Item No. 7 WEST AND COUNCIL

STRATEGIC PLANNNING COMMITTEE – 21 NOVEMBER 2013

APPLICATION NUMBER: 13/03127/OUT

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT: Proposed residential development.

SITE ADDRESS: Land Off , School Lane,

APPLICANT: Darnhall Estate

WARD: Winsford Swanlow and Dene

WARD MEMBERS: Councillors David Armstrong and Stephen Burns

CASE OFFICER: Jill Stephens - Tel: 01606 288682

RECOMMENDATION: Approve

Reason for being reported to Planning Committee: The application is to be heard at Planning Committee due to the scale and nature of the proposal.

page 87

1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

1.1 The site is located within the open countryside, consisting of 6.4 hectares of land divided into three fields by existing hedgerows. The site is relatively flat land, with two existing ponds within the site. The site is bounded by residential dwellings to the north, to the east Darnhall School Lane, with existing agricultural fields to the west and south.

1.2 The site falls within two parishes, divided between the Parish of Darnhall and Winsford. The site is located to the south west boundary of the main built up area of Winsford.

2.0 PROPOSAL

2.1 The application seeks outline planning permission for the construction of 184 dwellings with all matters reserved (layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) except for access.

2.2 The application is supported by the following documents:

Design and access statement; Planning supporting statement ; Statement of community involvement; Transport Assessment; Travel Plan Framework; Phase 1 Ecological Assessment; Landscape and visual impact assessment; Tree survey and Constraints report; Air Quality Assessment; Noise Assessment; Flood Risk Assessment and outline drainage strategy; Desk-based Archaeology Report; Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Ground Investigation; Agricultural Land Classification; Waste assessment an Site Waste Management plan; Utilities Strategy; Socio-economic report.

3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 None relevant

4.0 RELEVANT POLICIES

4.1 Local Plan Policies

GS5 - Open Countryside BE1 - Safeguarding and improving the quality of the environment BE21 - Renewable Energy T1 - General Requirements H4 - Housing Development Hierarchy H12 - Density H14 - Affordable Housing RT3 - Open Space in New Developments page 88 NE5 - Endangered Species NE7 - Protection and Enhancement of Landscape Features NE9 - Trees and Woodland RE1- Agricultural Land

Local Planning Guidance:

Supplementary Planning Guidance 1: Outdoor Space Standards for New Dwellings Supplementary Planning Document 1: Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document 3: Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document 5: Landscape Character

4.2 National Planning Policy Framework

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 A site notice was posted at the site, a notice placed in the local press and 77 neighbouring properties notified by post. 57 letters of objection have been received which include a number of objections as follows:

• Winsford has exceeded its housing need; • The scheme does not reflect the character of the rural area; • Brownfield sites should be utilised first; • Negative impact on wildlife and habitats; • Lack of infrastructure and services to support the development; • Lack of public transport; • Not sufficient school provision; • Loss of agricultural land; • Housing shortage no longer within the district; • Contrary to current and emerging plan policies; • Not a sustainable location; • Development too high density; • Scheme does not address energy and climate change; • Not close to services or facilities; • Loss of hedgerows and agricultural land; • Proposal does not protect, enhance or improve the natural or historic environment; • The site is not a windfall site; • Site is only part of that identified in the SHLAA • The site is not within the Winsford Neighbourhood plan as being identified for development; • Lack of open space and play provision in the area; • Access into the site unacceptable; • Ecological surveys insufficient;

Other issues which are not material planning considerations are include the impact on house prices and the impact on the sale of properties and the loss of a view,

A petition of 503 signatures has also been received. This includes a covering letters stating the objections to the scheme a being: there is a 5 year housing supply, site is not allocated for housing development, within the open countryside,

page 89 site is within the tier 4 settlement, site is not a sustainable location, contrary to local plan and emerging local plan policies, proposal does not accord with the NPPF, adversely effect the regeneration of the area, impact the local communities ability to influence the development to high density, loss of agricultural land.

Darnhall Parish: Object: loss of agricultural land, density and design unacceptable, change status of the parish, more appropriate sites available for development, lead to further development of the area.

