Planning Committee

PLANNING COMMITTEE

AGENDA

Meeting to be held in The Ceres Suite, Worksop Town Hall, S80 2AH on Wednesday, 20th June 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 2018/19

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, 20th June 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 23RD MAY 2018 * (pages 7 - 18)

4. MINUTES OF PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP MEETINGS HELD BETWEEN 8TH AND 21ST MAY 2018* (pages 19 - 30)

5. OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST * (page 31 - 32)

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) Proposed Confirmation of an Article 4(1) Direction for Former North Border Infants and Nursery School and Former Serlby Park Academy Primary School, Shrewsbury Road, Bircotes (pages 33 - 48) (c) Appeal Decisions Received (pages 49 - 68) (d) Planning Applications and Associated ltems (pages 69 - 102)

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.

F:\Docs\Members\Ms8\REPORTS\Planning\June 2018\Final\1 index.doc3 7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT

* 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\June 2018\Final\1 index.doc4 Agenda Item No. 3

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\Cabinet\April 2018\Final\3 declaration5 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\Cabinet\April 2018\Final\3 declaration6 of interest.doc Agenda Item No.3

DRAFT

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday, 23rd May 2018 at Retford Town Hall

Present:

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

Officers in attendance: D Askwith, A Broadhead (Application No.18/00022/OUT), K France, C Hopkinson, M Joyce and B Pinkney.

(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; this was not taken up.)

The Chair congratulated Members for getting reappointed to the Committee. He welcomed Councillor S Fielding as the new Vice-Chair of the Committee and acknowledged Councillor A Smith for her contribution as Vice-Chairman over the past three years. Councillor A Smith’s commitment was commendable, she has attended 140/150 Planning Consultation Groups in her time as Vice-Chair.

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors H Burton and A Smith.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

(a) Members

Councillor G Freeman declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in Application No. 17/01462/OUT. She left the meeting during the Item after she had spoken as ward Member.

Councillor M Quigley declared a non-pecuniary interest in Application No. 17/01104/OUT, he remained in the meeting.

(b) Officers

There were no declarations of interest by officers.

3. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 28TH MARCH 2018

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 28th March 2018 be approved.

4. MINUTES OF PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP MEETINGS HELD BETWEEN 19th MARCH AND 30th APRIL 2018

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Planning Consultation Group meetings held between 19th March and 30th April 2018 be received.

7 5. OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST

In relation to Minute No. 74(b) Members were advised that a report would be presented to the Committee in due course.

RESOLVED that the Outstanding Minutes be received.

SECTION A – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC

Key Decisions

None.

Other Decisions

6. 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 seven appeal decisions.

The Development Team Manager commented on the Appeal Decision for 48 Town Street, Lound, which was allowed at appeal. The Inspector failed to properly consider the reasons for refusal and the Council have lodged an application for a judicial review. If the review is successful the decision would be quashed and the application would return to the Planning Inspector for reconsideration.

RESOLVED that the appeal decisions be received.

Application No Applicant Proposal

18/00186/OUT Walker & Son Outline planning application for up to 42 dwellings (Hauliers) Ltd plus 2 replacement dwellings, public open space, landscaping, drainage infrastructure and access, The Paddocks, 35 Station Road, Sutton cum Lound

The application sought outline planning permission for up to 42 dwellings, 2 replacement dwellings, public open space, landscaping, drainage, infrastructure and access. Slides were used to show the site location. The site had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

The site is located outside of the Sutton-cum-Lound development boundary and in the Neighbourhood Plan designated area. The eastern half of the site is located within an Area of Archaeological Interest. The East Coast Main Line is located approximately 160m to the west of the site.

The Case Officer presented the proposals and a summary of responses from statutory consultees was given. Details of relevant planning policy and the sites planning history was contained within the report. A petition, 97 letters of objection from local residents, and a letter of objection from the Parish Council have been received.

8 The District Council’s Archaeological Consultant has raised concerns that the development is likely to have a permanent impact on the significance of any archaeological interest at the site.

Notwithstanding the Council’s shortfall in five year housing land supply, it is considered that the development would conflict with policies of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework, the National Planning Policy Framework and the Sutton Neighbourhood Plan.

Councillor J Gough spoke in objection on behalf of Sutton Parish Council. He advised that:

 The Parish Council strongly object.  The development conflicts with Policy CS8 and the adopted Neighbourhood Plan.  The proposal relates poorly to the built village.  The site was the least preferred, with the most objections in the Neighbourhood Plan consultation.  There has been letters of objection from local residents and a petition.  The National Planning Policy Framework enables local people to shape decisions.  The Neighbourhood Plan has full weight as the Council can demonstrate a 3 year housing land supply.  The Neighbourhood Plan is a clear reason why the application should be refused.  The application is ill conceived and contrary to planning policy.  The application is not supported by the community or Neighbourhood Plan.  The development would have a lasting impact on the village.  If approved all other Parish Councils should be advised to abandon their neighbourhood plans as they are not worth the paper they are written on.

Mr N Johnson spoke in objection to the application. He advised that he is representing the Neighbourhood Plan Group. The Plan was made after a referendum in February and immediately became part of Bassetlaw Policy. The turnout at the referendum was 58.19% with 94.6% voting in favour of the plan. The community has embraced neighbourhood planning. The Inspector recently allowed an appeal – local people are appalled as the Neighbourhood Plan is proving worthless. Another appeal was refused but the Neighbourhood Plan was only included marginally. The Council are able to demonstrate a 3 year housing land supply therefore the Neighbourhood Plan has full weight. The village already has permission that would deliver 88 homes, that is just under 30% increase in the village. This application proposes a further 42 homes on the most unpopular site in the village.

Mr D Tuner spoke as agent for the application. He commented that:

 The development would support existing services and provide a range of homes.  The Neighbourhood Plan does not propose a ceiling on housing delivery or prevent sites from coming forward  The site was given five greens, scoring equally with the preferred site. The only difference being community support.  The development is not contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan.  The proposal would sustain services and the vitality of the village.  The Inspector has made decisions with the Neighbourhood Plan and concluded that the benefits of development was substantive.  The NPPF states that the Neighbourhood Plan must not promote less growth than the Council local plan.  The site is achievable and deliverable.

Elected Members raised comments in relation to:

 The made Neighbourhood Plan and its weight.  The Neighbourhood Plan identifies sites to come forward and would not have been successful if it precluded development.

 The site is outside of the development boundary.  The impact on the character of the village.  The Council’s Local Plan has not been agreed or adopted, it is a starting document for debate, the Neighbourhood Plan has full value.  The application disregards the views of the local residents.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Refuse for the reasons as circulated.

COMMITTEE DECISION – Refuse for the reasons as circulated.

Application No Applicant Proposal

17/01104/OUT Mrs Natalie Sarah Outline application with some matters reserved Holmes (approval being sought for access) for 15 self-build plots and adopted shared residential access ways, land south of Station Road, Beckingham

Members were advised that the application sought outline planning permission, with some matters reserved for 15 self-build plots with access from Station Road to serve the development. Slides were used to show the site location. The site had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

The site is located outside of the development boundary. The site is level, almost circular in shape and lies to the south of the village. There is an existing hedge on the road side boundary for the majority of the road frontage. The site is bounded by the A631 bypass to the west, the roundabout to the south, Station Road to the east and Willow Lane to the north.

The site has a total area of 0.95 hectares and lies to the southeast of Southfields, a large two storey dwelling. The 5 self-build plots would be served by a single point of access from Station Road.

The Case Officer presented the proposals and a summary of responses from statutory consultees was given. The relevant planning policies and the sites planning history was set out within the report.

Members were advised that Beckingham is identified as a rural service centre and the site would be located in a sustainable location. It is not considered that the development would appear unduly discordant with the landscape and character of the area and conditions regarding landscaping are proposed. In relation to visual amenity the proposal is not considered to have a significant residential impact. Highways have raised no objection subject to conditions. Given that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of land for housing, the application would help to address the shortfall.

Mr Gough spoke in objection, he commented that:

 He lives on the plot of land at Southfields and this has been going on for five years, first for six house, then 12 and now 15.  At the last Committee Members said that their hands were tied.  He is appealing against the fact that the dwellings are self builds as there are no time limits.  The Council need houses to be built now.  His family would have to endure the development for many years to come.  Beckingham was trying to put a neighbourhood plan together.  There are 200 houses being built around the corner on a dangerous road.  Self builds will not help targets quickly.

Councillor J Sanger spoke in objection as Ward Member for Beckingham. She advised that for future residents on the site it will be like living on a second roundabout with heavy traffic to the west, the south and the east of the development. The site is on Low Street and not Station Road as stated in the application, it was changed to Low Street in 2012. The serious worry of residents is the entrance to the site. Heavy articulated lorries constantly travel down to the wharf near the River Trent, plus much village traffic, does anyone realise how busy this piece of Low Street is all day and evening? It is horrendous and traffic leaving the roundabout already keeps to the speed limit. The entrance to the site is past the two houses on the left leaving the village, almost opposite the entrance to the Village Hall with approximately 30 more vehicles accessing the road from the site – it is a serious accident waiting to happen. 15 dwellings are proposed on the site as individual plots, is this not overshadowing and loss of privacy for the house in the west corner of the site? Can the layout of the site be looked at to take the house into account? There are 17 windows in this house built to enjoy the field and wildlife at the time. Can extra conditions be added? There are currently 17 but it must be correct to the existing family. She asked that the application be refused.

Elected Members raised comments/ asked questions in relation to:

 It could be some time before the self-build plots are built and contribute to the five year housing land supply.  How the Section 106 Agreement can be enforced on self-build plots.  Affordable housing on site.  The sites planning history.  The responsibility for the shared access way.  The adverse outcomes outweigh any benefits.

In response to questions raised the Solicitor advised of the draft Section 106 trigger points. The agreement would be between the Council and whoever the landowner is. When the plots are sold the S106 would be negotiated in the conveyance process when the land is purchased. The obligations would move with the land ownership.

Members discussed the enforceability of the S106 Agreement on the applicant rather than the purchasers.

RESOLVED that the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Committee for clarification regarding the Section 106 Agreement.

Application No Applicant Proposal

18/00088/OUT Mr Anthony Outline application with all matters reserved for Bamford residential development of 10 dwellings, land at The Croft, West Moor Road, Walkeringham Members were advised that the application sought outline planning permission, with all matters reserved for 10 dwellings. Slides were used to show the site location, an indicative layout and photographs of the site. The site had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

The Development Team Manager presented the proposals and a summary of responses from statutory consultees was given. Letters of objection have been received from 13 local residents and the ward Member. The relevant planning policies and the sites planning history was set out within the report. Member’s attention was drawn to the amendments and revised reasons for refusal circulated prior to the meeting.

The site is considered to be in an unsustainable location and would have a significant impact on the landscape and character of village. The application lacks a flood risk assessment and SUDs and insufficient information has been provided regarding highway safety.

Mr P Ferry spoke in objection to the application. He advised that he lives in Honeysuckle House in front of the development and the proposed access would be on the gable end of the house. Emphasis has not been put on the flooding issues. He commented that when they bought their house it was given an amber warning for flooding, after light rainfall the garden is saturated and the field collects surface water, after heavy rainfall the field is like a lake. Using a soakaway system would intensify the problem. The properties would be built on clay and that us the basis for serous concerns. The other issue is he proposed driveway on the bend with heavy traffic.

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

 The application is not popular with residents.  Residents would be grateful and relieved if the Committee see fit to agree with officers and refuse the application.  The application does not enhance the open rural character of the landscape, it is encroaching the countryside.  The proposal is not sustainable, there is no shop, no post office, the school is full with no plans for extension, the doctors practice is overstretched, the local church may be closing and the local transport facilities are poor. The nearest bus stop is quite a walk from the site.  The site was not in the Neighbourhood Plan’s call for sites.  It is not a linear development which is the main characteristic of the village layout.  The area is likely to flood after heavy rainfall; nearby residents have photographs of their gardens as proof.  If permitted the application would be contrary to the objectives of the Local Development Framework and the National Planning Policy Framework that is no safe access it the site can be achievable.

Mr D Cooney spoke as the Agent for the application. He commented on the reason to refuse due to sustainable drainage, in one of the other applications on the Agenda SUDs is part of the Section 106 Agreement prior to commencement of the development. He asked for consistency in the applications. The proposal is a small development for ten houses; in Councillor Sanger’s newsletter she states that smaller developments are more acceptable. A design and access statement has been submitted and tree planting provides a strong boundary. The site is no in a flood risk zone. He asked Members to fully consider the development.

Elected Members raised comments/ asked questions in relation to:

 Water management and drainage.  Flooding issues.  Highways.  The proposal would encroach into the open landscape and is not linear in character.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Refuse for the amended reasons as circulated.

COMMITTEE DECISION – Refuse for the amended as reasons as follows:

1. The site is located in Walkeringham, but outside the development boundary and therefore in the Countryside. Walkeringham is identified as a Rural Service Centre of northeast Bassetlaw. Policy CS1 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that development will be restricted to areas within defined Development Boundaries. The development, if permitted, would therefore be contrary to the policies outlined above and would conflict with the objectives of the Local Development Framework.

Whilst the District Council is unable to demonstrate a deliverable 5-year land supply for housing, and the above policy is considered out of date it is considered that the benefits of additional housing to the proposal in increasing housing supply are significantly and

demonstrably be outweighed by its adverse impacts, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, contrary to Paragraph 14 of the NPPF.

2. The site in question is identified in the Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment as Mid-Nottinghamshire Farmlands Policy Zone 02: Walkeringham. As part of its aims to create and enhance the open rural character of the landscape, it recommends that new development should be of an appropriate design and scale. Historically this area of the village of Walkeringham has formed around an open area of undeveloped agricultural land, known as ‘The Moor’ and taken the form of linear development. The Bassetlaw Local Development Framework contains policy DM4, which states that new development should respect its wider surroundings in relation to historic development patterns and landscape character.

Similar advice is contained in 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. Part 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework Conserving and Enhancing the natural environment states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.

The application site currently forms part of a much larger arable field which is largely flat and which affords views over the surrounding area. Being in a relatively prominent and visually isolated location it is considered that the proposed development is backland development to the rear of the properties West Moor Road which would pay little regard to the rural character and appearance of this part of the village. The proposed erection of 10 dwellings would introduce an unduly prominent and obtrusive element into the landscape to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area.

If permitted, the development would result in a significant incursion into the open landscape and would seriously detract from the character and appearance of the village and would fail to respect the historic development patterns of the village, contrary to Policies DM4 and DM9 of the Local Development Framework and the National Planning Framework

3. Policy DM12 B of the Core Strategy Bassetlaw Development Framework states that proposals for new development in Walkeringham will only be supported where it is demonstrated to the council’s satisfaction that the proposed development will not exacerbate existing land drainage and sewerage problems.

The application does not include any proposals for SuDS or details that the existing drainage and sewerage problems in the village will not be exacerbated. if permitted, the development could potentially lead to and exacerbate existing land drainage problems within the village and the surrounding area. As insufficient evidence has been submitted with the application, the development, if permitted would be contrary to the objectives of the Local Development Framework and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4. The Bassetlaw Local Development Framework contains policy DM4, which states that permission will only be granted for residential development that is of no detriment to highway safety. The proposed scheme has failed to demonstrate that a safe access to the development site can be achieved. Similar advice is contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. The development, if permitted, would be contrary to this policy and would conflict with the objectives of the Local Development Framework and the NPPF.

