unsuitable extension, not I keeping with area

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\7TH FEBRUARY\A1 COMMITTEE REPORT POTTER STREET.DOC

130 3. Does not look safe, should be single storey 4. Not sympathetic to original building

Site Notice Posted Date: 26th October, 2017 Press Notice Date Published: 3rd November, 2017 Letter to Consultees Date Sent: 20th October, 2017 Letter to Neighbours Date Sent: 20th October, 2017

Copies of all the above comments are available for inspection either on the Council’s web page or in the Council offices.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SCREENING

The proposal does not fall into any of the categories of development contained in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 of the Town & Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2011 defined as requiring EIA Screening.

CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ISSUES

The main issues to be considered when determining this application are the requirements of national and local planning policies, the impact on the character and appearance of the area and heritage matters and the impact on the residential amenity of adjacent residents.

Principle of Development

The extension is located on the rear, south facing elevation of the property and is a flat roof rear addition over the existing ground floor projection to form an additional bedroom. Notwithstanding the flat roof construction, the facing materials to the flank walls and the rear elevation are considered to be acceptable in this location and appropriate to the building. Given that the extension is not readily visible from the main road, Potter Street, it is considered that the flat roof, whilst pedestrian in design, would not be so detrimental to the appearance of the extension or the locality that it would be reasonable or expedient to refuse planning permission in this instance. The structure is well screened from view from the road and the Conservation Officer has not raised any conservation concerns.

Overall, on balance, it is considered that the proposed development would not sufficiently conflict with policies DM4 and DM8 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework and Parts 7 and 12 of the NPPF to the extent that a refusal of retrospective planning permission could be warranted.

Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area and Heritage Matters

The extension is located on the rear of the property, over the existing ground floor projection. The extension is not readily visible from the main road, Potter Street, and therefore cannot be viewed in association with the nearby listed buildings at the Priory. Given that the structure is well screened from view from the road and the majority is not visible, the Conservation Officer has not raised any conservation concerns and has formed the view that it is considered that there is no adverse impact on the character of the Conservation Area or on the setting of nearby listed buildings. The local context is essentially residential in nature and therefore it is considered that there would be no adverse impact on the overall character and appearance of the area.

Impact on Residential Amenity

With regard to the impact on the residential amenity of existing residents, it is considered that the

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\7TH FEBRUARY\A1 COMMITTEE REPORT POTTER STREET.DOC

131 relationships with the existing dwellings either side would be acceptable, given that the extension projects no further rearward than the existing ground floor rear elevation and would not result in an adverse impact on residential amenity. There are no first floor windows proposed in the flank walls.

The objections of the local resident are noted, however, the majority of the issues relate to matters of dispute between neighbours which are civil not planning matters. The Enforcement Officer has reported the alleged building control issues to the Council’s Building Control Unit.

Visual Amenity

The location on the rear elevation is well screened from view from the road and consequently it is considered that there is no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. On balance, notwithstanding the flat roof construction, it is not considered that the extension would not significantly adversely affect the visual amenity of the locality such that a refusal of planning permission could be justified in this instance.

Financial Implications

The Community Infrastructure Levy would not apply to this development.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission unconditionally to retain the development

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\7TH FEBRUARY\A1 COMMITTEE REPORT POTTER STREET.DOC

132 133 134 ITEM SUBJECT OF A SITE VISIT

Item No: a2

Application No: 17/01676\VP08 Application Type: Modify S.106 Agreement

Proposal Application to Modify Planning Obligation and Subsequent Deed of Variation under Planning Application 02/09/00033 Location Former Vesuvius UK Works, Sandy Lane, Worksop Recommendation: Grant planning permission

Case Officer: David Askwith

Web Link: http://publicaccess.bassetlaw.gov.uk/onlineapplications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0WMWRCS00400

THE APPLICATION

This application is presented to Planning Committee in accordance with the constitutional delegated authority of the Head of Service as being in the public interest.

The application site lies within the development boundary of Worksop, as defined in the Core Strategy, and is located to the northwest of Worksop Town Centre and is the site of the former Vesuvius Works, which is currently vacant. The site lies within a generally industrial area to the north of the Chesterfield Canal.

The applicant seeks to vary the S.106 agreement dated 25th February, 2014 (and the subsequent Deed of Variation dated 24th March, 2014) and the Unilateral Undertaking dated 24th February, 2014 which accompanied application reference 02\09\00033 which was granted on appeal on 27th March, 2014.

The variation sought in respect of the S.106 agreement is in three parts:-

1. Changes to the Bus Service and Integrated Transport Measures Contribution 2. The reduction of the Community Recreational Sum 3. Variation of the timing of the transfer of the existing safeguarded community facilities land

The variation sought in respect of the Unilateral Undertaking is to remove the obligation altogether.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Policy CS1 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that the distribution of new development in Bassetlaw, over the period covered by the Core Strategy, will be in accordance with the aims of the settlement hierarchy to ensure that the scale of new development is appropriate in relation to the size, function and regeneration opportunities of each tier. With regard to employment, in addition to new allocations, strong support will continue to be given to new opportunities that arise on suitable existing employment sites and other suitable locations across the District.

Policy CS2 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that at least 45% of the District's employment land needs will be delivered in Worksop through existing planning permissions and allocations for the plan period. Economic development proposals will be supported within the Development Boundary, in line with other material considerations and planning policy requirements.

Policy DM9 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that development proposals will be expected to support the Council's strategic approach to the delivery, protection and enhancement of multi-functional green infrastructure. Development proposals will be expected to take opportunities to restore or enhance habitats and species' populations and to demonstrate that they will not adversely affect or result in the loss of features of recognised importance. New development proposals in and adjoining the countryside will be expected to be designed so as to be sensitive to their landscape setting.

Policy DM13 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that development proposals will be expected to minimise the need to travel by car, provide linkages or develop new footways, cycle paths and bridleways giving access to key local facilities and provide appropriate facilities to support access to high quality public transport.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

02\08\00321 - December, 2008 – Planning permission was granted for a junction improvement to provide access to a major regeneration site.

October, 2009 – Planning permission was granted to change the use of land for car sales, washing, valeting, storage and siting of 4 shipping containers for a temporary period of 18 months (part of frontage).

02\09\00033 - January, 2010 – Outline planning permission was refused for a mixed use regeneration including offices, light industry, storage \ distribution, food store, hotel, restaurant, petrol filling station and safeguarded community sports land. A subsequent appeal was dismissed in February, 2011, following a public inquiry and that decision, by the Secretary of State, was the subject of a subsequent Judicial Review. The outcome was that the public inquiry was re-opened in February, 2014. In March, 2014, the Secretary of State allowed the appeal and granted outline planning permission which provided for 6,503 sqm of Class A1 retail floor space, under the Council’s reference 02\09\00033.

02\11\00337 - November, 2011 – Planning permission granted for junction improvement to provide access to major regeneration site (renewal).

02\12\00141 - March, 2012 – Planning permission granted for proposed signalised site access junction to include signalisation of Shireoaks Road.

13\00825\FUL - September, 2013 – Planning permission granted for junction improvement to provide access to major regeneration site (development previously permitted under PA 02\11\00337 and 02\08\00321).

136 02\99\00199\R - March, 2014 – Outline planning permission was granted subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement for mixed use regeneration including offices, light industry, storage\distribution, food store, petrol filling station and safeguarded community sports land (re-submission of PA 02\09\00033). The application provided for 5,500 sqm of Class A1 retail floor space under the Council’s reference 02\99\00199\R.

13\01324\OUT - March, 2014 – Outline planning permission was granted subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement for the erection of 1,003 sqm of Class A1 retail floor space and associated car parking spaces, under the Council’s reference 13\01324\OUT.