Winsford Town Council: Object: discrepancies in report in terms of ownership, only a quarter of the development with the Winsford town boundary, over development of a rural location with a loss of amenity and open space , the number of proposed dwellings in the Darnhall portion of the application is greater than the total number of dwellings in Darnhall village, impact on highway safety, fire and rescue requirements not addressed, no footway, removal an ‘ancient’ hedge, number of dwellings already approved outside of Neighbourhood plan allocated areas, lack of school provision.

Internal Consultees

Bio diversity: No objections subject to conditions in respect of tree felling , mitigation measures, enhancement of biodiversity, lighting, removal of hedgerows.

Green Space: No objections subject to developer contributions in respect of playing pitch provision and on site open space and protection of public right of way.

Highways : No objections subject to conditions.

Trees and Woodlands: No objections subject to conditions in relation to tree protection, replacement and construction method.

Landscape : No objections subject to conditions

Education Officer : No contributions sought

Environmental Protection: No objections subject to conditions (construction/hours of operation)

Archaeology: No objection subject to condition requiring a written scheme Of investigation.

External Consultees

Environment Agency: No objection

Cheshire Fire and Rescue : No objection

Highways Agency : No objection

Sustrans: No objection

United Utilities : No objection subject to conditions.

page 90 The screening direction was challenged by Strutt and Parker and reviewed by the National Planning Casework Unit . The formal response advised that the Screening Opinion issued by the Authority is acceptable and therefore an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required in this instance.

6.0 ISSUES AND ASSESSMENT

6.1 The Council’s Economic Impact Assessment Tool has been used to provide an indication of the potential economic impacts of the proposed development. The results are as follows:-

CONSTRUCTION PERIOD Average FTE jobs per annum 122 Average GVA per annum (£m) 6.7 ONGOING FTE jobs 20 Annual GVA (£m) 0.8

7.0 ISSUES AND ASSESSMENT

Principle of development

7.1 The development plan for the area currently comprises the Vale Royal Local Plan June 2006. The development plan remains the starting point for assessing any application and decisions should be taken in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This site is located within the Open Countryside (a Tier 4 location) where Local Plan housing policy H4 seeks to resist new housing development. Members will be aware that the Council is progressing a new Local Plan which has just completed its pre-submission consultation. Its policies are capable of being a material consideration but the weight that would be accorded to them would be governed by the stage the Plan has now reached, whether there are unresolved objections to relevant policies and how well these policies align with national policy.

7.2 The overarching national guidance is the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The document states that ‘development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay’. The Framework details that there are three dimensions to sustainable development and that these dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles:

● an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure;

● a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and

● an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity,

page 91 use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.

7.3 The NPPF seeks sustainable growth. It says that councils should look to significantly boost housing supply by identifying and updating annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with either a 5% or 20%. The relevant buffer to this authority is 20%, given the record of persistent under delivery that has arisen as a result of changes to regionally-imposed housing targets and the post-2008 housing market downturn.

Housing Supply Position

7.4 The Council’s most recent position (taken at the end of a Planning Inquiry relating to a proposed housing development by Richborough Estates at Moulton) on October is that there is a 2.78 years supply. This is based on a requirement for 1317 homes per year (derived from the revoked Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)), meeting under-delivery since 2003 (the base date of RSS) over the next 5 years and a NPPF 20% buffer. Where there is less than a five year supply of deliverable housing land, paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF says that where relevant policies are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole. The absence of a five year supply carries substantial weight in favour of the proposal.

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

7.5 The site is identified in the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) as part of a larger site of 6.52 hectares. The broad assessment of the site carried out as part of the preparation of the SHLAA identifies that it is suitable, available and achievable, with the potential for 50 dwellings to come forward from it within 1-5 years, and 150 in a 6-10 year period. It should be noted however that its identification within the SHLAA is not equivalent in any way to an allocation. It is largely a ‘policy off’ document and as such there are many sites identified within in locations currently unsupported within Local Plan policy. That said, it is clear that the site lies on the edge of Winsford, a town supporting a very wide range of services and facilities. The site can be described as being in a sustainable location in the context of it being close to a wide variety of services and facilities.