The required additional information was not submitted and as such insufficient information has been received with regard to Highway safety. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy DM4 and the NPPF.

(Councillor G Freeman left the meeting)

Application No Applicant Proposal

17/01462/OUT Mr and Mrs Neave Outline planning application with some matters reserved (approval being sought for access) for residential development of up to 165 dwellings, land east of Doncaster Road, Langold

Members were advised that the application sought outline planning permission, with some matters reserved for residential development of up to 165 dwellings. Details of access were included for consideration. Slides were used to show the site location. The site had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

The site is located outside of, but adjacent to, the Langold development boundary. The site is located to the north of Langold, to the east of Doncaster Road and is 7.56 hectares in area, currently the land use is agricultural. The site is bounded to the west by Doncaster Road, residential development to the south and agricultural land to north and east. The site is generally flat and there are trees and hedges along the road frontage. The site is located in Flood Zone 1, which has a low probability of river flooding.

The Case Officer presented the proposals and a summary of responses from statutory consultees was given. Letters of objection had been received from the Parish Council and 13 local residents. The relevant planning policies and the sites planning history was set out within the report.

Given that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of land for housing, the application would help to address the shortfall. The site located in sustainable location and is not considered to have a detrimental impact on character and appearance of the area, residential amenity or highway safety.

Mr M Caley spoke in objection to the application. He advised that:

 The site is outside of the development boundary.  The site was not included in the Development Plan in 2011.  The proposal is contrary to policies CS1 and CS5.  The enabling of planning permission on site in advance of the emerging Bassetlaw Local Plan is premature.  In terms of highways not all issues have been addressed in relation to the junction.  The proposal is contrary to policy DM13.  There are heritage constraints; to the north is Hodsock Park and Oldcotes Conservation Area.  The application is in conflict with advice in the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy DM8 of the adopted plan.  The development does not compliment the character or landscape of the area.  The Archelogy report submitted is inadequate. The report is only desktop and a more thorough report could have a different conclusion.  There are concerns over schooling and the question of funding for schools on another site is not resolved.  Residents are concerned as a gas main runs across the site.

Councillor G Freeman spoke as ward Member for Langold. She advised that Langold was constructed in the 1920’s to provide much needed housing for the colliery. The village was constructed like a model village with features of architectural and historical interest. She asked if the same recommendation would be given if the Council had a five year housing land supply. The site is in the designated neighbourhood plan area and it is possible that there are archaeological remains on the site that have not been explored. She commented that there would be an impact on wildlife and there is a concern the development would become a separate village.

Ms J Hodson spoke as the Agent for the application. She advised that the application was subject to pre-application discussion from October 2016 and the application was progressed based on advice given. The application has included additional works, a geographical survey and the access has been moved. The application was worked up and submitted with layout plans. All trees, accept at the access, will be maintained. There are facilities and services in the area of the site and bus provision. The applicant has written to the Local Authority to agree the S106 Agreement and understands CIL and S106 contributions.

Elected Members raised comments/ asked questions in relation to:

 Education contributions.  Affordable housing.  The gas line that runs across the site.

In response to questions raised Members were advised that the Education Authority initially sought a contribution for primary school provision however the figures have been recalculated and they are subsequently no longer requesting a contribution. To request a contribution that Education Authority has to prove there is a lack of capacity.

The Case Officer commented that an Archaeological Statement has been submitted and the Conservation Officer is comfortable in terms of heritage impacts and has no concerns. The applicant has been aware of the gas line and this would be a site constrain that would form part of the reserved matters application.

(The meeting was adjourned for legal advice to be sought)

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

COMMITTEE DECISION – Grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the conditions as circulated.

(Councillor G Freeman re-joined the meeting and Councillor M W Quigley MBE left the meeting)

Application No Applicant Proposal

17/01239/RSB Sundown Proposed 49 holiday lodges, 32 touring caravan Adventureland pitches, 14 glamping pods, reception area with manages accommodations, store and play areas, parking and associated infrastructure (resubmission of 16/01363/FUL) land at Elmwood Lodge, Sundown Adventureland, Rampton Road, Treswell

The application was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

Application No Applicant Proposal

17/00517/FUL Mr Alexander Mills Erect 17 one bedroom apartments following demolition of existing dwelling and construct new access , 125 Scrooby Road, Bircotes

Members were advised that the application sought to erect 17 one bedroom apartments following the demolition of the existing dwelling. Slides were used to show the site location. The site had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

The site lies within the Harworth and Bircotes Development Boundary, to the east of and adjacent the Local Centre Boundary. The site is located within a mixed residential and commercial town centre location. The site is currently occupied by a large single dwelling which is unoccupied.

The Case Officer presented the proposals and a summary of responses from statutory consultees was given. The relevant planning policies and the sites planning history was set out within the report.

Members were advised that the developer has submitted a viability assessment which has demonstrated that it would not be financially viable to develop the site should the Section 106 Contributions be required. The findings of the viability assessment have been accepted and the developer has agreed to accept an ‘overage clause’ to ensure that, should the financial situation improve, the Council would be in a clawback position.

Given the Council’s lack of a five year supply of housing the site would help to address the shortfall. The site is located in a sustainable location and it is considered not to have significant detrimental impact therefore it is considered that the benefits of the proposed development to the site and community are significant and complies with planning policies.

An elected Member asked a question regarding the Town Councils concerns in relation to overspill parking on Shrewsbury Road. The Case Officer advised that the proposed parking is sufficient for the development.

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

COMMITTEE DECISION – Grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the conditions as circulated.

Application No Applicant Proposal

18/00022/OUT Mr J Smith Outline application for planning permission (all matters reserved) for ten dwellings, land south of pumping station fronting Bawtry Road, Blyth, Worksop

Members were advised that the application sought to erect ten dwellings with all matters reserved. Slides were used to show the site location. The site had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

The site is located outside of any development boundary. The land comprises of 0.67 hectares of a large arable field. The site is north of the A1 (M) and adjacent to the A614. Immediately to the south is an area of woodland, then the A1 services and to the north there is a sewage pumping station.

The Case Officer presented the proposals and a summary of responses from statutory consultees was given. One letter of support has been received from a local resident, one letter from a resident stating they have no objection and one letter making observations. Blyth Parish Council have no objection in principle. The relevant planning policies and the sites planning history was set out within the report.

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

COMMITTEE DECISION – Grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the conditions as circulated.

(d) Proposed Minor Alterations to Pre-Application Protocol

Members were presented with a report which detailed the need for the Pre-application Protocol in line with changes to the Council’s Charges and Schedules for 2018-19. The report sought approval for minor changes to the Protocol.

The updated protocol encourages applicants to enter into a Planning Performance Agreement Protocol or bespoke charging schedule/ programme of work agreement. The changes to the Protocol were outlined within the report. The current and proposed Protocol were appended to the report.

RESOLVED that:

1. The need for an amended Pre-application Protocol and its contents be noted. 2. The amendments to the Pre-application Protocol, as set out in the report, be agreed.

(e) Development Management Performance Report 2017/18 Full Year

Members were presented with a performance report for the Development Management function for the whole year and the final quarter of 2017/2018, for the period 1st April 2017 to 31st March 2018. The previous year’s figures were included for comparison.

Members were given a summary of the report. The measures of performance outcomes and current position for determining ‘major’, ‘minor’ and ‘other’ applications were given.

The outcome of appeals against refused applications allowed was also given along with planning enforcement caseload statistics.

Members commented on the positive report and thanked planning officers for their hard work and also the Enforcement Officer for his commitment.

The Chair also thanked Members of the Committee for decisions that have been robustly upheld.

RESOLVED that the report be received and the current performance data be noted.

SECTION B – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PRIVATE

Key Decisions

None.

Other Decisions

None.

7. 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 9.06pm.)

17 18 Agenda Item No.4

PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP

Minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, 8th May 2018 at Worksop Town Hall

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

Officers in attendance: M Joyce and B Pinkney.

(Meeting opened at 4.05pm.)

148. APOLOGIES

There were no apologies for absence.

149. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Application No Proposal

17/01661/FUL New shop front, removal of external rear staircase and erection of new enclosed staircase leading to existing first floor accommodation, ground floor rear extension, new rear fence and associated works. Thandi supermarket, Doncaster Road, Langold, Worksop.

Members were asked to consider the proposed application for a new shop front, removal of external rear staircase and erection of new enclosed staircase leading to existing first floor accommodation, ground floor rear extension, new rear fence and associated works. A location map, elevations and photographs were tabled.

The Parish Council have no objections but raised concerns that work has commenced before permission has been granted.

A letter of objection has been received from a local resident on the following grounds:

 The submitted certificate of ownership is inaccurate as the proposal would require use of land outside the applicant’s ownership to gain access to the rear lobby doors.  The rear access will not allow access for collection and storage of waste and a waste collection area is not indicated on the submitted plans.  No existing rear timber fence.  The proposed rear extension and fence will result in overshadowing and a loss of light to adjoining garden area.  Loss of privacy.

Members were advised that no Highway issues were raised.

The application is recommended for approval with standard conditions including three year time scale, design in accordance with plans and matching materials.

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

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

19 Application No Proposal

17/01708/COU Change of use of land from agriculture to D2 (outdoor recreation) to be used as public open space in conjunction with the approved residential development. Land North of Shireoaks Common, Shireoaks.

Members were advised that the application sought change of use of land from agricultural to D2 (outdoor recreation) to be used as public open space in conjunction with the approved residential development. A location map and site plans were tabled.

It was noted that the application relates to the major development taking place within Shireoaks.

Members were advised that authorisation is needed to be obtained to enter into the new S106 agreement reason for referral.

Shireoaks Parish Council supports the application.

The Lead Local Flood Authority, Environment Agency and Bassetlaw Parks have made no comments.

The Tree Officer has no objections.

The principle is acceptable. The development of S106 will ensure appropriate management mechanisms are in place.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission subject to S106 agreement – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

18/00183/VOC Variation of condition 2 of planning application 17/00141/FUL – Change in location of the garage on plot one and various design changes to plot one and two, and bungalow type B. Barrowby House, 9 Highland Grove, Worksop.

Members were advised that the application sought it vary condition 2 of planning application 17/00141/FUL – change in the location of the garage to plot one and various design changes to plot one and two and bungalow type B. Site plans, elevations and photographs were tabled.

Nottinghamshire County Council Highway Authority has no objections.

Bassetlaw District Council’s Conservation Officer and Tree Officer have no objections.

Two letters of objection has been received from local residents objecting to the removal of traditional hedgerows.

Members were advised that the proposal is to create eight dwellings by converting the existing buildings into two dwellings. Plots one and two and bungalow type B will be affected by the variation of condition 2.

The variation of condition 2 proposes to make design amendments; changes to the garage on plot one, removal of approved garage block and incorporate garage within the footprint of the existing building, increasing the garden area. Remove large window on west elevation of plot one. Remove doors within new extension and install window in plot two, remove mock Tudor roofs over proposed bay windows and add ornate fascia and flat roof. Remove French doors and install window in Bungalow type B.

20 Members were advised that the original conditions will be reproduced with the changes to the conditions added.

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

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

150. 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 4.19pm.)

21 22

PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP

Minutes of the meeting held on Monday 14th May 2018 at Worksop Town Hall

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

Officers in attendance: M Joyce and B Pinkney.

(Meeting opened at 4.05pm.)

151. APOLOGIES

There were no apologies for absence.

152. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor D G Pidwell declared a non-pecuniary interest in planning application 17/01466/FUL.

153. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Application No Proposal

18/00385/FUL Retain 2800L GRP underground tank to act as overflow holding tank for contaminated car washing water in association with the adjacent F1 Hand Car Wash. F1 Car Wash, Great North Road, Sutton Cum Lound, Retford.

Members were advised that the application sought to retain a 2800L GRP underground tank to act as overflow holding tank for contaminated car wash water associated with the adjacent F1 Hand Car Wash. Site plans were tabled.

It was noted that the application is related to planning application 18/00165/ADV.

Environmental Health has no objections.

Bassetlaw District Council’s Drainage board made no comments providing that the waste water is discharged to the tank.

An objection from a local resident had been received raising concern regarding the following issues:

 It is not a holding tank as suggested.  It has pipes inside and an outlet pipe below the ground going into a gravel pit.  Authorising the extra tank/soak away will be going against conditions already set by the Environment Agency.  It is a home-made soak away made to look like a holding tank.

Sutton Parish Council has suggested that a condition should be imposed requiring a log to be kept containing the details of regular emptying of the tank by a registered waste carrier.

Members were advised that the application is recommended to be granted subject to the following conditions; should the car wash fall out of use for a period of 12 months the tanks should be removed within 6 months and to ensure a log is kept.

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

23 Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

18/00165/ADV Retain one non illuminated double sided freestanding sign and two non- illuminated signs. F1 Car Wash, Great North Road, Sutton Cum Lound, Retford.

Members were advised that the application sought to retain one non-illuminated double sided freestanding sign and two non-illuminated signs. Site plans and photographs were tabled. One letter of objection has been received from a local resident on the grounds that the colour and size of the signs are out of keeping with the area.

It was noted that no issues were raised by highway safety.

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

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

16/01323/OUT Outline planning permission for residential development with some matters reserved – To add condition relating to amended plans. Folly Nook Lane, Ranskill.

Members were advised that the application sought to add a condition to the amended plans.

It was noted that the planning application went to Planning Committee in February 2017.

No condition relating to the works carried out on amended drawings had been added to the amended plans when the application went to Committee. Members were asked to approve the extra condition to be added to the amended plans.

Initial officer recommendation – Approve – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

18/00345/RSB Demolish existing rear sun room and erect single storey rear sun room extension, erect single storey side extension, first floor rear extension and loft conversion (Resubmission of planning application 17/01376/HSE). Lavender Cottage, Main Street, Grove, Retford.

Members were advised that the application sought to demolish existing rear sun room and erect single storey rear sun room extension, erect single storey side extension, first floor extension and loft conversion. A location map, site plans and elevations were tabled.

A letter has been received from a neighbouring property providing support to the majority of changes to the proposals. However, the letter objects to the changes of the first floor rear extension.

It is recommended to grant the application subject to conditions relating to time, design in accordance with plans and matching materials.

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

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

24 Application No Proposal

18/00287/FUL New village shop attached to existing house with car parking, Pinfold House, Plantation Road, East Markham.

Members were asked to consider the proposal for a new village shop attached to the existing house with car parking. Elevations were tabled.

Nottinghamshire County Council Highways, Environmental Health and The Conservation Officer have no objections. East Markham Parish Council strongly supports the proposals.

14 letters of support were received from local residents commenting that the shop is needed as the village is expanding.

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

 Shops in the village have not succeeded before as residents use supermarkets and internet shopping.  A reliable inexpensive bus service exists with easy access to the nearby town.  Plantation Road is very narrow; cars parking on the road outside will cause congestion.  Tractors, trailers, combine harvesters and large Lorries are constantly up and down the road.  Increase litter.  Impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties.