14\00158\RES – April, 2014 – Approval of reserved matters granted for Reserved Matters Following Outline P/A 02/11/00199/R. Development of 5,500 sqm Class A1 Retail Floor Space with Associated Parking, External Works and Landscaping and Details of Petrol Filling Station and All Associated Works

14\00159\RES – April, 2014 - Approval of reserved matters granted for Erection of 1,003 sqm of Class A1 Retail Floorspace and Associated Car Parking Spaces (Approval of Matters Reserved Under P.A. 13/01324/OUT)

14\00365\RES - April, 2014 - Approval of reserved matters granted for Reserved Matters Application Following Outline Permission P/A 02/09/00033 For Development of 6,503 sqm of Class A1 (Foodstore) Retail Floorspace With Associated Parking And Servicing, Petrol Filling Station, Associated Highways And External Works, And Landscaping

17\00423\FUL – May, 2017 – Planning permission granted for Junction Improvement to Provide Access to Major Regeneration Site (Renewal of Planning Application Ref: 13/00825/FUL)

17\00420\RES – May, 2017 – Granted approval of reserved matters for the Approval of Access (Roundabout Scheme) following Outline Application 02/09/00033 - Mixed Use Regeneration Including Offices, Light Industry, Storage/ Distribution, Food Store, Hotel, Restaurants, Petrol Filling Station and Safeguarded Community Sports Land

RESPONSES OF STATUTORY BODIES

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS has no objection to the proposed amendments to the S.106 legal agreement as follows:–

Clause 1.2 First Schedule currently states:-

Three months prior to the date given in the notice referred to in paragraph 1.1 of this Schedule for first occupation to pay the Council the initial payment of the Bus Service Contribution being £160,000.

The proposed amendment to Clause 1.2 First Schedule is as follows:

Within eighteen months of the date given in the notice referred to in paragraph 1.1 of this schedule or the Asda store opening for trade, which ever is the earlier, pay to the Council the initial payment of the Bus Service Contribution being up to £160,000.00.

Clause 4 Second Schedule currently states:–

To produce a set of detailed proposals in conjunction with Nottinghamshire County Council and the Bus Operator designed to deliver the Bus Service within two months of the receipt of the notice referred to in paragraph 1.1 of the First Schedule.

137

The proposed amendment to Clause 4 Second Schedule is as follows:

To produce a set of detailed proposals in conjunction with Nottinghamshire County Council and the Bus Operator designed to deliver the Bus Service six months prior to the date in the notice referred to in paragraph1.1 of the First Schedule – where the date in the notice is the date of the store opening.

BDC Parks Development Officer has commented as follows:-

A sum of £347,311.79 has been calculated that would upon transfer of the land to the council allow for the provision of a natural playing pitch surface and basic land maintenance for a period of 60 years.

BDC Solicitor has no specific legal comments to make.

Cllr Pressley has objected, requested referral to committee and commented as follows:-

I wish to object to the above application to reduce the Section 106 Payments for the Bus Service Contribution, the Intergrated Transport Contribution and the Community Recreational Funding. I have not seen any reason why these contributions cannot be made as this development will be profitable to all concerned and the payments will enhance the facilities for Bassetlaw Residents. These payments were agreed at the start of the process and should be adhered too as we have to live with this development ad infinitum. These payments will make a difference to the facilities of young and old for a generation as the development will make income for a generation as well. I also request that this Application is referred to the full Planning Committee because of the public interest and it will allow speakers to comment before any decision is made.

A copy of these comments is available for inspection either on the Council's web page or in the Council Offices.

Site Notice Posted Date: 14th December, 2017 Press Notice Date Published: 22nd December, 2017 Letter to Consultees Date Sent: 14th December, 2017 Letter to Neighbours Date Sent: N\A

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SCREENING

The proposal does not fall into any of the categories of development contained in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 of the Town & Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2017 defined as requiring EIA Screening. CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ISSUES

The main issues to be considered when determining this application are the requirements of the original S.106 planning obligations, the changes in circumstances and current national and local planning policies.

Proposal

138

The variation sought in respect of the S.106 agreement is in three parts:-

The variation sought in respect of the Unilateral Undertaking is to remove the obligation altogether. The Obligation dealt with the principle of any cost savings relative to the infrastructure \ remediation of the Phase 1 works to be used to open up and remediate Phase 2 where the total costs of all such works do not exceed £6,000,000.

Following a meeting with the developer and agent seeking further information and clarification on the amendments, an Addendum Report was submitted.

Rapleys prepared an Addendum Report which introduces a number of amendments to the Variation that they are now seeking –

(i) The revised timing of delivery of the community facilities and an alternative commuted sum; (ii) The provision of physical measures in lieu of a financial payment for Integrated Transport, and (iii) The revised timing of the bus service provision.

Community Facilities:- The developer considered at the time of the appeal in 2014, that an argument could be made to retain the existing but unused pitches in the northern part of the Vesuvius site. This was on the basis of deficiency of provision, despite the fact that the pitches were in private ownership and not readily accessible to the general public. Consequently, the S106 Agreement of 25th February 2014 and subsequent Deed of Variation of 24th March 2014, effectively handed over the pitches to the Council for use as a public facility, together with a commuted sum of £800,000 to assist with its establishment and maintenance. That sum was submitted willingly by the applicants at that time who considered it a sufficient quantum towards procuring the Community Facilities, the need for which directly arose from the development and this was supported by the Parks and Open Spaces Team. There were no proposals for any form of built form on the land.

The proposal now before the Council - (i) Continues to provide the 1.9ha of land transferred to the Council for use as a community facility, (ii) Proposes a commuted sum of £347,311.79 for a 60 year maintenance package, and (iii) As part of the overall principle, delays the provision and payment of this to commencement of development of Phase 2.

In broad terms, the changes sought are as a consequence of the financial burden and dynamics of the Asda contract which have altered since the original grant of planning permission in 2014. It is important to emphasise that whilst this is a viability consideration for the applicants, what is being considered as a consequence of the revised application, is compliance with local and national planning policy and what are the policy asks that can be sought today.

The developer considers that the amendments sought satisfy policy DM9 of the Bassetlaw District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD of December 2011 which seeks the provision of on-site open/space and/or sports facilities, as well as providing a contribution for the re-establishment of the facility and its ongoing maintenance.

139 Notwithstanding the request to delay the provision of the facility and the payment to Phase 2 rather than Phase 1, the developer has stated that the Council can be assured that the Obligation as now sought will be honored.

Bus Service Contribution:-

The proposed amendment seeks to provide the opportunity for the applicant and Nottinghamshire County Council to review the current bus service provision locally including recent changes to services and to identify a more cost effective investment return on potential bus service enhancements serving the site that better reflects the foodstore operation trip patterns and delivery timetable for the on-site infrastructure. It is proposed to amend the relevant S106 clauses to introduce flexibility on the contribution figure, for example an existing service can be extended rather than the establishment of a new service and this could prove more cost effective, and the timing point for determining and providing any such detailed proposals for enhancement.

Amending the timing point within the S106 will also align better with the contractual obligations between Dooba and Asda that requires Dooba to extend the Estate Road to include and construct a turning area or roundabout suitable for buses using the estate road within two years from the date the Asda development is open for trade.

To account undertaking a review of bus services the following amendments to the S106 Bus Service Contribution are proposed with the amendments underlined:

‘Bus Service Contribution’ – Definitions –

Means an initial payment of up to £160,000 (one hundred and sixty thousand pounds) and then subsequent payments are required to procure the Bus Service of up to £160,000.00 per annum to be paid to the Council by the Owner for a period of up to four years (for the avoidance of doubt this will involve up to 5 payments in total) in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of the First Schedule and to be used by the Council in consultation with Nottinghamshire County Council and the Bus Operator of the Bus Service the need for which is generated by the Development;

Clause 1.2 of the First Schedule is amended to:

Clause 4 of the second schedule is amended to:

Integrated Transport Measures:-

The amendments sought are to replace the £96,680 integrated transport measures contribution, which was introduced by the County to promote the sustainability of the site and offer more access than by private motor vehicle users. Specific measures are proposed to enhance sustainable transport mode linkages between the application site and the surrounding transport network. The amended measures proposed are physical rather than monetary and include:

(i) Introduction of bus shelters and real time passenger information at the two nearest bus stops on Sandy Lane.