Winsford Neighbourhood Plan

7.6 The site is not allocated for development within the emerging Winsford Neighbourhood Development Plan. Other sites are identified around the town in line with the Plan’s strategy. The Government has placed great emphasis on neighbourhood planning as a means by which local communities can set a vision for their areas and support that vision by establishing planning policies that are capable of forming part of the development plan if they are the subject of favourable local examination and referendum processes. The Winsford Neighbourhood Development Plan has been published and completed its final consultation on the 16 th September 2013. A local examination will take place later this year and, subject to a favourable Examiner’s report, will proceed to referendum in April 2014. Its policies are capable of being material to the determination of planning page 92 applications but the weight that can be accorded to them is limited because the Plan has not yet been through its examination stage.

7.7 Whilst the proposal is contrary to the emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan, this tension can only be given limited weight.

Prematurity

7.8 There is no guidance in the Framework on prematurity. However, guidance is provided by the 2005 publication by the former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister entitled Planning System: General Principles . It advises that, in some circumstances, it may be justifiable to refuse planning permission on grounds of prematurity where a Development Plan Document is being prepared or is under review, but has not yet been adopted. This may be appropriate where a proposed development is so substantial, or where the cumulative effect would be so significant, that granting permission could prejudice the DPD by pre-determining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development which are being addressed by the DPD. It is further advised that where a DPD is at the consultation stage, with no early prospect of submission for examination, then refusal on prematurity grounds would seldom be justified because of the delay which this would cause in determining the future use of the land in question. It has to be noted however that this guidance pre-dated the NPPF and neighbourhood planning.

7.9 The draft National Planning Practice Guidance note represents the most up-to-date guidance on prematurity. It advises that a refusal on the grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified unless the circumstances are exceptional. In relation to neighbourhood plans, it is advised that prematurity will seldom be justified prior to the end of the consultation period. Even then, it is advised that the local planning authority will need to indicate clearly how the grant of permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process.

7.10 In relation to the draft Local Plan, the NPPG advises that the key point potentially justifying an argument on prematurity grounds is when it has been submitted for examination.

7.11 Notwithstanding this guidance, the NPPG is still at draft stage and can only be given limited weight at this point. However, even if this guidance was given more weight, it would still not justify an argument in relation to prematurity given the stage of the draft Local Plan.

7.12 In this case, it is considered necessary for the case for prematurity needs to be examined. Although relatively advanced, the Neighbourhood Plan has yet to go through examination and referendum before it can be made and there is also a context of an under-supply of housing land across the Borough, with a consequential need to determine the proposal against the policies of the NPPF.

7.13 Compared to the overall projected housing numbers to be provided in the Neighbourhood Plan (approximately 3000), it is considered that a scheme for around 200 houses would represent a relatively minor variation. Given this, and the circumstances detailed above, it is not considered that a prematurity case would be successfully arguable as a reason for refusal.

page 93

Local Context

7.14 Policy BE1 of the Local Plan advises that proposals for all new development will be expected to achieve a high standard of design and sets out the criterions against which all developments will be assessed in order to safeguard the quality of the existing built environment and wherever possible, improve and enhance the environment. The NPPF also takes a robust approach to achieving high quality development in the right location.

7.15 In considering any proposal for residential development the Council would expect a development to be of an appropriate scale, within the urban area or within the existing settlement in the rural area and closely related to the existing built form. This application site lies in the open countryside, on the edge of Winsford, and is well related to the existing built up area, directly adjoining existing dwellings to the north

7.16 The open countryside is defined as that part of the rural area beyond the edge of the existing built form of any settlement. Policy GS5 of the adopted Local Plan sets out the general strategy for considering proposals for new built development in the open countryside. It states that new buildings will not be allowed in the open countryside unless provided for through other policies of the Local Plan.

7.17 Although classed as open countryside, the development would occupy a gap between existing developments and would therefore not extend the built envelope of the town by any significant degree. It would be well related to the existing urban fringe and would represent a logical extension to the town. For that reason, it is not considered that the development would cause any material harm to the visual amenity of the open countryside beyond.

7.18 The other important point to consider is the compliance of Policy GS5 with the NPPF in line with paragraph 215 of the NPPF. As detailed above, the NPPF is a pro-growth document and seeks to encourage sustainable development. It is not as restrictive as previous national policy, and would allow development in the open countryside providing it could be considered as sustainable and did not cause any unacceptable harm. Given that GS5 is more restrictive, and bearing in mind the good sustainability credentials of the site, it is considered that the policy has to be given reduced weight in the determination of this application.