An elected member indicated that planning permission has previously been refused on the site for an erection of a single storey convenience store.

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

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

17/01734/FUL Erect detached dwelling, land adjacent to East View, Southgore Lane, North Leverton.

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

It was noted that the neighbourhood plan has been made therefore full weight is accorded.

Nottinghamshire County Council Highways, Bassetlaw District Council Drainage and the Conservation Officer have no objections.

The Parish Council support the proposal.

A letter of objection has been received from a local resident raising concern regarding the impact on the white lodge as it is a grade 2 listed building.

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

Outcome following PCG –Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

25 17/01466/FUL Construct car park in existing beer garden area, erect smoking shelter, retractable canopy and an outdoor seating area. Blue Bell Inn, 110 High Road, Carlton in Lindrick, Worksop.

Councillor D G Pidwell declared a non-pecuniary interest in the application.

Members were advised that the application sought to construct a car park in existing beer garden area, erect a smoking shelter, retractable canopy and an outdoor seating area. A location map, site plan and photographs were tabled.

Environmental Health, The Conservation Officer and The Tree Officer have no objections.

Nottinghamshire County Council Highways have no objections subject to conditions.

The Parish Council has no objections.

Eight letters of objection have been received from local residents raising concern regarding the following issues:

 A loss of green space.  Increased parking pressures.  Noise levels.  Lack of drainage details.  Issue with tree protection.

Members were advised that conditions relating to tree surveys and a noise mitigation plan will be imposed on the application.

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

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

15/01457/OUT Variation of condition 21 regarding pedestrian links through the site. Firbeck Colliery, Doncaster Road, Costhorpe.

Members were advised that the application sought to vary condition 21 of planning application 15/01457/OUT to retain pedestrian links through the site.

It was noted that the outline application went to Planning Committee in September 2017. The application has been granted subject to S106 agreement.

Initial officer recommendation – Approve variation of condition – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

154. 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 4.39pm.)

PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP

Minutes of the meeting held on Monday 21st May 2018 at Worksop Town Hall

Present: Councillors S Fielding, G Freeman and D G Pidwell.

Officers in attendance: M Joyce and B Pinkney.

(Meeting opened at 4.05pm.)

1. APOLOGIES

There were no apologies for absence.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor G Freeman declared a non-pecuniary interest in planning application 18/00404/HSE.

3. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Application No Proposal

18/00376/HSE Demolish existing garage and erect attached double garage, convert internal garage into a habitable room and erect rear extension. 2 Prospect Drive, Worksop.

Members were advised that the application sought to demolish existing garage and erect an attached double garage, convert the internal garage into a habitable room and erect a rear extension. A site plan, location map and elevations were tabled.

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

 Loss of sunlight and daylight.  Create unacceptable levels of enclosure.  Result in overshadowing.

Members were advised that the application will have no impact on the residential or visual amenity.

It was noted that there will be space for two car parking spaces.

Standard conditions will be applied to the application; including time, design carried out in accordance with the plans and matching roof and facing materials.

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

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

18/00404/HSE Erect a two storey side extension, 2 Silverdale Close, Retford.

(Councillor G Freeman left the meeting)

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

It was noted that the agent is related to a District Councillor.

Members were advised that there will be no impact on the residential or visual amenity.

The proposed development will add to the floor space of the dormer bungalow.

Standard conditions will be applied to the application; including time, design carried out in accordance with the plans and matching roof and facing materials.

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

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

(Councillor G Freeman returned to the meeting)

Application No Proposal

18/00189/VOC Variation of condition 2 of planning application 17/00215/FUL to allow main lift shaft to project above the roof by 1metre and relocate the GRP station.

Members were advised that the application sought to vary condition 2 of planning application 17/00215/FUL to allow the main lift shaft to project above the roof line by 1 metre and relocate the GRP station. A Location map and elevations were tabled.

Members were advised that the application is an A1 application.

The Conservation Officer has no objections.

There will be no adverse impact on residential or visual amenity.

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

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

18/00125/HSE Erect a single storey rear extension, Jaina, Southgore Lane, North Leverton, Retford.

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

The application is recommended for refusal on heritage grounds.

Members were advised that the application is a resubmission of an identical application which was refused as it was considered that the wrap around element would cause harm to the setting of the listed building.

Bassetlaw District Council’s Conservation Officer has raised objection on the following grounds:

 Harmful to the setting of the grade II listed building White Lodge.  Harm can be mitigated by removing the wrap-around element of the proposal.

The Parish Council support the application.

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

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

16/00363/OUT Outline application with all matters reserved for residential development – S106 now signed off. Former Retford Oaks High School, Pennington Walk, Retford.

Members were advised that the application was approved at committee subject to S106 in July 2016 with only four conditions; standard reserved matters conditions and pre-commencement conditions regarding surface water drainage and contaminated land.

It was noted that 14 conditions are now proposed to be implemented on the application.

It is proposed to improve the contaminated land condition and add pre-commencement conditions relating to submission for approval of a full ecological report, landscaping, tree planting and replanting within 5 years should there be a die back. Further details for approval by the Lead Local Flooding Authority and details of vehicular access, car parking and manoeuvring arrangements, a construction management plan and details of boundary treatment as well as conditions prohibiting site clearance during the bird breeding season.

The minutes from Planning Committee in July 2016 were tabled.

Concerns were previously raised regarding flood details and the access. These have now been added as proposed additional conditions.

Initial officer recommendation – Approve Condition – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

4. 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 4.30pm.)

29 30 Agenda Item No. 5

PLANNING COMMITTEE

20th June 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 74(b) 07.03.18 Proposed Article 4(a) 3. Following the consultation period DTM Director for Former and consideration of public North Border Infants responses a further report be and Nursery School brought to a future meeting to and Former Serlby authorise confirmation of the Article Park Academy 4(1) Direction or otherwise. Primary School, Shrewsbury Road, Harworth See Agenda Item No. 6(b)

Agenda Item No. 6(b) BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE

20th June 2018

REPORT OF HEAD OF REGENERATION

PROPOSED CONFIRMATION OF AN ARTICLE 4(1) DIRECTION FOR FORMER NORTH BORDER INFANTS AND NURSERY SCHOOL AND FORMER SERLBY PARK ACADEMY PRIMARY SCHOOL, SHREWSBURY ROAD, BIRCOTES

Cabinet Member: Economic Development

Contact: Simon Britt Ext: 3427 1. Public Interest Test

1.1 The author of this report, Simon Britt, has determined that the report is not confidential.

2. Purpose of the Report

2.1 To seek Planning Committee approval for the confirmation of an Article 4 Direction under Paragraphs 2(6), 2(7), 1(9) and 1(10) of Schedule 3, Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended, to restrict permitted development rights in respect of the former Serlby Park Academy Primary School and former North Border Infants and Nursery School, on Shrewsbury Road, Bircotes. This accords with the Constitutional powers vested in the Planning Committee at Part 3, Page 3.27, para 17.

2.2 To seek approval from Planning Committee Members upon such approval, to confer delegated authority to the Head of Regeneration to implement the ‘confirmation’ of the ‘Former North Border Infant and Nursery School and Former Serlby Park Academy Primary School’ Article 4(1) Direction.

3. Requirements for Article 4 Directions

3.1 An Article 4 Direction (made under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended) may be made by the Local Planning Authority where the authority is satisfied that it is expedient that development (as specified in the Direction), which would ordinarily be permitted by Schedule 2 of the Order, should not be carried out unless permission is granted pursuant to an express application. Such a Direction effectively withdraws the permitted development rights as set out in the Direction.

3.2 Schedule 3, Part 2, Paragraph 1(a), of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended, states that Local Planning Authorities should consider making Article 4 Directions only in those

circumstances where it considers: “that the development to which the direction relates would be prejudicial to the proper planning of their area or constitute a threat to the amenities of their area”.

3.3 The two main types of Article 4 Directions are ‘immediate’ Directions and ‘non- immediate’ Directions:

 Immediate Directions – can be made immediately without consultation, although they do require a final confirmation before a 6 month deadline. Immediate Directions only cover development permitted within Parts 1 to 4 and part 11 of Schedule 2 of the 2015 Order (as amended).  Non-immediate Directions – can cover any of the types of development within the 2015 order (as amended), although require consultation before being confirmed by the Local Planning Authority.

4. Development to which the Article 4(1) Direction is proposed to apply (Schedule 1)

4.1 Schedule 1 of the Direction (a copy of which is attached to this report) identifies the types of development that are covered by the Direction. This relates solely to the demolition of the two historic buildings on the site (coloured red on the map), the removal of the railings and gates on the eastern boundary, and the painting of the exterior brickwork and stonework. The Schedule contains the following:

 Schedule 2, Part 2 – Minor Works o Class C – Exterior Painting The painting of any part of the external brickwork or stone dressings.

 Schedule 2, Part 11 – Heritage and Demolition o Class B – Demolition of Buildings Any building operation consisting of the demolition of a building which is coloured red on the attached map.

o Class C – demolition of gates, fences, walls etc Any building operation consisting of the demolition of the whole or any part of any gate, fence or railings fronting Shrewsbury Road and Snipe Park Road.

5. Background to ‘making’ the Immediate Article 4(1) Direction in March 2018

5.1 As the Planning Committee report for 7th March 2018 stated, the former Serlby Park Academy Primary School and former North Border Infants and Nursery School, as a whole, is regarded as a non-designated heritage asset, identified as such in accordance with the Council’s criteria which were approved at Planning Committee in January 2011. The specific criteria which are attributed to these buildings are: ‘historic and architectural interest’, ‘aesthetic appeal’, ‘association’, ‘integrity’, ‘rarity’ and ‘representativeness’.

5.2 The buildings were constructed in the 1920s and were one of a number of similar school complexes built across the Nottinghamshire Coalfield, all designed by Nottinghamshire County Council’s Chief Architect at the time, L.E. Maggs. Within Bassetlaw, the 1920s Maggs schools include Langold Dyscarr, Worksop Central, Haggonfields (Rhodesia), Manton (demolished c2012), North Notts College and

Harworth. All these buildings are of considerable architectural interest, utilising a neo- classical style with symmetrical geometric layouts and balanced elevations, using a material palette of red brick with slate or rosemary tile roofs, timber joinery, brick chimney stacks, stone dressings and in some cases the decorative use of render. Buildings of this type are identified as heritage assets across the county on the Nottinghamshire Historic Environment Record (HER). The County Council’s HER Manager has provided the following comment regarding the significance of school buildings of the 1910s-1930s era in a Nottinghamshire-wide context:

“Schools from this period have a social significance. New thinking in education, health and child welfare was heavily reflected in the designs of school buildings. Greater recognition was given to the importance of individual and group work, as opposed to mass instruction, and as such efforts were made to reduce class sizes seeing the introduction of higher numbers of smaller sized classrooms in new schools. The idea of ‘open air’ design was also considered beneficial to the health of children and great consideration was given to ventilation and light. The influence of this is seen in the design of windows and doors and the building layout often enabling one side of the classroom to be opened out. The introduction of the quadrangle plan form also allowed for greater ventilation and light penetration into all areas of school buildings.”

5.3 In terms of the national picture, the significance of schools of this date is discussed in Historic England’s (was English Heritage) 2010 publication England’s Schools – History, Architecture and Adaptation. The study looks at the development of local authority schools in the early-20th century period and highlights the elements of significance which are common to schools of this era. In particular, the strong architectural (often neo-classical) emphasis, rigid geometric layouts, the use of marching corridors, large elements of glazing and clearly defined internal spaces are all associated with local authority school buildings of this date. All these elements can be found at Harworth.

5.4 In the case of Harworth, the site comprises 2 separate school buildings constructed in c1924-5. The northern building, originally the North Border County Secondary School, later the nursery/infant school, is of a distinctive plan form with the main west-east range, and smaller projecting elements on the north side at the west and eastern ends. On the south (front) façade are a pair of projecting gables, with feature full-height arched window openings. The windows are mostly 2 and 3 part timber sashes, one of the most identifiable fixtures on Nottinghamshire Schools of the 1920s/30s period. The elongated stone quoins are a less common feature, not found on any of the other schools of this type in Bassetlaw.

5.5 The southern building, originally the North Border County Primary School and later the Serlby Park Academy Primary School, is the larger of the two and is laid out in a geometric pattern similar to the former Worksop Central. The layout is of a quadrangle, with a pair of projecting wings to the north and a courtyard in the centre. Key architectural features on this building include the unbroken rows of full-height timber windows, the coped gables, feature rendered gables on the east and west elevations, brick chimney stacks, splayed brick window arches, feature entrance porch and stone dressings.

5.6 In accordance with Schedule 3, Part 2, Paragraph 1(a), of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended, it is considered that the loss of these buildings would cause harm to the amenity of the

locality. That amenity includes visual amenity, which the school buildings contribute to significantly. In addition, the school buildings and site as a whole are culturally and socially important parts of the community; their unjustified loss is likely to cause a degree of local objection. Indeed, the Council’s Heritage Champion is supportive of the Article 4. In addition, a District Councillor for the area has set out her concerns with the demolition in writing (see below).

5.7 There is also a degree of urgency with this report, as the immediate Article 4(1) Direction made on the 8th March 2018 will expire on the 6th September 2018. If the Direction is not confirmed, then the Council cannot refuse a Prior Approval application for the demolition of the buildings on the site for heritage reasons. Hence, without the confirmation of the Article 4 Direction, the Local Planning Authority cannot properly consider the demolition of a heritage asset against the relevant national and local planning policies (i.e. paragraphs 131 & 135 of the NPPF and Policy DM8 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy).

5.8 One of the District Councillors for Harworth has raised concerns in writing with the Prior Approval application. Councillor Evans stated on the 20th February 2018, that:

“Bircotes, built to house mining families associated with Harworth Colliery, was designed with wide streets and well-built houses; the development included social, sporting, and recreational facilities, along with places of worship, all of which continue to be used today. Central to this new community was the school, a key feature of everyday life that served the majority of children in both Harworth and Bircotes; in later years it was, until recently, an integrated part of the local education provision. It remains an important building that is part of our local heritage.

I note the request to demolish the building, and the reasons given as acts of arson, vandalism, and anti-social behaviour that presents a problem to the police. I also note that the building had been left vulnerable by those currently responsible for it - people have asked me why there are no shutters on windows and doors.

I therefore respectfully ask the Planning Committee to authorise an Article 4 Direction on the building; this would give Harworth and Bircotes Town Council time to conduct a public consultation exercise within the required time frame. I know residents would appreciate being consulted, and that they would respect the outcome; they would not appreciate the appearance of bulldozers and the disappearance of a building important to them, simply because it has been allowed to become a liability.

I have good reason to believe that local people value the school building, want it to remain, and to be given a new purpose that will bring benefits to the community. It is a legacy to our past – it should be part of our future”.

5.9 The making of immediate Article 4(1) Directions is common practice across the country with respect to the protection from demolition or alteration of non-designated heritage assets. Amongst the most recent examples are Leicester City Council, which has implemented Article 4(1) Directions on a range of its non-designated heritage assets in 2016 & 2017.