140 (ii) Introduction of a new more direct link between the existing bus stops and the foodstore site. (iii) Improvements to the linkages between the application site and the National cycle Route 6 (Towpath) through extension of the shared footway/cycleway on Shireoaks Road to provide a continuous off carriageway connection to the bridge over the canal.

(iv) An audit of the National Cycleway Route 6 including the tow path was carried out on Tuesday 19 December 2017. An opportunity to implement an improved way finding signage scheme has been identified between the application site and Worksop Town Centre along National Cycle Route 6. The scheme will promote and encourage greater use of the towpath.

Principle The application site lies within the development boundary of Worksop on the edge of a large local centre. There is an existing outline planning permission and reserved matters approval for the development of this site which presents an opportunity to deliver a new retail facility in line with the Council’s aspirations for the regeneration and growth of Worksop. The granting of outline planning permission subject to S.106 agreement and Unilateral Undertaking by the Secretary of State on appeal in March, 2014, established the principle of a retail food store development of 6,503 sqm in total. The delivery of the scheme is essentially split into two phases:-

Phase 1 being the main access roundabout , the main estate road into the site, the foodstore, parking, landscaping and petrol filling station; Phase 2 being the remainder of the site to the west to the west of the estate road consisting of the employment uses

The proposed variations to the S.106 agreement are as a result of a change to the material set of circumstances that existed at the time of the appeal in 2013\2014 in relation to planning policy, market changes and deliverability.

The proposed variations to the Unilateral Undertaking are as a result of changes in circumstances that existed at the time of the appeal in 2013\2014 in relation to a renegotiated purchase price by Asda as a result of changing market conditions, variations in the costs of services, resources and materials and the need to accommodate utility installations in the location of the new access roundabout.

The NPPF advises that local planning authorities should take account of changes in market conditions over time and, wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled. The developer is arguing that the Unilateral Undertaking is no longer fit for purpose in that it is not necessary or related in scale and kind to the development proposal and should be removed in its entirety.

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed variations are acceptable in principle.

Visual Amenity The site is currently vacant and has been cleared of buildings. The granting of the outline planning permission and the previous reserved matters applications provides details of layout of the site and the scale of the retail store.

Residential Amenity There are no residential properties in the immediate vicinity of the application site.

141 Highways Matters The County Highway Authority has commented that the payment of the bus service contribution should coincide with the store opening and has suggested a shorter timescale of 6 months prior to the store opening rather than 12 months. There is an existing bus service provision that links the site with the town centre. The bus service in to the site only needs to be there when the store opens and therefore there may not be the need for full sum as originally envisaged. The existing bus service provision could be diverted in to the site which means that a lesser contribution may be required to support the bus service rather than procure a bus service, hence the proposed change to the wording to read up to the previously agreed amount. Therefore, having regard to the proposed integrated transport measures, the proposal achieves the same ambition as the original ask set out in the S.106 legal agreement. The proposed amendments also ensure better alignment with the National Planning Policy Framework, paragraphs 32, 173 and 204.

Open Space The Council’s Parks Development Officer has raised no objections to the proposed changes to the reduced commuted sum of £347,311.79 rather than £800,000 and the delay in the provision and payment of this to the commencement of development of Phase 2. The original sum of £800,000 was agreed at the Public Inquiry and would have been based on the financial position at that time rather than the renegotiated purchase price by Asda based on the changed market conditions since the appeal. Moreover, the Councils current policy is based on a lifetime contribution (60 year) maintenance of land and given that at this time there is no evidenced need for additional play pitches in the Worksop area, this maintenance obligation is the justifiable approach.

Economic Development The granting of outline planning permission has established the principle of development and the reserved matters proposal for the retail store presents an opportunity to deliver employment generating development in Worksop

CIL Contributions

CIL charge not liable, as this application is seeking amendments to obligations only and not the principle development form.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the application site lies within the development boundary of Worksop, as identified in the Core Strategy, and there is an existing planning permission for the overall re-development and regeneration of the site. As such, the principle of development on this site is acceptable, the proposed new roundabout junction has planning permission and the Council’s stated aspirations are for regeneration and growth.

The proposed changes to the S.106 legal agreement and the Unilateral Undertaking seek to ensure the deliverability of the proposed development in light of changes in circumstances since the appeal in 2013\2014, current planning policy, market changes and the renegotiated purchase price by Asda.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission to modify the S.106 planning obligation and subsequent deed of variation under PA 02\09\00033 as detailed above.

142 143 144 ITEM SUBJECT OF A SITE VISIT

Item No: a3

Application No: 17/01652\VOC Application Type: Variation of condition

Proposal Variation of Condition 9 on P/A 02/09/00033 (APP/A3010/A/10/21244580) - Mixed Use Regeneration Including Offices, Light Industry, Storage/Distribution, Food Store, Hotel, Restaurants, Petrol Filling Station and Safeguarded Community Sport Land Location Former Vesuvius UK Works, Sandy Lane, Worksop Recommendation: Grant planning permission

Case Officer: David Askwith

Web Link: http://publicaccess.bassetlaw.gov.uk/onlineapplications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P0SN1ACSL3F00

THE APPLICATION

The granting of outline planning permission subject to S.106 agreement and Unilateral Undertaking by the Secretary of State on appeal in March, 2014, established the principle of a retail food store development of 6,503 sqm in total. The outline planning permission was granted subject to conditions, condition 9 currently reads as follows:-

‘No development shall take place until a scheme for construction of a new junction at Sandy Lane and Shireoaks Road and a road extending to the playing field has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The junction and road shall be designed to a capacity to serve all the development hereby permitted and shall be constructed prior to the first opening of the foodstore to customers’.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\7TH FEBRUARY\A3 COMMITTEE REPORT VESUVIUS 1701652VOC.DOC Policy CS2 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that at least 45% of the District's employment land needs will be delivered in Worksop through existing planning permissions and allocations for the plan period. Economic development proposals will be supported within the Development Boundary, in line with other material considerations and planning policy requirements.

Policy DM7 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Management Polices DPD states that support will be given to economic development proposals if: they can harness the educational research potential of North Notts College; and/or guarantee employment programmes for local residents; and/or deliver, or contribute to, opportunities for growth of indigenous business; and or bring inward investment opportunities to Bassetlaw; and/or support and utilise growth opportunities in connection with Robin Hood Airport.

Policy DM12 'Flood Risk, Sewerage and Drainage' of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Management Polices DPD indicates that all new development will be required to incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) and provide details of adoption, ongoing maintenance and management unless other key factors show them not to be technically feasible.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

02\08\00321 - December, 2008 – Planning permission was granted for a junction improvement to provide access to a major regeneration site.

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\7TH FEBRUARY\A3 COMMITTEE REPORT VESUVIUS 1701652VOC.DOC

146

02\11\00337 - November, 2011 – Planning permission granted for junction improvement to provide access to major regeneration site (renewal).

02\12\00141 - March, 2012 – Planning permission granted for proposed signalised site access junction to include signalisation of Shireoaks Road.

02\99\00199\R - March, 2014 – Outline planning permission was granted subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement for mixed use regeneration including offices, light industry, storage\distribution, food store, petrol filling station and safeguarded community sports land (re-submission of PA 02\09\00033). The application provided for 5,500 sqm of Class A1 retail floor space under the Council’s reference 02\99\00199\R.