7.19 As such, it is considered that the principle of developing this site for housing is acceptable against the NPPF, subject to the consideration of impact and any other material considerations.

Layout and design

7.20 Policy BE1 of the Local Plan echoes the NPPF and advises that particular reference should be made to factors such as appearance, siting, scale, layout, density, use of materials and landscape treatment. It should also be compatible with the local character and encourage local distinctiveness through the use of appropriate and high-quality building materials, architectural detailing, floorscape and boundary treatment. The application is in outline form and only seeks approval for access.

7.21 Notwithstanding, an illustrative master plan has been submitted with the application. The plan indicates how the level of development proposed could be achieved on site. The design and access statement indicates that the site would consist of a mix page 94 of 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom dwellings in the form of mews, semi-detached and detached properties. The Design and Access statement states that the scheme will deliver a high quality design delivering a mix of housing, including affordable housing, open space recreational and play areas.

7.22 In essence, it is considered that a development on this basis could be achievable on site and would preserve suitable levels of amenity. Acceptable details would be subject to more detailed consideration at the Reserved Matters stage.

Impact on Residential Amenity

7.23 The site is bounded by residential dwellings to the north along Peacock Avenue, and dwellings on the opposite side of Darnhall School Lane, and existing single dwellings within the south east corner of the site. The impact on amenity would be fully assessed in detail as part of any reserved matters application which would allow consideration of separation distances and the impact on privacy and any potential overbearing impact in terms of design and scale of the new dwellings. It is however considered that separation distances could be achieved, which is shown by the master plan. The existing dwellings and proposed new development could be developed whilst achieving and acceptable level of amenity, the scheme is considered to be acceptable in line with Policy BE1 of the Local Plan.

Highway Safety, access and parking

7.24 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe.

7.25 The application is supported by a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan Framework. Access is the only matter sought for approval as part of the outline application .

7.26 The application has been accompanied by an illustrative master plan; however the internal layout is not subject to approval at this stage. There is a single point of vehicular access and pedestrian access from Darnhall School Lane. It is considered that a single access if suitable to serve the development and that there are adequate levels of visibility proposed given that the road at this point is subject to a 30mph speed limit.

7.27 Whilst the internal layout is not subject to approval the master plan shows a footway/cycle way/emergency access point which would promote sustainable means of transport, this element would be controlled as part of a reserved matters application.

7.28 From the information submitted with the application included TRICS information and vehicle movements it is not considered that a development of this scale in this location would be of detriment to highway safety or have a severe impact on the surrounding highway network. It is considered that the application has demonstrated that the impact will not be severe and the scheme is therefore acceptable in line with the NPPF and Policy T1 of the Vale Royal Local Plan.

Trees and Landscaping

7.29 Policy NE7 of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan advises that proposals for development should recognise features of landscape quality, such as walls, trees, page 95 hedgerows, streams and ponds on or in the immediate vicinity of the development site. In the design and arrangement of buildings, structures, landscaping and other works, all proposals should maintain or improve the quality and variety of the landscape in which the development would take place.

7.30 Landscaping has been reserved for approval at the reserved matters stage however the application is supported by a Landscape and visual impact assessment which identifies the site is agricultural land located on the settlement edge of Winsford.

7.31 The site is on the urban fringe, is semi rural in character and located within open countryside to the South West and Winsford. The area is flat agricultural land at present enclosed by hedgerows and trees. Public Right of Way Darnhall RB3 runs along the south west edge of the site and Darnhall FP4, some 250m away runs parallel with the north-west boundary. Although on the urban fringe, the site lies within the 6a Darnhall Plain (East Cheshire Plain landscape character area) as set out within the Vale Royal Borough Council Landscape Character Assessment SPD5. This is an open, flat plain lying on the southern boundaries of the borough with fields bounded by an intact network of low thorn hedgerows with relatively few hedgerow trees.

7.32 The site is contained on two sides with residential development to the north and main road along the eastern boundary, with the impact on landscape character not considered to be significant. The site is relatively well contained visually within the local landscape, with the topography and woodland vegetation to the south and west restricting long-distance views. The views to the north and east are contained by residential development which bounds the site .