6. Reasons for seeking approval for the ‘Confirmation’ of the Article 4(1) Direction

6.1 Public consultation on the immediate Direction was carried out between 8th March 2018 – 20th April 2018. This consultation comprised the following:

o Two site notices erected adjacent to the school on Shrewsbury Road; o Letters/emails with copies of the direction and map were sent to: . The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government; . Nottinghamshire County Council; . Harworth and Bircotes Town Council; and . All local district councillors.

6.2 The outcomes of the consultation were overwhelmingly positive. The results of the consultation are set out below:

Local residents One local resident responded directly to the site notice, highlighting the importance of the school to the heritage of the settlement. The resident suggested that the buildings should be re-used, either for educational purposes, community functions or as elderly sheltered accommodation.

Town Council Harworth and Bircotes Town Council responded in writing and set out their support for the retention of the buildings, discussing their importance to both the built heritage of the town, as well as to the social and cultural wellbeing of the local community. The Town Council also set out their desire for the buildings to be used for community function, a need which was growing as the town expands significantly over the coming years. A copy of the Town Council response is included at the end of this report.

Town Council public consultation The Town Council undertook its own consultation with local residents, during the same March-April period. A total of 94 responses were received by the Town Council, of which, 84 people (89.4%) did not support the demolition of the school buildings. Only 8 people (8.5%) wished for the buildings to be demolished, whilst another 2 (2.1%) were undecided.

A large proportion of respondents recognised the architectural and cultural heritage of the school buildings, with 59 people raising this aspect of the site. A further 11 people saw the retention of community or educational facilities as the most important attribute.

In terms of future uses, educational facilities (especially adult education and vocational training) were suggested by around half of all respondents. Other common suggestions included childcare uses, a community centre, a youth centre, sheltered housing, recreational facilities and a job centre. All these responses are set out below:

6.3 No responses to the consultation were received from Nottinghamshire County Council or the landowner.

6.4 Conservation has considered the consultation responses and would recommend that, due to the historic, architectural and cultural significance of the site, in addition to the strong local support, the site be protected from demolition or harmful alterations by the confirmation of the Article 4(1) Direction.

7. Implications

a) For service users

The number of alterations that may be carried out without planning permission (under permitted development) will be reduced, namely the demolition of the two main buildings, the painting of the exterior brickwork and stonework and the removal of the railings/gates on the eastern boundary. However, any planning application made for development subject to the Article 4(1), i.e. demolition, painting or railings/gates removal, is currently exempt from a planning fee (unless the Local Planning Authority decides to introduce a fee for these types of applications).

b) Strategic & Policy

With regard to the Article 4(1) Direction, the local planning authority would have increased powers with which to control the demolition and inappropriate alteration of this important non-designated heritage asset. Over time, this will help to preserve and enhance the significance of the heritage asset, a key objective of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Article 4(1) Direction will also help to achieve broader planning objectives for environmental enhancement and the protection of the District’s heritage assets, as set out in the Bassetlaw Core Strategy. There is also evidence to suggest that conservation and enhancement of environmental assets helps to promote economic prosperity, in support of the Council’s strategic objectives (see recent studies by the Institute of Historic Building Conservation, Historic England and the Heritage Alliance, amongst others). c) Financial - Ref: 19/194

Printing costs will be met from approved budgets. In terms of staffing levels, it is unlikely that there would be any significant impact from the Article 4(1) as only 1 property (2 buildings) would be affected. However, should there be a measured impact in the future, this would be reported to a future Cabinet meeting at that time.

Planning Committee should be aware that the withdrawal of permitted development rights by an Article 4 Direction may give rise to a claim for compensation if a planning application submitted within 12 months of the date of the Direction coming into force is either refused, or if an application is granted subject to conditions. However, research published by the Historic Towns Forum in 2008 found that no incidences of claims for compensation had been made to the authorities consulted (72 in total) in relation to the withdrawal of permitted development rights. This research found that: “The only known cases where this has occurred, have been in relation to the withdrawal of permitted development rights for car boot sales and Sunday markets”. d) Legal – Ref: 46/06/2018

The confirmed Article 4(1) Direction shall be a local land charge in accordance with the 2015 Order, as amended.

Schedule 3 (‘Procedures for Article 4 Directions’) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 2015, as amended, requires that the Local Planning Authority gives notice to the Secretary of State on the confirmation of any Article 4(1) Direction. After being confirmed, notice of the Direction shall also be made by local advertisement, by site display in no fewer than two locations within the affected area and by serving the notice on the owner/occupier of every part of the land to which the direction relates. The Town Council and Nottinghamshire County Council will also be notified. e) Human Resources

The confirmation of this Article 4(1) Direction is likely to result in a small increase in the number of planning applications received, and it is predicted that the work load for Development Control, Enforcement and the Planning Policy & Conservation Team will also increase by a small amount as a result.

The most significant impact will be upon the Conservation Team’s resources, including the responsibility for carrying out regular surveys of the Article 4(1) Direction area and providing advice to the owners/occupiers of the buildings covered by the Article 4(1) Direction. Any future staffing level implications, which at present are unknown, would be reported to Cabinet if such issues arise.

f) Community Safety, Equalities, Environmental

The Article 4(1) Direction will have no impact on community safety or equal opportunities.

The Article 4(1) Direction will help to preserve and enhance the historic and architectural significance and visual, social and cultural amenity of this area.

g) Data Protection Regulations

No Data Protection Issues Arise

h) Whether this is a key decision, and if so the reference number.

No, this is not a key decision.

8. Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations

8.1 Option 1: Approve the ‘confirmation’ of the ‘Former North Border Infant and Nursery School and Former Serlby Park Academy Primary School’ Article 4(1) Direction as set out in this report. This will provide additional planning tools to enable the preservation, conservation and enhancement of the significance of the former school site. The Article 4(1) Direction will allow the Local Planning Authority to properly consider the proposed demolition of the heritage assets on the site against local and national planning policies. The Direction will also provide greater control over external alterations to the buildings (namely the over-painting of the brickwork and stonework), and will result in the protection of the historic railings and gates at the front of the site.

8.2 Planning Committee should be aware that the withdrawal of permitted development rights by an Article 4 Direction may give rise to a claim for compensation if a planning application submitted within 12 months of the date of the Direction coming into force is either refused, or if an application is granted subject to conditions. However, research published by the Historic Towns Forum in 2008 found that no incidences of claims for compensation had been made to the authorities consulted (72 in total) in relation to the withdrawal of permitted development rights. This research found that: “The only known cases where this has occurred, have been in relation to the withdrawal of permitted development rights for car boot sales and Sunday markets”.

8.3 Option 2: Do not approve the ‘confirmation’ of the ‘Former North Border Infant and Nursery School and Former Serlby Park Academy Primary School’ Article 4(1) Direction. Failure to confirm the Article 4(1) Direction carries a risk that after the 6th September 2018, when the immediate Direction expires, the significance of the non-

designated heritage asset could be completely lost by the demolition of the buildings and structures on the site without requiring approval. Not confirming the Article 4(1) Direction could also undermine the distinctive visual, social, historic and cultural amenity of the area.

9. Recommendations

9.1 That Committee approve the ‘confirmation’ of the ‘Former North Border Infant and Nursery School and Former Serlby Park Academy Primary School’ Article 4(1) Direction.

9.2 That Committee confer delegated authority to the Head of Regeneration to implement the ‘confirmation’ of the ‘Former North Border Infant and Nursery School and Former Serlby Park Academy Primary School’ Article 4(1) Direction.

9.3 Any future cost implications for employee structure would be reported to Cabinet.

41 42

Appendix A – Written response from Harworth and Bircotes Town Council

Appendix B – Draft Confirmed ‘Former North Border Infant and Nursery School and Former Serlby Park Academy Primary School’ Article 4(1) Direction

Appendix C – Draft Notice for Confirmed ‘Former North Border Infant and Nursery School and Former Serlby Park Academy Primary School’ Article 4(1) Direction

48 Agenda Item No.6(c)

PLANNING COMMITTEE

20th June 2018

INFORMATION REPORT

APPEAL DECISION RECEIVED

17/00803/RSB – Change of Use to Form Garden Centre and Erect Associated Buildings, Form Car Park and Create Community Gardening Facility, with Alterations to Access (Resubmission of 16/00514/FUL), at:

Land North of Sewage Works High Hoe Road Worksop Nottinghamshire

DECISION: Appeal DISMISSED by the Inspector.

The Inspector considered the main issue to be:

 Whether the proposal would affect the character and appearance of the area, including the Listed Bracebridge Pumping Station, and the Worksop Conservation Area (CA).

The Inspector acknowledged that the appeal site is located at a gateway where the transition between the wider open countryside and open land which meanders towards the Worksop Priory has a high sensitivity to development.

The Inspector also acknowledged that the siting of buildings and display areas would unacceptably detract from the open character of the site; conflicting with the landscape policy zone within which the site is located; therefore being contrary to Policies DM4 and DM9 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy (BCS).

With regards to heritage, the Inspector acknowledged that the adjacent Grade II Listed Pumping Station has considerable architectural and historic significance, and the openness of the site, and views obtained across it are a key part in the pumping stations’ setting. Its relationship with the canal makes a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the CA and its significance as a designated heritage asset.

The Inspector acknowledged that the development would fail to preserve the setting of the Grade II Listed Building and would fail to preserve the character of the CA. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF indicates that where there is less than substantial harm, the harm must be weighed against public benefits of the proposal. Any public benefit in the provision of a community garden would not outweigh the harmful effect of the development, and there was no evidence provided to suggest that a community garden facility would be required in that location.

49 The Inspector acknowledged that the appellant provided insufficient information to comply with the objectives of Policy DM1 of the BCS, which relates to economic development in the countryside, and as such the development would conflict with the objectives of this policy.

With regards to ‘other issues’, the Inspector recognised the appellants’ submission of a Deed of Covenant which dated back to the 1980’s; which stated that the site should be used for the purposes of agriculture, horticulture or a garden centre. The Inspector confirmed that a restrictive covenant does not bind the Local Planning Authority to grant permission; the merits of the proposal would need to be assessed in terms of extant planning policy. As such, the Covenant was only given limited weight to the submission.

The Inspector concluded that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area, fail to preserve the setting of the Listed Building and would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. The development would therefore conflict with the Development Plan and national planning guidance.

As such, the appeal is dismissed.

A copy of the Inspector’s decision letter follows this report.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

FINALISED DECISION LEVEL: Delegated after referring to Planning Consultation Group

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 May 2018 by S R G Baird BA (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23rd May 2018

Appeal Ref: APP/A3010/W/3194840 Land at High Hoe Road, Worksop, Nottinghamshire S80 2DW  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 D Hughes against the decision of Bassetlaw District Council.  The application Ref 17/00803/RSB, dated 5 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 22 August 2017.  The development proposed is a change of use to form a garden centre and to erect associated buildings, form car parking and create a community gardening facility with alterations to the access (resubmission of 16/00514/FUL).

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues

2. These are, the effect on the character and appearance of the area, and the effect on the listed Bracebridge Pumping Station and the character and appearance of the Worksop Conservation Area (CA).

Reasons

Character and Appearance

3. The appeal site is located outside the settlement boundary of Worksop and for planning purposes is defined as being within the countryside. Development plan1 Policy DM9 seeks to ensure that a proposal either in or adjoining the countryside is sensitive to its setting and enhances the distinctive qualities of the landscape. Policy DM4 requires new development to be of high quality design and respect its context. Development in prominent positions at “gateways” to the settlement need to be of particularly high quality of design that would serve to reinforce a positive perception about the quality of place.

4. The site forms part of an area of open land of varying width that extends deep into the urban area of Worksop. The northern and eastern boundaries of the site are formed by the Chesterfield Canal and the towpath forms part of a long distance footpath. Although on the edge of the urban area, the experience using the canal towpath particularly to the east and the view from High Hoe Road, which is set higher, is one of rural tranquillity, to which the undeveloped nature of the appeal site makes a major contribution.

5. The site is located within the Ryton Valley River Meadowlands (Policy Zone (PZ) 38) 2. The sensitivity of this PZ to development is assessed as moderate and the landscape actions for this PZ are to conserve and reinforce its pastoral character.

1 Bassetlaw Core Strategy & Development Management Policies DPD (CS). 2 Landscape Character Assessment – Bassetlaw, Nottinghamshire August 2009. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 51 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/3194840

Whilst that sensitivity assessment relates to the whole area, the appeal site is located at a gateway location where there is a transition between the wider open countryside to the east and the open land that meanders towards Worksop Priory. In this context, the appeal site is, in my view, in a location that has a high sensitivity to development.

6. The development includes 4 single-storey buildings of varying sizes designed in the Victorian vernacular and located broadly in the middle of the site and turn away from the canal. To the west towards High Hoe Road would be a garden centre display area and adjoining the canal a storage compound. To the east of the buildings would be a substantial car park. Adjoining the canal, where it wraps around the northern and eastern boundary would be an area for the display of sheds and a community garden. When viewed from High Hoe Road and from the canal towpath, the development and activity on the site would result in a significant interruption to the flow of the open land from the countryside into the town. Moreover, the largely unscreened nature of the activities on the site, particularly the storage and shed display areas, would unacceptably detract from the open character of the site, its contribution to the wider landscape policy zone and the setting of the canal. Given the strategic importance and high sensitivity of this gateway site, the harm to its landscape character would be substantial and conflict with the objectives of CS Policies DM4 and DM9.

Heritage

7. The site lies at the eastern edge of an extensive CA which CA includes that part of the Chesterfield Canal where it abuts the northern and eastern boundary of the site. Immediately to the south is the former Bracebridge Pumping Station a Grade II Listed Building (LB) and a prominent feature located at the eastern edge of the CA. This former sewage pumping station was built in the 1880’s in the Romanesque style features polychromatic brickwork and has a high campanile style chimney. Given its design and former use, it has considerable architectural and historical significance as designated heritage asset (DHA).

8. It is clear that the appeal site has been in open use before and since the construction of the pumping station. In this context the openness of the site and the views obtained across it are a key part of the pumping station’s setting and how it is viewed and interpreted. Similarly, given its longstanding open use and relationship to the canal it makes a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the CA and its significance as a DHA.

9. The development would have a significant and unacceptable effect on the open character of the land that adjoins the LB and the canal. Thus, it would have an adverse effect on and fail to preserve the setting of this Grade II LB and would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA. I consider the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the LB and this part of the CA. Paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework indicates that where there is less than substantial harm, that harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

10. Other than to suggest that the development would arrest the decline of the area and provide a community garden no other benefits have been identified. Whilst the site is overgrown, its condition is not such that would suggest that the harmful effect of this development would be outweighed by development. In terms of a community garden, there is nothing to suggest that such a facility is required, nor is there any indication of how this would benefit the community given that access to it would be limited to those times the garden centre was open. I am also aware that planning permission has been granted in the past for a substantial extension

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 52 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/3194840

to the former pumping station to allow for residential development. The lpa indicate that those permissions have lapsed and I am not aware that there is any fall-back position that would allow those permissions to be implemented. Accordingly, I attach limited weight to the suggestion that such development would result in greater harm to the LB and CA that the appeal proposal.