17\00423\FUL – May, 2017 – Planning permission granted for Junction Improvement to Provide Access to Major Regeneration Site (Renewal of Planning Application Ref: 13/00825/FUL)

RESPONSES OF STATUTORY BODIES

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS has commented as follows:–

I can confirm that I am happy with the amended wording. I presume the junction to which the condition refers is as already approved. I’ll leave it to Bassetlaw to decide whether they are happy with the length of the road in terms of its ability to serve the community land. Cllr Pressley – has objected to the application, commenting as follows:-

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\7TH FEBRUARY\A3 COMMITTEE REPORT VESUVIUS 1701652VOC.DOC

147 I wish to object to the above application, which wants to change the application for the road which serves the development. This I believe is to vary the S.106 agreement as the road serving the community land will not be constructed before the rest of the development proceeds. I submit that the road should be constructed as originally agreed as this variation is to save money on the development as is the S.106 change.

A copy of these comments is available for inspection either on the Council's web page or in the Council Offices.

Site Notice Posted Date: 21st December, 2017 Press Notice Date Published: 5th January, 2018 Letter to Consultees Date Sent: 20th December, 2017 Letter to Neighbours Date Sent: 20th December, 2017

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SCREENING

The proposal does not fall into any of the categories of development contained in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 of the Town & Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2017 defined as requiring EIA Screening.

CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ISSUES

The main issues to be considered when determining this application are the requirements of the original planning permission, the changes in circumstances and current national and local planning policies.

The Proposal

The applicant’s agent has stated that the estate road and the foodstore go hand-in-hand as the store cannot open to the public without the road, or the part of the road also being operational. However, in order to open the store, it is not necessary for the estate road to be constructed all the way to the playing field. In order to access the foodstore, approximately two thirds of the estate road actually needs to be constructed. They therefore consider that the estate road only needs to be constructed to a few metres north of the foodstore access spur road and consequently seek the variation to the wording of condition 9, as underlined, as follows:-

‘No development shall take place until a scheme for construction of a new junction at Sandy Lane and Shireoaks Road and a road extending to the playing field has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The junction and road shall be designed to a capacity to serve all the development hereby permitted and shall be constructed as far as, and including, the foodstore service yard access prior to the first opening of the foodstore to customers’.

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\7TH FEBRUARY\A3 COMMITTEE REPORT VESUVIUS 1701652VOC.DOC

148

The applicant’s agent has stated that the principle reasons for the amendment are firstly, to reduce the immediate costs of the overall delivery of the initial site infrastructure and, secondly, to ensure the timely delivery of the essential parts of the infrastructure necessary for the opening of the foodstore, the delivery of which is the key element of the first development phase of the project.

They have also stated that this application is an integral part of the wider development involving major redevelopment and regeneration of the site, and therefore is in the wider community that the development proceeds and that the amendment is approved.

Principle

The request for the proposed variation to the requirements of condition 9 have come about as a result of changes in circumstances that existed at the time of the appeal in 2013\2014 in relation to a renegotiated purchase price by Asda and market changes. The applicant is seeking to ensure the deliverability of the proposed development in light of changes in circumstances since the appeal in 2013\2014.

The shortening of the originally proposed estate road would reflect a phased development, phase 1 being the main access roundabout , the main estate road into the site, the foodstore, parking, landscaping and petrol filling station and phase 2 being the remainder of the site and the completion of the estate road. As such, in light of the changed circumstances, it is considered that the proposed variation to the wording of condition 9 is acceptable in principle.

Highways Matters The County Highway Authority has commented that they are happy with the proposed amended wording of condition 9 of PA 02\09\00033.

CIL Contributions

CIL charge not liable.

Conclusion

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\7TH FEBRUARY\A3 COMMITTEE REPORT VESUVIUS 1701652VOC.DOC

149 The proposed amended wording of condition 9 has come about as a result of changes in circumstances that existed at the time of the appeal in 2013\2014 in relation to a renegotiated purchase price by Asda and market changes. The NPPF advises that local planning authorities should take account of changes in market conditions over time and, wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled. It is considered that the proposed variation would assist in the deliverability of the proposed development on a phased basis.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission to vary the wording of condition 9 of PA 02\09\00033 as detailed above.

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\7TH FEBRUARY\A3 COMMITTEE REPORT VESUVIUS 1701652VOC.DOC

150 151 152 Agenda Item No.6(d) BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE 7 February 2018

DISCUSSION PAPER ON PLANNING PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS (PPAs) AND NEED TO PUBLIC PPA CHARTER AND RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT DRAFT PPA CHARTER

Cabinet Member: Regeneration Contact: Myles Joyce Ext: 3259

1.0 Public Interest Test

1.1 The author of this report, Myles Joyce has determined that this report is not confidential.

2.0 Purpose of the Report

2.1 To provide Members with a background report into the need to publish a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) Charter to inform and assist applicants and developers who may wish to avail themselves of this voluntary services for a managed procedure for a major development scheme which will be for the mutual benefit of both the Local Planning Authority and the customer.

3.0 Background and Discussions

3.1 Under Section 93 of the Local Authorities Act 2003, councils can make a charge for providing discretionary services such as pre-application advice. The charges should be clear and calculated transparently.

3.2 The charge for pre-application advice is separate from the planning application fee, which is set by regulation and designed to meet the council’s costs when considering the application. Where the PPA is a means of project managing the planning application, a council should only make an additional charge for work that goes beyond the council’s statutory duty.

3.3 Planning Performance Agreements (PPAs) were formally introduced into the planning system on 6 April 2008 and are about improving the quality of planning applications and the decision making process through collaboration. They bring together the Local Planning Authority (LPA), developer and key stakeholders, preferably at an early stage, to work together in partnership throughout the planning process. They are essentially a collaborative project management process and tool that provide greater certainty and transparency to the development of scheme

153 proposals, the planning application assessment and decision making. The potential role of PPAs has been referenced in the National Planning Policy Framework to help guide positive pre-application collaborative working.

4.0 Matters for Consideration

4.1 In 2010 The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and The Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS) commissioned Tribal Group to undertake an evaluation of Planning Performance Agreements in England. Of the local authorities that responded 95 % supported the broad concept of Planning Performance Agreements. A number of clear advantages of using the Agreements were cited by survey respondents, including: having a realistic and predictable timetable; a more efficient service; identifying key issues early on in the process; greater transparency and accountability; improved partnership working; and overall better management of the planning application process. However, there remain some barriers to take up including concerns over probity, resources, the binding nature and the complexity of the current guidance.

4.2 Another important finding was that PPAs are being and can be applied in a proportionate and streamlined way to less complex projects. This reinforces a key finding of the Killian Pretty Review in 2008 which supported PPAs but recommended that a more streamlined approach should be encouraged. This is shown in the figure below.

4.3 While a PPA could be agreed in respect of any development, for most small scale developments there would not be sufficient benefit to justify the process e.g. for development proposals where the prospective applicant is content to utilise the basic pre-application service and when the council will expect to consider and determine within the statutory period.

4.4 A PPA provides a framework suitable for significant major applications. It is a fitting tool to support pre-application discussions where the applicant expects that matters of concern will be worked through before an application is submitted. The PPA will

154 probably include milestones for the pre-application as well as for the application phases.

4.5 The agreement is likely to be between the council and the prospective applicant, although if appropriate, the timetable can set out a path for the involvement of statutory consultees, community groups and members, with the council agreeing to act as co-ordinator.

4.6 The PPA will aid project management providing a continuous framework for integrating consideration of planning, site acquisition and other regulatory regimes/permitting.

4.7 This approach facilitates phased development and post application work including permits, highway works and delivery of infrastructure. It can be adapted to set out an agreed process to include a number of participants including statutory consultees, town and parish councils, community groups and statutory consultees.