7.33 It is acknowledged that the development proposal will result in a change of use, loss of open countryside and physical extension to the south west of the existing settlement boundary of Winsford. The level of impact of the proposal can only be assessed fully as part of a reserved matters application, however it is considered that the scheme could be designed to minimise impact to within acceptable limits. Full details of landscaping can be secured through condition. It is considered on balance that the scheme in principle is acceptable in line with policies NE7 and NE8 of the Local Plan.

7.34 Policy NE9 of the local plan states that development will not be allowed with would necessitate the felling of or endanger trees. There are no Tree Preservation Orders within or immediately adjacent to the site. The application includes a Tree survey and Constraints report, which the Tree Officer considers to be acceptable.

7.35 There are a number of internal trees and hedges within the site and the illustrative plan indicates that these can largely be incorporated into the development, with the trees mainly outside of the private gardens. The plans are however illustrative and with the internal layout not sought for approval at this time. It is however considered that conditions in relation to retained trees, replacement trees and construction method statement in relation to works and trees will enable a development which will be acceptable.

Biodiversity

7.36 The application has been submitted with supporting documentation in the form of an ecological survey and ecological mitigation and enhancement strategy.

page 96 7.37 Policy NE5 of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan advises that proposals should minimise any adverse impacts on endangered species and take steps to secure the protection of flora and fauna. Policy NE4 advises that proposals affecting wildlife habitats will only be permitted where there would be no harm to the habitat features or they could be recreated elsewhere or the importance of the development outweighs the value of the features. The conservation and management of threatened habitats is encouraged .

7.38 There are no statutory or local wildlife nature conservation sites in the immediate vicinity of the application. The nearest SSSI is located over 1.3km to the south of the application site and the nearest local wildlife site (formerly Site of Biological Importance) is located 750 metres to the south. It is considered these would remain unaffected by the proposal, as would the wildlife corridor/green wedge which is located 50 metres east of the application site.

7.39 The proposal will result in the loss of hedgerow; however these can be replaced to using native a species for provision of habitats. There are two existing ponds within the development which are to be removed and no Great Crested Newts were recorded in the ponds on site; however four compensatory ponds will be created off- site in line with the details set out in the Habitat Creation and Management Plan in line with local plan policy NE4 . These features can be secured by condition. It is considered that the development will be able to mitigate any potential impacts on habitats though reasonable avoidance measures, as set out with the ecological assessment which can be secured by condition.

7.40 With regard to bat activity, surveys in accordance with Natural Standing advice have been submitted. The surveys recorded a small number of Common and Soprano bats using the site for commuting and foraging principally along the field boundaries. No roost sites were identified on the site and mature trees with potential for use as roosts can be retained. No evidence of bat use was noted during the ground based initial assessment or bat activity survey. Subject to conditions in relation to lighting and the measures as set out within the ecological report, the development is considered to be acceptable in terms of bats.

7.41 The hedgerows and trees on site provide suitable habitat for bird nesting. Subject to no removal of hedgerows during the bird breeding season, the development is considered acceptable. The NPPF advises “opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged”, it is therefore considered that a condition to secure a range of bird boxes would be appropriate.

7.42 The ecological report addresses badgers, with evidence of badgers recorded on the site on a single occasion. Subject to the use of mitigation measures to prevent mammals becoming trapped in trenches during construction as recommended within the submitted ecological assessment, the scheme is considered to be acceptable.

7.43 The development is acceptable from an ecological perspective if relevant mitigation measures and compensation features are secured. The proposal therefore accords with relevant local policies and the NPPF.

Noise and contamination

7.44 A noise impact assessment and desk study assessment report form part of the application. It is considered that it would be unlikely to be any ongoing noise issues affecting either the future occupants of this development or existing page 97 occupants in the surrounding area; however temporary disturbance (dust/noise/vibration etc) during the development stage is inevitable. This can however be controlled by a suitably worded condition in respect of a Construction Method Statement and hours of operation condition.

7.45 The application also included a phase 1 ground investigation study which indicates that there does not appear to be any specific contamination risk which would present risk of harm. No further investigation works would therefore be required in respect of contamination but an informative providing advice in the unlikely event that contamination is discovered would be advisable.

Affordable Housing

7.46 Paragraph 5.2 of the Council’s adopted SPD1 (Affordable Housing) states that “the mix of affordable housing provided on sites will need to reflect local housing needs and the Council will have regard to the current Housing Needs Survey, Housing Register and any other local housing market information, including local income levels and house prices in considering the level and type of affordable housing that will be considered appropriate”.