11. Drawing all of the above together, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to preserve the setting of the LB and fail to conserve the character or appearance of the CA. As such the proposal would conflict with national planning policy and CS Policy DM8.

Other Considerations

12. CS Policy DM1 indicates that standalone economic development in the countryside will be supported where, amongst other things, the development requires the specific location proposed and there are no other suitable sites in, or close to settlements or on brownfield land. In this case none of that information was provided by the developer and as such the proposal would conflict with the objectives of CS Policy DM1.

13. I have taken note that the site was sold in the 1980s by the Council with a covenant that it should only be used for the purposes of agricultural, horticultural, recreational and garden centre uses only. Whilst I can understand the appellant’s frustration, the fact that such uses are covenanted by a former land owner does not bind the lpa to grant planning permission for any or all of the uses referred to. The merits of a proposal have to be assessed in terms of extant planning policy. Accordingly I attach limited weigh to this submission.

Conclusions

14. For the above reasons and having taken all other matters into consideration, this proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area, fail to preserve the setting of a Listed Building and fail to preserve the character or appearance of the Worksop Conservation Area. The proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and national planning guidance. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. George Baird

Inspector

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 53 54 PLANNING COMMITTEE,

20 June 2018

INFORMATION REPORT

APPEAL DECISION RECEIVED

17/01213/OUT Mr & Mrs Appeal against the refusal of planning permission for Bentley outline consent for residential development of four dwellings and associated works at Holly Crest, Brotts Road, Normanton on Trent.

DECISION: Appeal ALLOWED by the Inspector.

The Inspector considered the main issue is whether the proposed development would provide a suitable location for housing, particularly having regard to accessibility of services and facilities.

The Inspector concluded that overall the adverse impacts of the development, conflict with policy CS9, a degree of environmental harm resulting from the urbanising effect on the rural surroundings and some reliance on the private car, would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the social and economic benefits from the generation of four dwellings contributing to the Council’s housing supply, to which the inspector attached significant weight.

A copy of the Inspector’s decision letter follows this report.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse Planning Permission.

FINALISED DECISION LEVEL: Delegated

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 April 2018 by Kevin Savage BA MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 May 2018

Appeal Ref: APP/A3010/W/18/3194217 Holly Crest, Brotts Road, Normanton-on-Trent NG23 6RL  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 and Mrs Bentley against the decision of Bassetlaw District Council.  The application Ref 17/01213/OUT, dated 11 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 1 December 2017.  The development proposed was originally described as ‘Residential Development (and associated works).’

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for residential development of four dwellings and associated works at Holly Crest, Brotts Road, Normanton-on-Trent NG23 6RL, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/01213/OUT, dated 11 September 2017, and subject to the conditions listed in the attached Schedule.

Preliminary Matters

2. The description of development in the banner 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 changed, in the main to specify the amount of development as four dwellings. The Council dealt with the scheme on that basis and so shall I.

3. The original application was made in outline with all matters reserved. I have had regard to the Site Location Plan and Existing Block Plan (drawing J1537- PL-01 Rev P01) delineating the extent of the appeal site. I have taken into account the other plans submitted, but consider these to be indicative given they show details of matters which would be reserved for future consideration.

Main Issue

4. The main issue is whether the proposal would provide a suitable location for housing, having particular regard to the accessibility of services and facilities, and whether there are material considerations sufficient to outweigh any conflict with the development plan and any other harm arising from the development.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 57 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/18/3194217

Reasons

5. Policy CS1 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (December 2011) (the Core Strategy) sets out a settlement hierarchy for the district. Normanton-on-Trent is categorised under ‘All Other Settlements’ as one with limited or no facilities or access to public transport and which is unsuitable for growth. The policy includes an exception whereby development may be permitted in order to address a shortfall in the district’s 5 year housing land supply. Development within settlements under this category is further addressed by Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy which restricts proposals for the development of housing in these settlements other than for conversions or replacement dwellings. Policies CS1 and CS9 are broadly consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as far as it seeks to direct housing development to larger settlements where access to services is greatest.

6. The appeal site comprises part of a field adjacent to Brotts Road which leads out of the village of Normanton-on-Trent. The site is adjacent to a farmhouse, Holly Crest, which comprises a group of connected buildings including a brick barn and stable block within the appellants’ control. Normanton-on-Trent does not have a defined village boundary, and the appeal site is located outside the main built form of the village. In respect of services, I observed a church, a primary school, two public houses, and a village hall.

7. There are therefore some services within walking distance in the village which would offer benefits to residents. Although the bus timetable submitted by the appellants indicates services do not run on weekday or Saturday evenings or at all on Sundays, the bus service would provide an alternative mode of transport to access services and facilities in Newark-on-Trent and Sutton-on-Trent. Notwithstanding this, future occupants of the dwellings would still be likely to own and use a private car given the location of the site and the limited provision of services within the village. Given Normanton-on-Trent’s position within the settlement hierarchy, and its limitations in terms of service provision, there would be conflict with Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy as the proposal would not be directed to a settlement where growth is encouraged.

8. The Council, however, accepts that there is a ‘significant shortfall’ in the district’s 5 year housing land supply. The exception within Policy CS1 therefore would apply which would support residential development which would address a shortfall in the 5 year housing supply, and therefore I do not find conflict with this policy overall. The proposal would, however, conflict with Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy as the proposal would not fall into either of the categories of development supported under this policy.

Other Matters

9. In terms of the site’s location, the proposed development would be located in a slightly detached position relative to the main concentration of development in the village. The proposed dwellings would, however, be visible from the corner of South Street and Brotts Road, and would been seen as a cluster of buildings alongside the existing dwelling and its outbuildings. In addition, there is a concentration of around a dozen dwellings lining Brotts Road within a short distance to the other side of the appeal site. The proposed dwellings would not therefore be isolated homes in the countryside which paragraph 55 of the Framework seeks to avoid.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 58 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/18/3194217

10. Nevertheless, the proposal would have an urbanising effect and would partially infill a gap between the main built form of the village and the outlying linear development on Brotts Road, which helps to reinforce the rural character of the surroundings. The presence of dwellings would diminish the openness of views along Brotts Road to some degree, and the open setting of the farmhouse. The proposed dwellings therefore would cause minor harm to the rural character of the area. I acknowledge, however, that the degree of harm could be tempered through suitable details of scale, layout, appearance and landscaping being agreed at reserved matters stage.

11. The existing group of vernacular farm buildings are considered to be a non- designated heritage asset. The significance of the asset is principally historic, deriving from the form and age of the buildings themselves which have surviving elements dating from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. The main effect of the proposal would be in the partial reduction of its open surroundings. However, given the buildings are not formally designated, and the main interest identified is in the surviving historic fabric which would not be affected, I consider that the proposal would not cause harm to the significance of the non-designated heritage asset.

12. The appellants state that a purpose of the proposal is to generate funds to renovate the existing buildings. There is, however, no mechanism before me to secure the works to the existing buildings and therefore I am unable to give weight to this in favour of the proposal.

13. The appeal site is located in Flood Zone 2. The Council notes that proposals for dwellings within this zone, being regarded as ‘more vulnerable’ development under the Framework, are subject to a sequential test in accordance with paragraphs 101 to 104. The appellants have submitted a sequential test taking in sites in Normanton-on-Trent. Based on the evidence provided, no preferable sites have been identified, and I consider the sequential test has been met.

14. In respect of the effects on ecology and drainage, the Council concluded that these matters could be dealt with by condition. From all I have seen and read, I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s conclusions in these regards.

15. I have had regard to the Council’s comments in respect of appeal decision (APP/A3010/W/17/3177000). I do not know what evidence was before that Inspector and on the basis of the limited information before me, I am not convinced that the circumstances in that case were so similar to that before me. In any event, however, I have dealt with this scheme on its own merits.

Planning Balance

16. I do not find conflict overall with Policy CS1 given the exception to the general restriction on development outside defined settlements which would apply in this case due to the position in respect of the supply of housing land. There would be conflict with Policy CS9. However, strict application of this policy in this case would prevent improvements to the large shortfall in the supply of housing.

17. Furthermore, paragraph 49 of the Framework applies which states that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date where a 5 year housing land supply cannot be demonstrated. Paragraph 14 indicates that where relevant policies are out of date, permission should be

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 59 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/18/3194217

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 whole.

18. In respect of the adverse impacts of the proposal, in addition to the development plan conflict, there would be a degree of environmental harm resulting from the urbanising effect of the proposals on the rural surroundings. This harm could however be reduced through suitable detailing of the scheme at reserved matters stage. There would be some reliance on the private car by future occupants of the dwellings which given the services and facilities available within the village. This harm would be tempered, however, given the public transport shown to be available and the small scale of the development. In combination, these adverse impacts would carry moderate weight.

19. Set against this harm are the main the social and economic benefits from the development generating four dwellings which would contribute to the Council’s housing supply, bearing in mind the stated significant shortfall. I attach significant weight to this benefit. There would also be economic investment from both the construction and subsequent occupation of the dwellings, although this would be relatively modest given the scale of the development. The appellants also refer to the expansion of the nearby JG Pears plant and its associated employment opportunities. As a notable local employer, there may be scope for social, environmental and economic benefits arising from potential employment opportunities for future occupants and the ability to walk or cycle to work, albeit these benefits would attract limited weight given the small scale of the proposal.

20. Overall, the adverse impacts of the development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Therefore, although I have identified some conflict with the development plan, there are other material considerations which indicate that permission should be granted despite this conflict. The presumption in favour of sustainable development applies which points towards the grant of planning permission.

Conditions

21. I have noted the list of conditions suggested by the appellants, and have had regard to the advice set out in both the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance in terms of the need for individual conditions and appropriate wording. No conditions have been provided by the Council, although it has been afforded the opportunity to comment on possible conditions suggested by the appellant.

22. I have imposed conditions relating to the submission and timing of reserved matters applications, and the commencement of development, in the interests of certainty.

23. Conditions requiring details of a foul and surface water drainage scheme and the implementation of the recommended flood prevention measures are necessary to reduce flood risk. A condition requiring implementation of the recommendations contained within the submitted ecology survey is necessary to ensure harm is avoided to protected species.

24. I note the request from the Council’s Environmental Health department for a condition restricting working hours on site to limit noise from construction

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 60 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/18/3194217

works, which I agree is necessary given the quiet surroundings and presence of nearby dwellings. Conditions seeking compliance with other regulations relating to extraction and ventilation equipment and lighting are not necessary, however, as these matters would be dealt with through other legislation.

25. I have considered the imposition of a condition relating to restoration works to the existing buildings at Holly Crest. However, as I have found the proposal to be otherwise acceptable without the potential benefits arising from renovations to the existing building, such a condition is not necessary.

26. Several further conditions were suggested by the appellants, including requiring the reserved matters applications to accord with the illustrative details submitted with the outline application, to restrict the overall ridge height of the dwellings, and to protect existing hedgerows. These matters would fall to be considered at reserved matters stage and are not necessary.

Conclusion

27. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

Kevin Savage

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 61 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/18/3194217

Schedule – 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) The development hereby permitted shall not begin until details of works for the disposal of foul and surface water have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The foul and surface water drainage scheme shall be carried out and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Those details shall include: a) a timetable for its implementation; and b) a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the drainage scheme throughout its lifetime. 5) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the flood mitigation measures outlined in the Flood Risk Assessment (Origin Design Studio Ltd – 17th July 2017). 6) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Ecology and Protected Species Survey - Scarborough Nixon June 2017. 7) Construction works shall take place only between 0800 and 1800 hours from Monday to Friday, 0800 to 1300 hours on Saturdays and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6 62 PLANNING COMMITTEE,

20 June 2018

INFORMATION REPORT

APPEAL DECISION RECEIVED

17/01421/OUT Mr & Mrs Appeal against the refusal of outline planning Hudspeth permission for the erection of a dwelling on land at Pheasant House, Fountain Hill, Walkeringham.

DECISION: Appeal DISMISSED by the Inspector.

The Inspector considered the main issues to be whether the appeal site represents an appropriate location for housing having regard to national and local policies which seek to protect the character and appearance of the countryside and the likely impact on highway safety.

The Inspector considered the proposal would be a prominent addition in a rural countryside setting, some distance from the group of dwellings to the south. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the landscape character which the Bassetlaw Landscape Character and Assessment seeks to conserve what remains of the open rural landscape.

The Inspector considered that due to the restricted width of the access drive, the proposal would result in vehicles reversing onto Fountain Hill and due the form of the proposed access would not prevent surface water from running off the site onto the public highway, to the detriment of highway safety.

The Inspector concluded that the site lies in an unsustainable location and the adverse impacts of the proposal would not outweigh the contribution one dwelling would make to the Council’s housing supply deficit.

A copy of the Inspector’s Decision Letter follows this report.

INSPECTORS DECISION: Dismiss the appeal

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse outline planning permission.

FINALISED DECISION LEVEL: Delegated

63 64

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 May 2018 by K Ford MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29th May 2018

Appeal Ref: APP/A3010/W/18/3196527 Pheasant House, Fountain Hill, Walkeringham DN10 4LX  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 and Mrs Hudspeth against the decision of Bassetlaw District Council.  The application Ref 17/01421/OUT, dated 17 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 14 December 2017.  The development proposed is single new dwelling.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues

2. The main issues are:

 Whether the appeal site represents an appropriate location for housing having regard to national and local policies which seek to protect the character and appearance of the countryside, and whether any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

 The effect on highway safety. Reasons

Character and Appearance

3. The appeal site is an undeveloped piece of grassed land to the side of Pheasant House, a dwelling located on a single track off Fountain Hill which is a high speed, unpaved and unlit road outside the villages of Walkeringham and Misterton. The site is largely screened from the main road by a dense covering of mature trees. Land surrounding the site is predominantly countryside aside from a group of houses to the south of the site. The area is open and rural in character.

4. The retention of trees to the front of the site would screen views of the development when travelling along Fountain Hill from the south. However, the creation of an access to the site would open up views of the proposal when travelling from the north and as such the proposal would be a prominent addition in a rural countryside setting. Whilst the proposal would be for a single dwelling, it’s development would also likely lead to the introduction of https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 65 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/18/3196527

associated additional domestic paraphernalia on the site. The development would therefore be an incongruous addition that would detract from the existing verdant character of the area.

5. The proposal would be located a notable distance from the group of houses to the south of the site due to the large plot within which the neighbouring property, the Manor House sits. Consequently, the proposal would not appear as an extension to this group of dwellings, irrespective of when the last property was built.

6. The appellant identifies that the site is located within Policy Zone 02 Mid Nottinghamshire Farmlands of the Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment, the existing landscape condition of which is identified as very poor. Be that as it may, I do not consider that the proposal would align with the landscape actions identified in the document as it would conflict with the proposal to ‘conserve what remains of the open rural landscape’.

7. The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and therefore would be contrary to the part of Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw District Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD (Plan) which requires new development to respect the wider surroundings, including landscape character, to complement the local character and distinctiveness of the area.

Highways

8. The development would be served by a single width unmade track which currently serves 2 existing properties off Fountain Hill. Whilst the red line of the plan was amended prior to determination of the application to the satisfaction of the Highways Authority, they maintained concerns about the width of the track and its construction.