4.8 Once a broad approach has been decided it is then important to discuss and agree what should be included in a PPA document. Based on the evaluation evidence it is recommended that the following elements are included:

 key objectives (even if it is no more than a reference to appropriate policy);  the individuals responsible for undertaking tasks (the project team/s); and  a project plan setting out tasks, responsibilities and timescales.

4.9 For smaller scale and simpler development Vision is probably not necessary. Agreement of what specific objectives/policy are relevant to the particular context of the project is recommended and can identify what issues need to be addressed and resolved. For simpler projects with a limited range of tasks a task plan may not be necessary. As virtually all projects will require input from outside the town planning function and there may be particular known unresolved issues then ensuring that communication is established between the relevant parties should be addressed in the project programme. A project plan should always be provided for a PPA. However, this can be a very simple document that simply sets out the identified tasks, who is responsible for them and the target milestones.

4.10 With regard to successful and unsuccessful PPAs the table below sets out examples of how a PPA may or may not be a success.

155 4.11 From the above it is clear that a successful PPA will be clear with a clear project team structure role and responsibilities aided by efficient decision making and built in flexibility to the project so deadlines can be realistically met.

4.12 The vision for the project should identify the kind of place that the area should become in response to what is needed physically, economically and socially in the area. Development objectives should be well defined, identify performance criteria and balance aspiration with realism. Evolving the vision and objectives of the development proposal will be critical in establishing strong foundations for future project management.

4.13 The desired make-up of the applicant and LPA teams should be appropriately identified. For larger complex projects where there will be multiple issues to resolve a structure

4.14 consisting of a series of task groups reporting to a steering group is likely to be required. The members of a steering group or development team and a project manager should be identified. For the LPA, consideration should also be given to identifying a ‘project champion’, who could work across internal departments and member interests to establish corporate buy-in.

4.15 The strength of the existing policy framework should be examined to establish whether it is up to date, sound, and provides the necessary guidance and certainty. Where the policy framework is out of date there may be a need to review the policy position in tandem with handling the PPA. The depth of knowledge on all relevant social, economic, environmental and physical factors should be assessed and

156 checked for consistency and areas where further work may be required should be identified.

4.16 The planning system requires local authorities to engage communities in shaping places. To ensure that community engagement is effective and meaningful, LPAs and developers should start early, continue to communicate and ensure as many people as possible feel able to make a difference to their area.

4.17 Individual authorities will have different approaches, but for large complex development of strategic importance members should be engaged in the process. Consideration should also be given to the influence of these groups on the likely outcome of the project. Where they are critical they should be included in any steering group and involved in the inception process. The agencies and service providers should be encouraged to identify their respective objectives and evidence base.

4.18 The availability of skills and resources should be considered through an audit. If current or projected skills/resource gaps are identified, the relevant party would need to consider the options available for addressing them, including training, bringing in temporary staff or buying in other expertise and applicant funded posts.

4.19 To conclude, as with all project management approaches it is sensible to keep the content of PPAs straightforward. The guiding principle should be that the parties agree the way forward. PPAs need to be:

 agreed between the council and the applicant prior to submission and recorded in writing  signed by a duly authorised person for each party.  set out what the development comprises and the agreed milestones to define process  set out an end date for completion of the planning application – including a Section 106 agreement and section 278 obligations where applicable  encapsulate a realistic timetable assuming that all parties are working with the best of intentions to complete in the shortest time possible given the resources available.

4.20 For large strategic development the PPA may encompass the very earliest stages and include collaborative work on visioning, feasibility and developing local plan documents that support its delivery. PPAs can also cover post decision phases, such as the consideration of reserved matters and conditions if agreed between the parties.

4.21 It is important to note that although pre-application engagement and PPAs are a means of encouraging a collaborative approach to considering and resolving issues about a development, these agreements do not imply any obligation on the part of the council to approve the planning application for the proposal.

5.0 What can a Local Authority Charge?

157 5.1 Turning again to PAS guidance, in ‘Calculating the Costs of Pre-Application Services’ it notes that Councils can choose to recover the cost of pre-application work by making a charge under the s93 Local Government Act 2003 for providing a discretionary service. It sets out what LPAs should consider below:

a. When making a charge, councils must set the charge at a level that does not generate a surplus. For this reason, LPAs should review their fees regularly and compare costs and income.

b. Some councils will decide to make the advice for particular types of development exempt from charging. These exempted costs should be borne by the council and not by other users.

c. Fees should be kept as simple and transparent as possible. For many straightforward situations this will be an hourly rate x an estimate of the time that will be needed to perform the service. For the majority of pre-application transactions councils will be able to use their knowledge of how officers spend their time (timesheets or benchmark data) to work out a flat fee that is a reasonable estimate of costs.

d. Councils with a wide range of development proposals may want to offer a more differentiated offer – e.g. a different hourly rate for junior and senior staff aligned to the tiers in their offer.

e. For the elements that make up the ‘menu’ for pre-application offers on complex (level three) proposal, councils will be able to use their information of staff time taken, direct costs (such as venue hire or employment of specialist expertise) and other costs associated with the specific service to apply a standard costs for each item on the ‘menu’. This can be reflected in the charge made for a PPA.

f. Whilst the charges made for pre-application services should match costs, the amount of work required to set, communicate, monitor and review fees should be proportionate to their value. Some degree of estimation and averaging is therefore inevitable and reasonable.

g. Councils should chose a method appropriate to the service required and be prepared to vary it if required

h. To provide up-front, clarity councils should design a fee schedule that ensures that the majority of straight-forward situations are covered by the standard charges.

5.2 For the purposes of this paper all the above paragraphs can and should be considered in introducing a bespoke paid for PPA service with the onus on up-front payment for these services. PAS advises that Councils may want to pick a single average rate, or more than one to reflect the degrees of seniority involved. The productive hourly rates for key grades of staff should be made public, as they will be used as the basis for the calculation of standard charges and agreeing variations to them.

5.3 For the purposes of any proposed new paid for services, it is important to consider that the rates for Bassetlaw should reflect both its location and the need for flexibility.

158 5.4 Given the relatively scale and complexity of applications subject to PPAs, and the requirement of involvement at least in part by Legal Officers and Senior Officers within the planning service, higher rates for management level planning staff and Legal officers are considered appropriate.

5.5 The County Council is responsible for planning applications as they relate to mineral and waste sites and with regard to application of a strategic nature they will also have a significant input. However, given the variety of advice required, it is recommended that PPA agreement should include a caveat that specialist advice form the County Council and other Regulatory bodies may be required for which the client is expected to bear any costs incurred.

5.6 With regard to strengthening the case for the cost of pre-application services, this paper will seek to use other relevant LPAs as a further benchmark alongside the PAS guidance above to justify paid for services at a reasonable and defensible rate.

The Bassetlaw PPA

5.6 At present Bassetlaw District Council does not have any bespoke guidance or information on PPAs, although the pre-application service sets out the fees and service for the larger and more complex planning applications which are anticipated to be suitable for entering into a PPA.

5.7 Other LPAs have been looked at with regard to how they manage their pre- application services and where they have PPAs the have the following in common:

• The set out what is a PPA and when a PPA is appropriate.

• That Major level applications are the minimal threshold but the larger and more complex the development scheme the higher the expectation that a PPA is entered into. That such scheme should potentially accord with planning policy and guidance but is also appropriate for ongoing work schedules, such as where conditions are required to be discharged and where SPD/masterplans are required as part of the pre-application process.

• That its cost is proportionate to its scale and complexity and officer time require to monitor and manage it based on daily officer rates rather than suggested headline figure.

• That where a Project manager someone of sufficient seniority was the most appropriate person to manage the PPA process.

• That additional resources and consultancy may be required and form part of the project teams, this would include County Council and Strategic service providers for district councils.

• That a PPA does not limit an LPAs decision making capabilities not impinge on the right of the applicant to appeal.

• That the applicant enters into a PPA agreement in a spirit of co-operation and openness

159 • That the stages of the PPA process are clearly set out although not all specify post application service/management.

• Some although not all provide information and contact details with regard to Freedom of Information, Requests, complaints and feedback provision.

What kind of PPA Charter would be best suited to Bassetlaw?

5.8 Appendix 2 shows that the PPA charters have many common features and this should follow the ATLAS guidance and have regard to the associated Legislation with regard to such agreements.

5.9 It would be wide to have more than one level of PPA, especially being a two tier authority and that involvement of the County Council and other strategic service providers is likely to be required and potentially result in additional cost to the applicant.

5.10 The advantage of having a charter means that the process is brought under one roof and can (and should) involve the application and post-application process. It is considered advisable to include post application service as good practice within a potential PPA charter. Whilst a PPA can be entered into for a scheme not in accordance with planning policy and guidance, the Colchester wording that it should ‘potentially’ be acceptable and be at least Major in scale is recommended.

5.11 Given the size and characteristics of Bassetlaw, two types of PPA- the type 1 for strategic, significant and very complex projects where it is expected for a developer to enter into a PPA and type 2 for a major application requiring a project team only. Type 2 are also unlikely to require a vision and therefore the inception stage should be rather more straightforward.

5.12 However given the need for flexibility, costs should not be explicit in the charter but tailored to each individual PPA. Advice that majors applications submitted outside of a PPA agreement being ‘routinely’ dealt is an important piece of advice to be included in the PPA charter.

5.13 A draft PPA charter for Bassetlaw is attached as Appendix 1.

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 LPAs can introduce a PPA service under S93 of the Local Government Act 2003 as a discretionary service. A charter is a useful mechanism for setting out what are the likely contents, expected commitments and timescales.

6.2 PPAs should be charged separately from planning application fees and other services and should be flexible tailored to suit both parties and the development scheme under consideration.

6.3 PPA can range in complexity and may or may not require a vision and should seek to actively engage the local community, parish Councils and elected members in the process especially for more complex development proposals.

160 6.4 PPAs do not imply any objection on the LPA to grant planning permission but should only be entered into where the proposed development accords with the Local Plan or potentially accords with the Local Plan.

6.5 The role of a client/developer facing role within the PPA to provide overall project management is a useful tool to manage the PPA and relieve pressure on the case officer in determining the application. This role can face both internally and externally depending on the circumstance of the development project. However, it is imperative that this role is clarified and agreed from the outset.

6.6 That simple PPAs can be managed within the Planning department but for larger and more complex applications especially where a SPD Masterplan is required a steering group which the project team regularly repots to is advised.

6.8 It is recommended that Bassetlaw develop a PPA charter taking into account the above conclusions and that Appendix 3 serves as a draft template for this.

7.0 Implications

a) For service users Efficient and effective regular monitoring enables a consistent approach to ensuring a good quality of service delivery which benefits service users.

b) Strategic & Policy-None

c) Financial - There are no financial implications arising from this report. Ref: 18- 172.

d) Legal – There are no legal implications arising from this report. Ref: 230/02/2018

e) Human Resources- None

f) Community Safety, Equalities, Environmental-None

g) Whether this is a key decision-No

8.0 Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations

8.1 To ensure that appropriate monitoring and performance management procedures are in place and that the Council continues with its focus on achieving high performance, facilitating development and providing good service to all who use the Planning Service.

8.0 Recommendations

9.1 That the report be received and that the Committee approves the draft PPA Charter for immediate use.

Background Papers Location DCLG and Atlas Commissioned report www.atlasplanning.com by Tribal Group 2010 PAS Publications 2012 www.pas.gov.uk

161 162 Planning Performance AGREEMENT CHARTER

January 2018

163 1. What is a Planning Performance Agreement?

1.1 A Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) clarifies the responsibilities of key parties and is a framework in which parties come provides guidance on the process together to agree how they are going to for developing a PPA. take a development proposal through the planning process (CLG/Atlas, April 2008). 1.5 All parties involved in a PPA with Bassetlaw It is a project management tool for planning District Council are expected to adhere to the applications to help the process run Planning Performance Agreement Charter efficiently. A PPA is also a way for applicants 2018. and the Council to agree appropriate timetables and resources for a planning application.

1.2 PPAs are voluntary agreements between a Local Planning Authority (LPA) and an applicant. Their purpose is to deliver high quality sustainable development that is based on a clear vision and development objectives. They provide a structured way for giving advice to applicants before applications are made, developing supplementary planning documents and processing planning applications, to an agreed project plan and work programme.

1.3 They provide a framework for the involvement of relevant partner organisations and set a programme for community and councillor consultation. To be effective they should be considered and introduced at the early stage of seeking planning advice from the Council. PPAs do not guarantee a planning permission. The aim is to encourage a more efficient, joined up and less adversarial way of working, based on the principles of development management.

1.4 This Charter sets out how the Council will work with applicants, partner organisations, the community and other stakeholders to ensure that all large and complex development schemes are carefully considered in a constructive, collaborative and open manner. It establishes the Council’s commitment to the use of PPAs, indicates when it is appropriate for them to be used,

2 www.bassetlaw.gov.uk 164 1. What is a Planning Performance 2. When is a PPA appropriate?

2.1 The following types of application may be 2.2 Planning Performance Agreements will Agreement? suitable for PPAs. The PPA is used in not be entered into if the scheme put connection with our planning advice service. forward is not considered to be potentially acceptable in principle. Nor will we normally i) Large scale major applications, such enter into a PPA during an application in as those identified as of strategic order to provide a longer period for a importance and/or include an decision – it should be a structured, planned Environmental Impact Assessment. approach. ii) Other major applications which are particularly complex in nature and 2.3 Two types of PPA service are offered by require extensive advice. Bassetlaw: iii) Applications for a programme of ype 1: Strategic, significant and very ongoing works where particular complex projects where it is expected for complexities arise such as approving a developer to enter into a PPA. details required by conditions on major applications or multiple applications • Type 2: A major application where across an area or estate. complexity is expected at both pre- iv) The development of a Supplementary application and application phase and Planning Document or Masterplan prior the Planning Service considers it to pre-application discussions. expedient to offer the PPA process.

Entitlement ALL employees are entitled to 52 weeks maternity leave made up as follows:-

• 26 weeks ordinary maternity leave (OML) and;

2 www.bassetlaw.gov.uk 165 01909 533 533 3 3. What does it cost? 3.1 The cost of a PPA is dependent on the • Continuity and consistency in the scale of the application, the resources Council’s team. required and input from officers for the project, and will be based on hourly rates for officers, including overheads. The fees cover our costs for providing the advice and if we did not charge this the cost would be met by Council taxpayers generally. The fees do not include VAT which will be applied at the appropriate level at the time of invoicing. Any fees paid will not be refunded if it is decided advice is no longer required, even if we have not yet provided it.

3.2 The assessment of the resources needed may result in a need to bring in additional expertise or temporary staff, to be funded by the applicant. Importantly, any fees paid do not directly fund the person or people involved in the project.

3.3 Where a planning application for a major development proposais submitted without a planning performance agreement, it will be handled as a routine application within the existing workload of the team, without dedicated resource. 4. Benefits

4.1 There are many benefits and advantages of a PPA between the Council and an applicant, including:

• Better overall management of advice and post application stages;

• Identification of key issues at an early stage; More realistic and predictable timetables; Greater accountability and transparency; Improved partnership working;

• Dedicated time to your project to an agreed level; and

4 www.bassetlaw.gov.uk 166 surveys of opinion and consultation with 5. Colleagues other key local groups. The Council will expect the developer to carry out the across the Council consultation but can provide advice on the most appropriate methods for doing so and and Stakeholders the groups they may wish to consult.