9. The proposal would increase the number of vehicles using the track. Despite the level of visibility of Fountain Road from the access, the narrow width of the existing track would require a vehicle to reverse into a high speed road when meeting another vehicle on the track. I therefore concur with the Highways Authority that this would lead to a risk to highway safety. Similarly, the current form of the proposed access would not prevent surface water from running off the site onto the public highway.

10. I acknowledge that if other elements of the development were deemed acceptable the road width, composition and associated drainage could be dealt with through appropriately worded conditions. However, as currently proposed the development would pose a risk to highway safety and as such would be contrary to Policy DM4 of the Plan which requires new development to not have a detrimental effect on highway safety.

Planning Balance and Conclusion

11. Misterton is identified as a Local Service Centre in Policy CS1 of the Plan because of the services, facilities and development opportunities available to support moderate levels of growth. Walkeringham is identified as a Rural Service Centre in Policy CS1 and as such is suitable for limited rural growth. However, the site is located outside the settlement boundaries of both Misterton and Walkeringham and therefore within the countryside. Policy CS9 of the Plan prevents housing development in this location, other than for

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 66 Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/18/3196527

conversions or replacement dwellings. Policy DM3 of the Plan states planning permission will not be granted for new development outside built up areas, only in certain circumstances.

12. I have limited detail about public transport provision serving the site and whilst the site may be a 15 minute walk to the 2 settlements, travel would be along unlit, unpaved roads travelling at high speed which would deter travel by foot and cycle. The proposal would therefore conflict with a core principle of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that planning should ‘actively manage patterns of growth to make fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling.

13. It is acknowledged by both parties that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year land supply of deliverable housing. In the absence of a 5 year supply paragraph 49 of the NPPF indicates that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date. In addition, paragraph 14 of the NPPF sets out that where the relevant policies in the development plan are out of date the presumption in favour of sustainable development means that for decision taking that planning permission should be granted. This is unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole or specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted.

14. The proposal would make a positive contribution to the housing land supply of the Borough generating some social benefit. There would also be modest economic benefits during construction and by occupation of the property thereafter. However, a proposal for one dwelling would represent only a limited contribution to the overall housing land supply and therefore I give these benefits only moderate weight.

15. Set against this, whilst the harm to highway safety could be addressed to make the scheme acceptable in this regard, I have identified harm to the character and appearance of the area, which I find to be significant. Accordingly, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole.

16. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not therefore apply and material considerations do not justify making a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan considered as a whole. For the reasons identified, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

K Ford

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 67 68 Agenda Item No.6(d)

BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL INDEX FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE 20.06.2017

Sheet No. Ref No. Applicant Location Recom. Decision

A1 Mrs Natalie Sarah Land South Of Station Road, Grant 17/01104/OUT Holmes Beckingham.

Pages 71 - 82 Outline Application with Some Matters Reserved (Approval Being Sought for Access) for 15 Self Build Plots and Adopted Shared Residential Accessways

A2 18/00507/CONR Persimmon Land Off West Hill Road, Ordsall. Grant Homes Nottingham Removal of Condition 8 (i) of Previous Planning Application Pages 83 - 89 Reference Number: 01/11/00311 - Outline Application for Major Residential Development of Up to 198 Units Including Roads, Accesses and Open Spaces.

A3 17/01300/OUT Serlby Land Land West of Great North Road, Grant Settlement Ranskill.

Pages 91 - 102 Outline Application with Some Matters Reserved (Approval Being Sought for Access) for Residential Development of Residential 32 Dwellinghouses.

70 Item No: a1

Application Ref. 17/01104/OUT Application Type Outline Planning Application Site Address Land South Of Station Road, Beckingham, Nottinghamshire

Proposal Outline Application with Some Matters Reserved (Approval Being Sought for Access) for 15 Self Build Plots and Adopted Shared Residential Access ways Case Officer Dave Askwith Recommendation Grant subject to a S.106 agreement and conditions Web Link: Link to Planning Documents

______

THE APPLICATION:

The application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of 15 self build plots with access from Station Road to serve the proposed development. Access details form part of the application for determination. The site is located outside of, but adjacent to, the Beckingham development boundary, as defined in the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework. The site is level, almost circular in shape and lies to the south of Beckingham Village and there is an existing hedge on the road side boundary for the majority of the road frontage. The site is bounded by the A631 bypass to the west, the roundabout to the south, Station Road to the east and Willow Lane to the north.

The site has a total area of 0.95 hectares and lies to the south east of Southfields, a large two storey dwelling. The 15 self-build plots proposed would be served by a single point of access from Station Road.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Having regard to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the main policy considerations are as follows:

Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011

The proposal does not fall under the thresholds of development contained in of Schedules 1, 2 or 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 defined as requiring formalised EIA screening.

National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s approach for the planning system and how these are expected to be applied.

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\JUNE 2018\FINAL\ITEM 1 REPORT.DOC

71 Paragraph 7 explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform an economic, social and environmental role.

Paragraph 14 explains that 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 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.

Paragraph 17 sets out the core land-use planning principles which should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. These principles require that planning should be inter alia genuinely plan-led, proactively drive and support sustainable economic development, always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all, take account of the different roles and character of different areas, encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed, conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance and take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all

 Part 1 (Building a strong, competitive economy)  Part 3 (Supporting a prosperous rural economy)  Part 4 (Promoting sustainable transport)  Part 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes)  Part 7 (Requiring good design)

Bassetlaw District Council – Local Development Framework Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Adopted December 2011):

 Policy/Policies CS1, CS8  Policy/Policies DM4, DM5, DM9, DM11, DM12

Supplementary Planning Documents Successful Places – Guide to housing layout and design

Neighbourhood Plan

The Beckingham-cum-Saundby Neighbourhood Plan is at the designated stage.

The chart below shows the weight to be given to the Neighbourhood Plan set against the stage of the plan-making process. At this stage little or no weight can be attached to the document in the determination of this application.

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\JUNE 2018\FINAL\ITEM 1 REPORT.DOC

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:

13\00349\OUT – July, 2013 – Outline planning permission was refused for residential development. A subsequent appeal was allowed in February, 2014, granting outline planning permission.

13\01465\OUT – February, 2014 – Outline planning permission refused for residential development and change of use of existing paddock (resubmission of P/A 13/00349/OUT).

14\00961\RES – October, 2014 – Granted Reserved Matters Application For The Main Access To The Site From the Highway Together With Twelve Vehicular Access Points From The Onsite Roadway Into The Twelve Individual Plots

15\01068\FUL – May, 2017 – Withdrawn - The planning application for the Erection of Fifteen Two Storey Detached Dwellings was presented to the Planning Committee in November, 2016, where it was resolved to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement. The S.106 legal agreement was not signed and eventually withdrawn in May, 2017. (The applicant’s agent has confirmed that when it came to signing and paying for the land, the then developers finance was not in place and the application was therefore withdrawn because the developer could not raise the necessary money.)

RESPONSE OF STATUTORY BODIES:

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS has commented that they have no highway safety objections subject to imposition of conditions.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL EDUCATION has confirmed that a proposed development of 15 dwellings would yield an additional 3 primary and 2 secondary school places.

The County Council would therefore wish to seek an education contribution of £34,365 (3 x £11,455) to provide additional primary provision to accommodate the additional pupils projected to arise from the proposed development. Any secondary contribution would be provided through CIL.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLANNING has commented on planning policy, waste and minerals, public health, transport and flood risk management, education provision, strategic transport and travel services, ecology and developer contributions. There are no strategic planning objections subject to the imposition of conditions regarding ecology.

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\JUNE 2018\FINAL\ITEM 1 REPORT.DOC

73 BASSETLAW ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH has raised no objections subject to the imposition of a condition to limit the hours of construction and contamination matters.

BASSETLAW PARKS DEVELOPMENT has commented that based on 15 houses, the following amounts of open space are required to be set aside for play provision (based on calculations from the Bassetlaw Open Space 2012):  Play equipped area –55.65sqm (3.71 x 15)  Amenity space – 215.85sqm (14.39 x 15)

However, as there is an existing play area within the village, the Council preference would be to improve this, rather than on-site provision.

The following contributions are normally required to provide play equipment:  Play equipped area of 400sqm would result in a contribution of £50,000 (based on providing 5 pieces of equipment).  As the proposed development should provide 55.65sqm (based on 15 houses), an off- site contribution of £6,956.25 will be required.

The proposed development, providing that the above is delivered, meets the policy requirements for open space provision in line with the Bassetlaw Core Strategy DM11 and the Bassetlaw Open Space and Play Pitch Strategy 2012.

BASSETLAW TREE OFFICER has commented that the comments made on a previous proposal in October 2015 recommended the management of the hedge in its entirety by a separate management company. This would be sensible as it removes the responsibility of the hedge from future owner occupiers; whilst removing the possibility of the hedge being pruned at different heights, or even removed, along individual plots. Some very light pruning to the top and sides may be a consideration at some point in the future and post-construction. This would encourage vigorous regrowth, thus enhancing its effectiveness as both screen and wildlife habitat long term. In consideration of legislation protecting hedgerows, I would recommend all hedgerows be managed separately to the individual properties by a management company and conditions be imposed.

LEAD LOCAL FLOOD AUTHORITY has no objection to the proposed development.

TRENT VALLEY INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD has commented that surface water run off rates to receiving watercourses must not be increased as a result of the proposed development. A condition should be imposed regarding surface water drainage.

BECKINGHAM CUM SAUNDBY PARISH COUNCIL has objected to the proposed development on the following summarised grounds:-

1. number of dwellings is too dense for this area 2. existing property to northwest would be severely overlooked 3. concerned about the preservation of the hedgerow around the site, home to wildlife 4. access to close to bend, highway safety concerns, proximity to play area and pre-school 5. adjacent roundabout very busy, bypass is a major road for HGV’s 6. high volume of HGV’s on Low Street going to Trent Wharf site 7. local amenites and services will struggle to cope with continued residential development 8. concerned about current sewage and drainage system capacity 9. Beckingham has a history of flooding and sewage problems, further detrimental effect 10. the development would not be of a scale appropriate to the size\role of the settlement 11. contrary to policy and would detract from village scene and visual amenity

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\JUNE 2018\FINAL\ITEM 1 REPORT.DOC

74 12. housing developments being granted contrary to local opinion just to satisfy 5 year supply figures, urge refusal of application

Copies of all the responses and comments are available for inspection either on the Council's web page or in the Council Offices.

OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED

2 LETTERS have been received from LOCAL RESIDENTS objecting to the proposed development on the following summarised grounds:

1. lack of information on the type\size of properties to be built; 2. additional traffic would impact on the main access route into the village; 3. parking within the proposed site is not clear, overspill onto main roads; 4. pedestrian safety would be compromised; 5. access too close to roundabout, highway safety issue; 6. encroachment into visibility splays detrimental to highway safety; 7. large industrial area at bottom of Station Road produces a great deal of HGV traffic; 8. inadequate traffic surveys, proposal detrimental to highway safety; 9. self build may be slow to materialise, could be subjected to noise and traffic over a prolonged period; 10. contrary to planning policy 11. seeking to avoid commercial constraints on build project; 12. sight lines on the junction not been checked; 13. who will maintain the hedgerow; 14. boundary fence surrounding Southfields\Willow Lane is still in dispute.

Cllr Sanger has objected to the proposed development on the grounds that the hedge should be protected as it provides a pleasant entrance to the village and is full of bird life. Access to the site is a grave concern for local residents

Copies of all the responses and comments are available for inspection either on the Council's web page or in the Council Offices.

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, the impact on the residential amenity of adjacent residents and the impact on highway safety.

Principle of development

With regard to Housing Land policy issues, the key planning policies in relation to this application are contained within the adopted Core Strategy Policy CS1 and National Planning Policy Framework, along with the latest housing land supply information contained within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).

The NPPF sets out the requirements for Local Authorities to identify a supply of deliverable sites, sufficient to provide five years' worth of housing against their housing requirements, with an additional buffer of 5% (or 20% where there is a persistent under delivery) (paragraph 47). The NPPF also states that if Local Planning Authorities cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable sites, then their relevant policies for the supply of housing will not be considered up- to-date.

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\JUNE 2018\FINAL\ITEM 1 REPORT.DOC

75 Therefore, it is important that the Council keeps a constant supply of deliverable sites, either by allocating land through the Site Allocation process or through granting permission for windfall developments (such as this one).

The latest Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA published in the five year supply statement in December 2017) shows that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable land (plus a 20% surplus) but does have a 3.7 year supply.

The exception set out in Bassetlaw Core Strategy CS1 point (i), reflects the aim of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In particular paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that ‘relevant polices 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’. Therefore under the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 14 of the NPPF, it is acknowledged that where the development plan is out of date, permissions should be granted unless ‘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’.

The village of Beckingham is currently identified in the Bassetlaw Local Development framework as a Rural Service Centre. In light of the recently revised housing supply figures, and the sustainable nature of the site, it is considered that the proposed development of the site for housing is generally acceptable in principle. The site has an established planning history in which the principle of residential development was accepted following an appeal decision and the subsequent granting of planning permission for the access serving the site.

Visual Amenity

Whilst the application site is currently an agricultural field/paddock, the subsequent development would be viewed in the context of the existing residential development on the edge of the village. The site relates well to the existing settlement edge and would not therefore appear unduly discordant in terms of landscape character.

No details of design, layout or landscaping have been submitted other than a generalized illustrative layout, however, it is consider that subject to an acceptable layout, design and scale of development the character and appearance of the site could be preserved. The site is screened by a substantial hedge on its perimeter. As such, it is considered that a refusal of planning permission could not be substantiated in this instance in terms of visual amenity.

It has been determined that the substantial hedge on the perimeter of the application site lies outside the red line application area and is therefore not within the ownership or control of the applicant. The hedge lies on land owned by the County Highway Authority and therefore its long- term future and maintenance would be their responsibility. To ensure that the site retains a screen to the public highway it is considered that it would be appropriate to impose a planning condition to secure a landscape\planting scheme on the site boundary within the ownership and control of the applicant.

Residential Amenity

The application is submitted in outline only, however, details of access have been included for consideration. Access would be taken from Station Road. The potential layout, design and appearance of the proposed new dwellings is not known at this stage but it is considered that the separation distances from existing properties are generally acceptable and it is unlikely there would be no significant adverse impact on neighbouring properties, in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy or domination, such that a refusal of planning permission could not be substantiated in this instance in terms of residential amenity.

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\JUNE 2018\FINAL\ITEM 1 REPORT.DOC

76 Before any development could take place, a further planning application for the approval of reserved mattes would be required.

Highways Matters

The County Highways Authority has assessed the proposals in terms of traffic impact, highway safety, accessibility and parking provision and has no objections subject to the imposition of conditions. Therefore, it is considered that it would not be possible to substantiate a reason for refusal that could be defended at appeal.

The Highway Authority would invite the developer to enter into a Section 38 agreement, Highways Act 1980 to secure the future adoption of the road. In accordance with the County’s standard agreement, it is not permitted for any building that fronts, adjoins, or has access to the road to be occupied until the carriageway is up to binder course level, all drainage is in, and the road is street lit amongst other things. The road would not be adopted until it is finished, a one- year maintenance period has passed, and all buildings that front the street are finished. The Highway Authority has therefore requested the imposition of condition number 5 below.