5.1 For PPA applications, specialist officers may also be required to provide advice in a 8. Member timely and proactive manner. These may include officers with specialisms in housing environmental health and law. The County involvement Council may be involved in transportation and highways as well as other statutory 8.1 Councillors are likely to engage as part bodies. Where appropriate, other officers of the consultation process on PPA will be invited onto the project team. schemes in agreement with the lead officer named in the PPA. Where appropriate, a briefing will be held with the appropriate 6. The applicant committee and or the councillors within whose electoral ward the PPA scheme is 6.1 The Council expects applicants to approach situated. any project in an open, collaborative and 8.2 Councillors may also attend architectural creative manner. Applicants are expected to appraisal or design review panels for appoint the appropriate professional schemes. consultants with sufficient experience to reflect the complexity of the project and 8.3 Councillors are involved so they can gain an work cooperatively with the Council in understanding of the project and other sharing information. They are also expected pertinent issues. They may ask questions to use reasonable endeavours to meet and raise issues but will not be expected the agreed work programme. All applicants to offer personal opinions on a scheme. will be expected to adhere to the Planning Those Councillors who also sit on a Performance Agreement Charter when Committee that determines planning entering into a PPA. applications will need to adhere to the Code of Conduct for Members on planning matters and cannot predetermine their view 7. Community on a scheme that will subsequently be the subject of a planning application. engagement Applicants should not engage privately with councillors. 7.1 The Council is committed to consulting and listening to the views of local residents and businesses to inform its decisions so they have a meaningful opportunity to influence the development of the Borough.

7.2 The type of consultation that is appropriate before applications are made will vary depending upon the scheme but could include public exhibitions and meetings,

4 www.bassetlaw.gov.uk 167 01909 533 533 5 9. The process for developing a PPA 9.1 For an applicant wishing to enter into a PPA, the process comprises five key stages set out in the Figure below:

A discussion wit the Head of Developemnt Management to 1 assess whether a PPA is appropriate.

Once agreed, attendance at an ‘incetion meeting’ to develop 2 the structure and content of the PPA.

Agree the project vision and development objectives, and 3 a work programme which sets out key dates, timescales, milestones and responsible parties.

The LPA will make an assessment of the resources required 4 for the project and provide a draft PPA for review.

5 Any amendments to the PPA agreed and both parties sign.

9.1 Where a PPA is agreed, a Development 9.4 All other matters relating to the practical Team is appointed to co-ordinate the PPA execution of the PPA will be sought to throughout its lifetime, including a client- be clarified as far as possible prior to formal facing Manager who will with the client’s agreement. appointee manage the PPA process. The Project team will report to the Head of 9.5 It is recommended that the PPA contain Regeneration services on a regular basis to post application management within its be agreed. remit especially discharge of any likely pre-commencement conditions should planning permission be granted. Both parties should seek as far as they are 9.2 The PPA will set out the core body of the practically able as part of the PPA to resolve PPA management with regard to the such issues as would normally require such meetings to be held during the pre- conditions prior to determination of the application and application stages and who application shall attend, consultation and liaison arrangements and any other meeting 9.6 The PPA is signed by the Head of Planning including Legal and viability meetings. Site and a suitably senior representative of the meetings and attendees during this process client. will seek to be agreed as far as possible and costed accordingly. 9.9 Legal agreements including Heads of Terms and viability agreements will 9.3 A timetable for the process which is normally be expected to be agreed during considered reasonable and achievable by the pre-application or application phase. both parties will be agreed in line with national timescales, as far as possible.

6 www.bassetlaw.gov.uk 168 9. The process for developing a PPA 10. Protocol for all PPAs

All PPAs are completed in this legal application(s) and will work jointly in context and are subject to these standard complying with their respective obligations requirements: under the PPA.

10.1 When a PPA is entered into it is recognised 10.6 Any party entered into a PPA agreement that the scale of the development proposals will use their reasonable endeavours to will give rise to complex planning issues adhere to any agreed timetable/schedule and the advice and application stages will which sets out the procedure for handling require significant input from the Council the relevant planning enquiries, pre- team. Both parties will ensure that the application negotiations, and planning and/ advice and application stages are or listed building/conservation area consent considered and dealt with in a timely applications in relation to the site. manner, having regard to any timetable set out in a PPA and in compliance with 10.7 Applicants will provide access to the relevant statutory procedures. pre-application/application site upon the Council’s reasonable request to support 10.2 All PPAs are made pursuant to Section 111 the provision of advice and processing of of the Local Government Act 1972, Section any application. 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, Section 93 of the Local Government Act 10.8 Unless specified in a PPA agreement, 2003 and Part 1 of Chapter 1 of the the Council will use its available resources Localism Act 2011. to determine application(s) within normal planning application timescales. 10.3 No PPA will fetter the Council in exercising its statutory duties as local planning 10.9 Either party may by written notice terminate authority. It will not prejudice the outcome a PPA giving 10 days notice in writing and of planning (and related) application(s) or the reason for termination. The parties’ the impartiality of the Council. rights, duties and responsibilities shall continue in full force during any termination 10.4 No PPA will restrict or inhibit the applicant notice period. named in the agreement from exercising the right of appeal under Section 78 of the 10.10 Failure to pay the fees as set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. individual PPAs at the stated times will result in the PPA being dissolved. 10.5 The parties entering into a PPA agreement will act with fairness and in good faith in respect of all matters related to the handling of the planning (and related)

6 www.bassetlaw.gov.uk 169 01909 533 533 7 11. Freedom of Information 11.1 Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or Environmental Information Regulations 2004 we may receive a request to disclose pre-application advice requests and the advice we have provided. If you require your request to be confidential please advise us in writing of the reasons valid under the Act for this at the time of your request. We will not respond at the time of your request but will take it into account when deciding whether to release information.

More information about Freedom of Information can be found at: www.foi.gov.uk 12. Further information

12.1 More information about planning at Brentwood Borough Council is available at: www.bassetlaw.gov.uk/planning

Information about our services can be viewed online without charge at our libraries, and Queens Buildings, Potter Street, Worksop. Notts S80 2AH. 13. Tell us what you think

13.1 When we get things right please tell us. When we could do better please also tell us so we can improve. Contact www.bassetlaw.gov.uk/planning

8 www.bassetlaw.gov.uk 170 11. Freedom of Information Table: Hypothetical Development Project subject to a PPA and timescale

Months 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11+

Initial Proposal: Meeting Feedback to initial Meeting Developing the Vision Follow up meeting: agreeing the objectives, ID the issues Submit Pre-application/ Draft PPA Task Plan ID Project, Team and Roles Develop Timetable for Pre-App Application and Post App Stage Pre-App meetings and Complete and Sign PPA. Developer Pays fee Submission of Longer Planning Application if and Draft Heads of agreed Terms* with LPA

S106/ Legal Meetings Post Application meeting- Compliance and Implementation

Post Application meeting- Discharge of conditions and Implementation Completion of post-application process all AODs discharged

8 www.bassetlaw.gov.uk 171 01909 533 533 9 Contact us

01909 533 533 www.bassetlaw.gov.uk [email protected] Text us on 07797 800 573 Find us on Facebook - BassetlawDC Twitter @BassetlawDC

Visit us at: Retford One Stop Shop 17B The Square, Retford DN22 6DB Worksop One Stop Shop Queens Buildings, Potter Street, Worksop S80 2AH

All offices are open: Monday to Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm

If you need any help communicating with us or understanding any of our documents, please contact us on 01909 533 533. We can arrange for a copy of this document in large print, audiotape, Braille or for a Language Line interpreter to help you.

172 Agenda Item No.6(e) BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE 7 February 2018

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE REPORT

2017/18 QUARTER 3

Cabinet Member: Regeneration Contact: Myles Joyce Ext: 3259

1.0 Public Interest Test

1.1 The author of this report, Myles Joyce has determined that this report is not confidential.

2.0 Purpose of the Report

2.1 To provide Members with a quarterly performance report recorded for the Development Management function for Quarter 3 of 2017/2018, for the period of 1 October to 31 December 2017.

3.0 Background and Discussions

3.1 Following agreement at Planning Committee in June 2014 that performance reporting would be presented to Members on a regular basis. This paper provides details of the planning application performance for Quarter 2 for this year.

4.0 Matters for Consideration

4.1 Once a planning application has been validated, the Local Planning Authority should make a decision on the proposal as quickly as possible after the consultation period has ended. The statutory time limit is set nationally and applications should be determined in this time unless a longer period is agreed in writing by the applicant.

4.2 Statutory time limits are usually 13 weeks for applications for major development, and 8 weeks for all other types of development (unless an application is subject to Environmental Impact Assessment, in which case a 16 week time limit applies). These times can be agreed to be extended with the applicant and this must be confirmed in writing.

4.3 Amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 introduced another measure of performance for major applications. If Local Planning Authorities are not meeting the standards then they will be a designated planning authority, which

173 means applicants can submit planning applications directly to Secretary of State. Two criteria are used for measuring the performance of Local Planning Authorities. These are:-

 Timeliness – Local Planning Authorities are deemed to be underperforming if they determine less than 50% of major developments within the statutory timescales; or  Quality – Where more than 20% of major planning application decisions are overturned at appeal.

4.4 Major applications are defined as those where 10 or more dwellings are to be constructed (or where the number is not given, the site area is more than 0.5ha), or where the commercial floorspace proposed is 1000sqm or the commercial site area is 1000sqm or more.

4.5 The designation criteria was amended for major applications to 60% within time and 10% of all applications allowed on appeal and for non-majors 70% within time and no more than 10% of all applications allowed on appeals. The local targets are 10% above the national targets.

Quarter 1 Performance; Speed of Determination

Indicator Achievement Local Target Q Oct - Dec 2017-18 2016/17 2017 To date % of “major” applications determined in 13/16 weeks 87.5% 70% 100% 77.6% (or authorised extended (22/22) (38/49) period) % of “non-major” applications determined in 89.73% 80% 90.5% 86.2% 8 weeks (200/221) (539/635)

174

4.6 The Quarter 3 application determination performance has exceeded local or national targets for major applications with no major applications being determined out of time in the last quarter. This has resulted in both the majors and non-majors returns now being above both the national and locate targets although both remain below the performance for 2016/17 to date.

4.7 The reasons for this was the failure in Quarter 2 to secure extensions of time. As was reported at Committee in November, whist this was of concern it is considered to be rectifiable through improved caseload management and the returns of this third quarter have let to them approaching the recent norm for the Development Team.

4.8 For non-major planning applications the figures remain above local and national targets for this quarter and for 2016-17, albeit for the rear to date slightly below the 2016-17 return. Continued careful monitoring of the caseload and the Major caseload in particular will result in improved returns going into the final half of the year. The above shows a comprehensive bounce back from the worrying returns for Quarter 2 and shows a team that is performing well. It is anticipated that with continued effective caseload management that these high returns will be sustained over the final quarter.

Qualitative Measures - Appeals

4.9 During Quarter 3, a total of seven appeal determinations were made. Out of these, one was allowed, one was a split decision and five were dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate, equating to a performance of 21% for the quarter. For 2017-18, 5.5 appeals out of 25 determined were allowed, which results in a return of 22%

4.10 This percentage is higher than the local target of 20% but it is important to remember that the relatively small numbers involved do result in relatively large swings from quarter to quarter and indeed it is an improvement on that recorded at the end of the second quarter.

4.11 With regard to the new national target of 10% for all majors decided which are overturned at appeal, central government is looking at appeals for applications submitted between April 2015 to March 2017 and this is discussed at 4.13.

Appeal Performance Detail; Quarter 1 of 2017/1018

App ref Address Proposal Appeal Decision 17/00028/S36 Sunnyside, Mill Lane, Improvements to existing Allowed. Rockley, Notts DN22 entrance and construct driveway 0QN to serve existing dwelling and fields and stopping up existing entrance 17/00027/HS Rowan House, The Erection of 4 bedroom house Dismissed E Crescent, Retford, with garage and new accesses Notts DN22 7BX (Resubmission of 16/00288/FUL)

175 17/00023/S36 Home Farm, Retain boundary walls and Dismissed Clayworth Road, lower the Height of certain walls Wiseton S Yorks

17/00025/S36 Land South of Manor 2 storey live/work unit and Dismissed Farm, Town Street, constructed new access Treswell Notts (resubmission of 16/00255/FUL) 17/00029/S36 Corner Cottage, 17 Construct a Dwelling House Dismissed. Rectory Lane, Gamston, Retford DN22 0QB 17/00030/S36 Tievol, Main Street, Erection of 2 dwellings and Dismissed. Clarborough, Retford, amended access within curtilage Notts, NG22 9LS of existing property (resubmission of 15/01025/FUL) 17/00041/S36 Greenfield, Main Resubmission of 16/01190/HSE Part Allowed Street, Laneham, for 1.5 storey extension with Retford, DN22, Notts rear enclosed balcony and 0ND increase in height of detached double garage and alterations to dwelling

Costs Appeals

4.12 No cost application to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) was submitted not did PINS decide on any cost applications in Quarter 3.

Appeal performance for Major April 2015 - March 2017

4.13 There were 6 major application appeals decided in this period and three of these were dismissed at appeal. This is out of a total of 97 major applications. The percentage of appeals allowed in this period determined is 3%, well below the 10% threshold of overturned appeals. The final performance figure for this period is until the end of Quarter 3 giving a 9- month lag to allow for appeals on those determined applications to be decided.

4.14 Decisions must be based on the relevant planning policy and the Planning Inspectorate is now determining appeals based on a recent High Court Decision, which placed more importance on Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework. This paragraph is provided below and needs to be considered in all refusals:

14. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.

For decision-taking this means:

● approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and ● where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out‑of‑date, granting permission unless:

176 –– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or –– specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

5.0 Summary : How are we performing?

5.1 This report has shown that in Quarter 3 of 2017/2018, the standard of performance met the local and national targets for both Majors and Non Major applications and was a good recovery from the disappointing Quarter 2 returns for Majors.

5.2 It is considered that with the increased focus on caseload management that the current returns should be sustained and potentially improved for the remainder of 2017/18.

5.3 During Quarter 3, 21% of appeals were allowed, similar to 22% for 2017-18 to date. This percentage continue to improve but remains slightly higher than the local target of 20% Appeal returns.

6.0 Implications

a) For service users Efficient and effective regular monitoring enables a consistent approach to ensuring a good quality of service delivery which benefits service users.

b) Strategic & Policy The reporting of the Development Team performance meets with Corporate Ambition 2: Local Growth through ensuring that the Service provides an efficient processing of applications to deliver a maximisation of potential. There are no strategic and policy implications arising from this report.

c) Financial - There are no financial implications arising from this report. Ref: 18- 172.

d) Legal – There are no legal implications arising from this report. Ref: 230/02/18

e) Human Resources There are no human resources implications arising from this report.

f) Community Safety, Equalities, Environmental There are no Community Safety, Equalities or Environmental implications arising from this report.

g) Whether this is a key decision, and if so the reference number. No.

7.0 Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations

7.1 To ensure that appropriate monitoring and performance management procedures are in place and that the Council continues with its focus on achieving high performance,

177 facilitating development and providing good service to all who use the Planning Service.

8.0 Recommendations

8.1 That the report be received and the Committee notes the current performance data.

Background Papers Location Development Management returns to Planning Services DCLG

PS1 and PS2 for 2017/18 Q3

178