Open Space Matters

The illustrative layout makes no provision for open space, however, Bassetlaw Parks Development has commented that as there is an existing play area within the village, the Council preference would be to improve this, rather than seek on-site provision. A contribution of £6,956.25 is sought towards the provision of improvements at the village hall recreation ground off Southfields Lane, site in Beckingham. The contribution should be secured by a Section 106 legal agreement.

Financial Implications

The Community Infrastructure Levy would apply to this development. The proposed residential development will trigger the need for affordable housing provision, an education contribution, and a public open space contribution to be secured via a Section 106 legal agreement.

The trigger points for the S.106 legal agreement would be as follows:

1. Not to commence development until the affordable housing scheme has been approved in writing by the Council or the appropriate off-site contribution has been paid (£465,716) 2. Prior to commencement of development on the site to pay 50% of the Education Contribution (£17,182.50) and prior to the occupation of the 8th dwelling to pay the remaining 50% of the Education Contribution (£17,182.50) 3. Prior to commencement of development to pay 25% of the POS Contribution (£1,739.06) and to pay the remaining 75% prior to the occupation of more than 50% of the dwellings to be constructed (£5,217.19)

CONCLUSION:

Given that Bassetlaw District is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of land for housing, the application would help to address this shortfall. The application site would be located in a sustainable location on the very edge of Beckingham and is considered not to have a significant detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, residential amenity or highway safety. In this instance, it is considered that the proposed development would not conflict with planning policy and is acceptable in principle, subject to the imposition of conditions and the completion of a legal agreement.

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\JUNE 2018\FINAL\ITEM 1 REPORT.DOC

77 It is recommended that should planning permission be granted for the development to which this application relates, it shall be granted subject to the conclusion of an agreement under the provisions of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which secures:

1. 35% affordable housing of provision, that is 5 of the 15 units (or an appropriate off-site contribution) 2. An education contribution of £34,365 (3 primary school places) 3. Public open space contribution of £6,956.25 4. Implementation/maintenance of SuDs

RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to a S.106 agreement and the imposition of the following conditions:-

1 Application for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:

a) the expiration of three years from the date of this permission: or b) the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval of the reserved matters on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

Reason: To comply with section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The scale and appearance of the building(s), the layout and the landscaping of the site shall be only as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development commences.

Reason: This permission is granted in respect of an outline application, which did not contain details of the matters hereby reserved for approval.

3 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the details and specifications shown on the originally submitted drawings, as amended by drawing number 17-1801-1B received on 1st November, 2017.

Reason: To ensure the development takes the agreed form and thus results in a satisfactory form of development.

4 No development shall take place until such time as a sewer and highway drainage strategy and programme have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and which shall include details of the management and maintenance arrangements for the highway drainage. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved highway drainage strategy and programme.

Reason: To ensure that the road layout incorporates adequate highway drainage that is suitably maintainable and delivered at an appropriate stage.

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\JUNE 2018\FINAL\ITEM 1 REPORT.DOC

78 5 No development shall take place until details of the proposed arrangements and plan for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets including associated highway drainage contained within the development have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The streets and drainage shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance details until such time as an agreement has been entered into under section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or a private management and Maintenance Company has been established.

Reason: To ensure that the road infrastructure is maintained to an appropriate standard.

6 No dwelling shall be occupied until the parking space and driveway arrangements to that dwelling have been metalled in a bound material (not loose gravel) and have been suitably drained to prevent surface water draining onto the road and footways.

Reason: To ensure private areas are appropriately drained in order to protect the capacity of highway drainage.

7 Prior to commencement of development on plots 6 to 14 a 2.4m x 17m visibility splay shall be provided in an easterly direction at the side road junction within the site. The area within the splay shall form part of the footway fronting plot 14.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

8 All utility and drainage connections to each plot shall be in place prior to the road and footways being surfaced.

Reason: To protect the structural integrity and deign life of the road.

9 No dwelling shall be occupied until such time as a 2.0m footway has been provided up to binder course level directly connecting that dwelling to Station Road and a 2.0m footway has been completed along station road between the site access junction and Willow Lane as detailed on drawing number 1 and which shall include dropped kerbed uncontrolled pedestrian crossing points across Willow Lane, the site access junction, and Station Road all with tactile paving.

Reason: To ensure adequate footway provision has been provided with suitable junction crossing point.

10 No development shall take place until such time as the visibility splays on Station Road detailed on drawing number 1 are in place and thereafter nothing shall be placed or allowed to grow within the splay from 0.6m above carriageway level.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

11 Construction work and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary, including deliveries to and removal of plant, equipment, machinery and waste from the site shall be carried out only between the following hours: 08 00 Hours and 18 00 Hours on Mondays to Fridays and 08 00 and 13 00 Hours on Saturdays and; at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of the residential amenity of nearby properties.

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\JUNE 2018\FINAL\ITEM 1 REPORT.DOC

79 12 Development shall not commence until a Phase 1 Desk Study and, if required a Phase 2 Intrusive Site Investigation has been carried out to identify the nature and extent of any contamination at the site. The site investigation report shall include a risk assessment to assess the risks to the environment and to human health resulting from any contamination present at the site. Any necessary remedial measures identified by the investigation shall be carried out in full before the use of the site / the occupation of the buildings(s), hereby permitted, commences. The report shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. In order to comply with the above condition, the proposal should comply with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's "Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11" and "BS 10175 (2011) Code of Practice for the investigation of potentially contaminated sites".

Reason: To ensure that the site, when developed, is free from contamination, in the interests of safety.

13 Development shall not commence until such time as full details of the manner in which foul sewage and surface water are to be disposed of from the site have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use.

Reason: To ensure that the site is drained in a satisfactory manner.

14 A scheme for tree planting on and landscape treatment of the site and the entire site boundary shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The agreed scheme shall be fully implemented within nine months of the date when the last dwelling on the site is first occupied. 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.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory overall appearance of the completed development, to ensure that the site is screened from the road and to help assimilate the new development into its surroundings.

15 No development shall commence until such time as the hedges and trees around the site have been protected, in a manner to be agreed in writing with District Planning Authority. These are to be protected for the duration of building operations.

Reason: The hedges and trees are considered to be features of significance. This condition is imposed to ensure that they are satisfactorily protected during the period when construction works take place on the site.

16 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, a suitably qualified ecologist shall be on site to survey for nesting birds in such manner and to such specification as may have been previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that birds nests are protected from disturbance and destruction.

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\JUNE 2018\FINAL\ITEM 1 REPORT.DOC

80 17 The pond on plot 12 shall be retained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To encourage local wildlife and biodiversity.

F:\DOCS\MEMBERS\MS8\REPORTS\PLANNING\JUNE 2018\FINAL\ITEM 1 REPORT.DOC

82 ITEM SUBJECT OF A SITE VISIT

Item No: a2

Application Ref. 18/00507/CONR Application Type Removal of Condition Site Address Land Off West Hill Road Ordsall Retford DN22 7SD

Proposal Removal of Condition 8 (i) of Previous Planning Application Reference Number: 01/11/00311 Outline Application for Major Residential Development of Up to 198 Units Including Roads, Accesses and Open Spaces.

Case Officer Myles Joyce Recommendation Grant subject to a modification agreement (S106) and conditions Web Link: Link to Planning Documents

______

THE APPLICATION Site Context

The development site is land to the west of Newlands with its northern boundary adjoining the Lincoln-Sheffield railway line. However, the condition relates to improvements to the Babworth Road/Ordsall Road junction. Some distance to the north of the development site.

Proposal

It is proposed to remove the first limb of condition 8 of the Outline Planning Permission granted under 1/11/00311. Paragraph (i) required highway improvement works to the Babworth/Ordishall Road junction.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Having regard to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the main policy considerations are as follows:

Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011 The proposal does not fall into any of the categories of development contained in Schedule 1 or 2 of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 defined as requiring EIA Screening.

National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s approach for the planning system and how these are expected to be applied.

83 Paragraph 7 explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform an economic, social and environmental role.

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 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.

Part 4 (Sustainable Transport) paragraphs 28-32. In particular paragraph 32 which requires that all developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment.

“Plans and decisions should take account of whether:  the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;  safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and  improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development.

Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe”

Bassetlaw District Council – Local Development Framework Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Adopted December 2011):  Policy/Policies CS3  Policy/Policies DM7, DM13.

84 Neighbourhood Plan (including status and relevant policies)

There is no relevant Neighbourhood Plan

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

01/11/00311 Outline planning permission for a major residential development of up to 198 units including roads, access and Open Spaces. 13/01025/RES Reserved Matters application for 198 dwellings and associated infrastructure and landscaping on 10th January 2014.

Applications for conditions relating to 01/11/00311 above were satisfactorily discharged as follows:

3. Submission and agreement of details of the existing and proposed land levels of the site, indicating finished floor levels to LPA for agreement before development commences. Discharged 5.3.15

4. Submission and agreement of full details of the manner in which foul sewage and surface water are to be disposed of from the site to the LPA for agreement before development commences. Discharged 15.4.15

5. Submission of a scheme for boundary treatments to the LPA fro agreement before development commences. Discharged 5.3.15

6. Submission of details of boundary treatments between individual plots for agreement to the LPA before development commences. Discharged 5.3.15

7. Submission of habitat and protected species reports for agreement to the LPA including all necessary mitigation and protection measures should be identified including full consideration of the need for bio-diversity off settings before development commences Discharged 12.5.15

8. Submission of details of all on-site and off-site highway works, including phasing of these relative to building works for agreement to the LPA before development commences. Discharged 29.1.15

10. Submission of a Travel Plan has been submitted for agreement to the LPA before occupation of any units. Discharged 12.5.15

RESPONSE OF STATUTORY BODIES

BDC Environmental Health Officer has no objections to the proposal County Public Rights of Way Officer has no objections to the proposal Natural England was consulted and has no comments to make Environment Agency was consulted and has no comments to make Network Rail was consulted and has no objection to make The County Highway Authority have no objections as the reason for the condition was to address the traffic impact of the development at the A620 Babworth Road/Ordsall Road mini roundabout. Both the predicted worsening of traffic conditions has not materialised and the emergence of the NPPF which only warrants refusal of development on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. Accordingly, the Highway Authority is no longer able to justify the retention of this condition.

85 Two ward members have objected to this proposal on the following grounds:

 Highway safety grounds due to worsening of traffic conditions  An increase in cycling traffic  The data used in the traffic survey may be flawed as the disclaimer on the report advises it is from a published government source and therefore not liable for any errors or inaccuracies and that data may be flawed  The date in the survey has not been subject to independent challenge  The proposal is not in accordance with paragraph 32 of the NPPF  The 2011 report upon which ten conditions was based was for 180 units not 198 approved.

13 third party 3rd party letters of objection on following grounds:  Traffic lights essential for 24/7 management of road users  Traffic survey based on limited observations which casts doubt on its reliability  Drainage issues  Development still not complete will be further traffic generation  Clear need for such highway improvements for highway safety reasons  Traffic accidents resulting in casualties in 2014, 2015 and 2017 (serious)  Serious traffic congestion witnesses at present  Removal of condition abrogation of responsibility of developers

CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ISSUES Principle- Principle of Sustainable Development

The proposal seeks to vary Condition 8(i) of 1/11/00311. The principle of development has been established with the grant of outline planning permission and consequently, reserved matters under BDC Ref 13/01025/RES in January 2014.

Highways Impact

With regard to Highways Impact and the justification for the imposition of condition 8, the Highway responded as follows in its consultation response for the Outline planning application under Ref. 01/11/00311:

“With regard to the impact of the development on road safety the highway authority does not object but have recommended a number of conditions. The development would currently require the upgrade of the Babworth Road and Ollerton Road junction from a mini- roundabout to a traffic controlled junction, as well as some other off-site works. These have been demonstrated as feasible to the Highway Authority but it is considered that if permission is granted this be subject to a condition requiring a scheme for such works to be agreed before development to allow for any other options or indeed changes in circumstance to be fully considered.”

The County Highway Authority were therefore attempting to ‘future proof’ the development. The consultation response was informed by the Transport Assessment submitted by SS Atkins in November 2011 in support of the Outline Planning Application. The applicants in support of this proposal have submitted a review of the junction by David Tucker Associates dated 16th April 2018. In summary its findings were that:

 There were a low number of incidents over the most recent 5-year period but these would be likely to occur under signal contract too.  The operation of the mini-roundabout has bene better than anticipated and the benefits of a traffic signalisation much more marginal than originally thought

86  The cumulative impact is ‘much reduced’ and therefore cannot be considered to be severe in the context of paragraph 32  Overall the case for signalisation at this junction has not been made and are unlikely to be cost effective even if solely considering the cost to road users.

The County Highway Authority have considered the new evidence submitted and have arrived at the Conclusion that given the changed circumstances that there is no longer the justification to retain condition 8(i).

The County Highway Authority have taken into account the number of properties approved and the quality of the date used and the scope of the survey undertaken. They note that the traffic count was undertaken by Leicestershire County Council. It’s a snap shot of one particular day, in this case, in January which is standard practice.

Multiple surveys are note expected provided the survey was done outside of school holidays and potential disruptions. The survey is consistent with a permanent automated traffic count we have in the A620 up the road. The County Highway Authority is satisfied that this is standard and sufficient for the purposes of supporting this application and have responded accordingly with the above advice.

The second limb of the condition 8(ii) for the provision of pedestrian crossing facilities on West Hill Road has already been implemented and as such the entire condition falls away.

Application Summary- The Planning Balance

The proposal seeks to remove paragraph (i) of Condition 8 which require the provision of a signalised junction at the Babworth Road/Ordishall Road junction. The issue would hinge on whether the proposal would depart form the guidance set out in Paragraph 32 of the NPPF.

Paragraph 32 of the NPPF requires decisions to take account of safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people and that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

The anticipated worsening of traffic conditions has not materialised and the emergence of the NPPF since the original study was undertaken only warrants refusal of development on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

Accordingly, the proposal is considered to accord with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF and the retention of condition 8(i) is no longer justified

SUMMARY OF S106 OBLIGATIONS

These are unaffected by this development proposal. However, the new planning permission will require an agreed modification to the S106 before a decision notice can be issued.

CIL CALCULATION

These are unaffected by the development proposal

87 RECOMMENDATION:

Grant subject to a modification agreement (S106) and amended conditions

CONDITIONS:

1. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with all agreed details.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory development of the site.

2. The agreed details of the manner in which foul sewage and surface water are to be disposed of from the site shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use.

Reason: To ensure that the site is drained in a satisfactory manner.

3. The agreed boundary treatment schemes for the overall site and the individual plots shall be fully implemented before the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory, overall appearance of the completed development, satisfactory division between plots in the interests of residential amenity and the satisfactory appearance of the development

4. Any necessary mitigation and protection measures identified within and a programme for the implementation of these measures, including future management, contained within the approved habitat and protected species report shall be carried out in accordance with the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the agreed reports prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted.

Reason: In the interests of the ecology of the site.

5. Visibility splays of 2.4 metres x 43 metres should be retained at the new junctions which form part of this application, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

6. The approved Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable set out in that plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In order to promote sustainable travel.

89 90 ITEM SUBJECT OF A SITE VISIT

Item No: a3

Application Ref. 17/01300/OUT Application Type Outline Planning Application Site Address Land west of Great North Road, Ranskill, Nottinghamshire

Proposal Outline application with some matters reserved (Approval being sought for access) for residential development of residential 32 dwellinghouses

Case Officer Jamie Elliott Recommendation Grant subject to a S.106 agreement and conditions Web Link: Link to Planning Documents

______

THE APPLICATION

Site Context

The site is located outside of, but adjacent to the Ranskill development boundary as defined in the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework.

The site is located within an area of ‘Archaeological Interest’.

Proposal

The application seeks outline planning permission with some matters reserved for the erection of thirty-two dwellings. The means of access to the site is to be considered at this time.

Planning permission was granted in June 2017 for the erection of 32 dwellings, on the same site as that currently proposed.

The earlier permission (ref: 15/00116OUT) included two points of access to the site located at the northern and southern extremities of the site. These access points were to be linked by a road that ran the length of the site, parallel to the Great North Road.

The current scheme differs from the above permission in as much that it now proposes 4 points of access with associated cul de sacs, thereby negating the need for an access road running the length of the site

The applicant's agents have submitted a number of supporting documents including a Design and Access Statement, and a Flood Risk Assessment.

All these documents are available for inspection within the Council's offices.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

91 Having regard to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the main policy considerations are as follows:

Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011

The proposal does not fall into any of the categories of development contained in Schedule 1 or 2 of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 defined as requiring EIA Screening.

National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s approach for the planning system and how these are expected to be applied.

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. Of particular relevance are paragraphs, 14, 47 and 49 which set out if the approach local authorities should adopt in the absence of a 5 year supply of land for housing.

Part 14 states that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, local authorities should grant permission unless 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.

Part 47 states that to boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should: identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land; and identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15.

Part 49 states 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. The relevant sections are as follows:

Part 4 - Promoting sustainable transport Part 6 - Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Part 7 - Requiring good design Part 8 - Promoting healthy communities Part 10 - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Part 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Part 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Bassetlaw District Council – Local Development Framework

92 Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Adopted December 2011):

Policy CS1 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that until the adoption of the site allocations DPD, development in the settlements identified in the hierarchy will be restricted to the area inside defined settlement boundaries. In addition, it states that over the plan period, additional permission may be granted where the development proposal would benefit in addressing a shortfall in the District's five-year housing land supply.

Policies 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 25% for Ranskill.

Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan 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 and have not been designed as standalone additions. It also states that permission will only be granted for development that, respects the character of the area, does not have a detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby residents and is of no detriment to highway safety.

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. This is reiterated in paragraph 135 of Part 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that the effect on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account when determining applications.

Policy DM9 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that new development proposals will be expected to provide functional on-site open space and/or sports facilities, or to provide contributions towards new or improved facilities elsewhere locally, as well as contributions for on-going maintenance, to meet any deficiencies in local provision that will be caused by the development.

Policy DM9 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states 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, as identified in the Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment. Proposals will be expected to respond to the local recommendations made in the Assessment by conserving, restoring, reinforcing or creating landscape forms and features accordingly.

In addition, policy DM9 also states that new development proposals will be expected to demonstrate that they will not adversely affect or result in the loss of features of recognised importance such as protected trees, hedgerows, Local Wildlife Sites or protected species.

Policy DM11 of the Core Strategy Bassetlaw Development Framework states that all applications will be expected to demonstrate that the necessary infrastructure (social, physical and green) will be in place in advance of, or can be provided in tandem with, new development and, where appropriate, that arrangements are in place for its subsequent maintenance.

Arrangements for the provision or improvement of infrastructure required by the proposed development and/or to mitigate the impact of that development will, in line with national

93 guidance and legislation, be secured by Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charge, planning obligation or, where appropriate, via conditions attached to a planning permission

Policy DM12 states that all new development will be required to incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and provide details of ongoing and maintenance and management.

Supplementary Planning Documents

Affordable Housing SPD (Adopted January 2014) Residential Parking Standards (Adopted June 2012) Successful Places (Adopted December 2013)

The Ranskill Neighbourhood Plan

The Ranskill Neighbourhood Plan Area was designated on 7th March 2016, for the purpose of drafting a neighbourhood Plan. It can therefore currently be afforded no weight.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

15/00116/OUT Outline planning permission granted to erect 23 dwellings. June 2017.

RESPONSE OF STATUTORY BODIES

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING POLICY

Minerals and Waste

There are no Minerals Safeguarding and Consultation Areas or mineral sites in close proximity to the site.

In addition, there are no existing waste sites close to the application site.

Education

A proposed development of 32 dwellings would yield an additional 7 primary. Nottinghamshire County Council would therefore wish to seek an education contribution of £80,185 (7 x £11,455) to provide primary provision to accommodate the additional pupils projected to arise from the proposed development.

Archaeology

The site contains cropmarks associated with an extensive landscape of roman fields and is therefore of archaeological potential.

Further information should be provided in the form of a geophysical survey, which should be undertaken before the application is determined.

Travel and Transport

94 No contributions towards local bus service provision will be sought in this instance.

Any permission should be subject to a condition requiring improvements to bus stop infrastructure.

Ecology

Any permission should be conditional on site clearance taking place outside of the bird nesting season.

Additional landscaping and planting should also be secured by condition.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (HIGHWAYS)

There are no objections in principle to the development, subject to conditions requiring: i.) Highways works programme; ii.) Provision of 2m footway; iii.) Provision of visibility splays; iv.) Provision of bin stores; v.) Re-siting of bus shelter and hardstanding; vi.) Re-positioning of street lights. vii.) Future management and maintenance of streets.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL - FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT TEAM

No objections subject to a condition requiring the submission and implementation of a Surface Drainage Strategy.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (VIA)

In order to assimilate the development into the landscape it is recommended that : 1. The dwellings be a maximum of two storeys in height; 2. Trees and hedgerows to be retained; 3. Details of landscaping and planting to be provided 4. Details of maintenance of soft landscaping to be provided; 5. Details of SuDs to be provided.

The DISTRICT PARKS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.

The following contributions are normally required to provide play equipment:  Play equipped area of 400sqm would result in a contribution of £50,000 (based on providing 5 pieces of equipment).  As the proposed development should provide 118.72sqm (based on 32 houses), an off-site contribution of £14,840 will be required.

Therefore, a contribution of £14,840 towards the provision of play/sports equipment for the site off Mattersey Road Ranskill should be secured.

The DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER.

95 Should permission be granted, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the investigation into site contamination and implementation of any necessary mitigation measures.

In addition, it is recommended that conditions be imposed restricting noise generating operations during construction works.

NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES (NATS) No objection.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE WILDLIFE TRUST No comment.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. No comments.

DONCASTER SHEFFIELD AIRPORT No objections.

NATIONAL AIR TRAFFICE SERVICES (NATS) No objections.

RANSKILL PARISH COUNCIL. No objections.

Copies of all the responses and comments are available for inspection either on the Council's web page or in the Council Offices.

CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ISSUES

Principle

The application site is currently located outside of but adjacent to the Ranskill development boundary as defined in the Bassetlaw LDF.

The Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement published in December 2017 shows that the Council could not demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable land and that Bassetlaw has a shortfall of 853 dwellings. The council currently has a deliverable housing supply of 2,547 dwellings, which equates to a 3.7 year supply when assessed against the total five year housing target of 3432 dwellings.

Policy CS1 of the LDF states that until the adoption of the site allocations DPD, development in the settlements identified in the hierarchy will be restricted to the area inside defined settlement boundaries. However, additional permission may be granted where the development proposal would address a shortfall in the District's five-year housing land supply.

96 Therefore, it is important that the Council keep a constant supply of deliverable sites, either by allocating land through the Site Allocation process or through granting permission for windfall developments.

The exception set out in Bassetlaw Core Strategy CS1 point (i), reflects the aim of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In particular paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that 'relevant polices 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'. Therefore, under the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 14 of the NPPF, it is acknowledged that where the development plan is out of date, permissions should be granted unless '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'.

The village of Ranskill is currently identified in the adopted Bassetlaw Local Development Framework as 'Rural Service Centre'. In light of the recently revised housing supply figures, and the sustainable nature of the site, it is considered that the proposed development of the site is acceptable in principle.

In addition, as there is currently an extant permission for the erection of 32 dwellings on the site (ref: 15/00116/OUT) the principle of residential development has previously be accepted by the District Council.

Visual Amenity and Landscape character

The Bassetlaw Local Development Framework contains policy DM4, which 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 and have not been designed as standalone additions. It also states that new development should respect its wider surroundings in relation to historic development patterns and landscape character.

Whilst the application site is currently an agricultural field, the subsequent development would be viewed in the context of the existing residential development on the edge of the village. The site relates well to the existing settlement edge and would not therefore appear unduly discordant in terms of landscape character.

It is also important to note that further detailed consideration of the design and appearance of the development would be undertaken at the reserved matters stage.

The site in question is identified in the Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment as Idle Lowlands Policy Zone 10: Ranskill. As part of its aims to conserve and re-inforce the open rural character of the landscape, it recommends that new development should be concentrated around the existing settlement of Ranskill. Accordingly it is considered that a suitably design scheme would comply with the aims of the landscape character assessment and policy DM9 of Bassetlaw Local Plan.

Residential Amenity

The current application is in outline form with all matter reserved save for the means of access to the site. Whilst there are no specific details of the design and location of the new dwellings, it is considered that an acceptable scheme can be achieved that would have no adverse impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking loss of privacy or domination.

97 In addition, it is considered that the occupiers of the new dwellings would be afforded sufficient private garden areas in accordance with the District Council's 'Successful Places' Supplementary Planning Document'. Detailed consideration of the above matters would however be undertaken and secured at ‘Reserved Matters’ stage.

Highways Matters

The County Highway Authority have indicated that the subject to conditions the development would have no adverse impact on highway safety.

Education

Should permission be granted a financial contribution of £80,185 towards primary school provision, would be required and secured through a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

Affordable Housing.

Policy CS8 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan state that housing development within Ranskill will be required to contribute towards the achievement of an affordable housing target of at least 25%.

Ecology/Nature Conservation.

Nottinghamshire County Council has indicated that the biodiversity value of the site appears to be low. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that ecological enhancements could be secured through the imposition of conditions requiring hedgerow retention and planting and the installation of bird and bat boxes.

Heritage Assets

When consulted on the previous planning application (ref: 15/00116/OUT) the County Archaeologist neither raised an objection to the development or recommended imposing a condition requiring an archaeological investigation. Nottinghamshire County Council’s Policy Team are however now recommending that a geophysical survey is undertaken before the current application is determined.

As the earlier application can be implemented without the need for a geophysical survey, it is not considered appropriate to require these works prior to the determination in this instance. Notwithstanding the above, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the implementation of archaeological investigation prior to development commencing.

Drainage

The County Council's Flood Risk Management Team have indicated that there are no objections to the development subject to securing the provision and maintenance of a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDs) would be secured through a S106 agreement.

Community Infrastructure Levy

The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council's view that CIL is payable on the development. The exact sum would be determined at reserved matters stage.

98 Conclusion

As Bassetlaw District Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of land for housing there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 14 of the NPPF. Paragraph 14 also states that permissions should be granted unless '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'.

The application site would be located in a sustainable location on the edge of Ranskill a 'Rural Service Centre' and would have no significant detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, residential amenity, highway safety, ecology or flood risk.

For the reasons outlined above, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with the provisions of policies CS1, CS8, DM4, DM9, DM11 and DM12 of the Core Strategy of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework and the National Planning Policy Framework.

It is recommended that should planning permission be granted for the development to which this application relates, it shall be granted subject to the conclusion of an agreement under the provisions of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which secures:

1. £80,185 Education Contribution 2. £14,840 contribution in lieu of open space 3. 25% affordable housing 4. Implementation/maintenance of SuDs

RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to a S.106 agreement and conditions

CONDITIONS:

Reason: To comply with section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The scale and appearance of the building(s), the layout and the landscaping of the site shall be only as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development commences.

Reason: This permission is granted in respect of an outline application which did not contain details of the matters hereby reserved for approval.

99 3 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the details and specifications shown on the originally submitted drawings, as amended by the drawing No. 01 Rev D received on 30 April 2018.

Reason: To ensure the development takes the agreed form and thus results in a satisfactory form of development.

4 The reserved matters shall include details of the following: i.) A highway works programme; ii.) The provision of a 2.0m wide footway on Great North Road from a point North of the northern most access in a southerly direction to a point South of the Police House; iii.)The provision of 2.4m x 59m visibility splays at the junctions/accesses with Great North Road and which shall form a widening of the footway as required by this consent; `iv.) Bin stores that are to be sited on Great North Road that are to the rear of the footway and visibility splays: v.) The repositioning/replacement of the bus shelter, hard standing, raised kerb bus border etc. to a position avoiding the footway and visibility splays; vi.) The repositioning of any street lamps made necessary by this consent. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the agreed programme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that there is a footway and satisfactory visibility from points of access in the interest of highway safety.

5 Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the proposed arrangements and plan for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets and private drives including associated drainage and hedgerows contained within bordering that street or private drive shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The streets and drainage shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance details.

Reason: To ensure the streets are appropriately maintained in the interest of public safety.

6 No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use unless or until, improvements to the two buys stops on Great North Road (BA0683 and BA0786) have been carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and shall include real time bus stop poles and displays including associated electrical connections, solar lighting and raised boarding kerbs.

Reason: In the interests of promoting sustainable transport.

7 Development shall not commence until full details of the manner in which foul sewage and surface water are to be disposed of from the site have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use.

Reason: To ensure that the site is drained in a satisfactory manner.

100 8 Development shall not commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Construction Environmental Management Plan shall include; i. Measures to minimize the creation and impact of noise, dust and artificial lighting. ii. Mitigation for, bats, birds and hedgehogs; iii. The implementation of suitable protection measures for all retained hedgerows, once approved, the Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be adhered to at all times unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in a way which safeguards protected species and hedgerows.

9 Development shall not commence until, a Biodiversity Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Management Plan shall include details and timetable for hedgerow and wildflower planting and as scheme for the provision of bird and bat boxes within the development. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the agreed management plan and timetable.

Reason: To ensure that the optimal benefits of biodiversity are achieved.

10 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, a suitably qualified ecologist shall be on site to survey for nesting birds in such manner and to such specification as may have been previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that birds nests are protected from disturbance and destruction.

11 The existing hedge along the frontage of the application site shall be retained. No part of the hedge shall be removed unless that removal is authorised as part of this grant of planning permission or is the subject of written agreement by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory overall appearance of the completed development and to help assimilate the new development into its surroundings.

12 Development shall not commence until detailed investigation has been carried out, in such manner as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, of the areas of the site which may be contaminated, and the findings of the investigation reported to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any necessary remedial measures identified by the investigation shall be carried out in full before the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted.

Reason: To ensure that the site, when developed, is free from contamination, in the interests of safety.

13 Development shall not commence within the application site until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, which has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that any features of archaeological interest are protected or recorded.

101 102