7.47 The application is accompanied by an affordable housing statement and confirms that the proposal will provide 30% affordable housing. The scheme of 184 dwelling would deliver 56 new affordable dwellings and this is compliant with policy requirements and would be secured by condition .

Open Space

7.48 In line with SPD 3 which requires the provision of open space and the NPPF which encourages the incorporation of green and other public spaces as part of developments the development need to be considered in light of provision for play and open space.

7.49 The illustrative master plan includes a central open space and exceeds policy requirements for the provision of open space. Whilst the layout does not seek permission at this stage it is considered that the development demonstrates that the scheme can provide sufficient open space. This element would be secured through legal agreement. The supporting information indicates a long terms management plan for the proposed play and open space, which is an element which can again be controlled by condition.

7.50 SPD 3 Topic Paper 6 also requires that large developments over 10 dwellings to provide a Formal Playing Pitch. It would not be practical to secure this provision on site and therefore a developer contribution in lieu of providing pitches off site would be sought based on the value of the land released to the development. This pitch provision shall be provided within the Winsford area and secured through a legal agreement.

Agricultural Land

7.51 Policy RE1 states the use of the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a) for any form of development which results in the loss of such land to agricultural use will not normally be allowed.

7.52 The best and most versatile land is regarded as Grade 1, 2 and 3a in the Ministry of Agricultural, Fisheries and Food’s Agricultural Land Classification. page 98

7.53 The site consists primarily of Grade 4 and 3b land which is classified a moderate to poor quality agricultural land. In any event, the NPPF advises that the quality of agricultural land only becomes material if the development area is significant, which is not considered to be true of the proposed site. As such, in line with paragraph 215 of the NPPF, Policy RE1 should be given no weight. The proposal therefore accords with the NPPF.

Education

7.54 New residential development impacts on the provision of facilities, including school places on the local area. In respect of this site specifically the catchment primary school is Darnhall Primary School and, at present, the school has 90 surplus places and this is forecast to fall to 69 by January 2018. In respect of secondary schools Winsford E-ACT Academy is within catchment and has 680 surplus places and this is forecast to rise to 815 by September 2019. It is therefore considered that education provision based on the calculated child yield is met and therefore no contributions in respect of education will be sought.

8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that where regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8.2 In this case, it is necessary to consider the balance of material considerations. It is considered that the current lack of a 5-year housing land supply needs to be given substantial weight, with the relative sustainability of the site and lack of unacceptable harm amenity and the provision of a full policy quota of affordable housing also given weight in favour of the development. Against the development would be the development of a greenfield site and potential prematurity in terms of the emerging Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan.

8.3 Although the negatives may appear substantial, it is not considered that the development would bring sufficient clear and demonstrable harm to justify a refusal of planning permission. In the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, it is considered that the development would be acceptable and there would not be sufficient conflict with any other parts of the NPPF to justify refusal. As detailed above, it is not considered that an argument on the grounds of prematurity would be sustainable.

9.0 RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to conditions and Section 106 agreement.

Suggested conditions if approved:

Conditions

1. 3 years to submit Reserved Matters applications 2. Reserved Matters to include appearance, landscaping, layout and scale 3. Approved Plans 4. Material samples 5. Hard and Soft Landscaping 6. Existing trees to be retained 7. Protection of trees page 99 8. Reasonable avoidance measures 9. Development of ponds (Grampian condition) 10. Mitigation measures (GCNs and Badgers) 11. Bats- Development in accordance with mitigation measures 12. No hedgerow removal in bird breeding season 13. Bird boxes 14. Habitat creation and mitigation plan 15. Replacement planting 16. Construction specification/method statement 17. Boundary treatments 18. Site furniture/ structures - description and details where appropriate. 19. External lighting details. 20. Details of public open space and recreational/play facilities. 21. A detailed future management and maintenance plan which considers long term management, including objectives and responsibilities. 22. Phasing condition (demolition and constructions details) 23. The vehicular, pedestrian, cycle and emergency accesses shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and to the satisfaction of the Highway Department and made available for use prior to the commencement of construction of the houses. 24. Parking details/provision 25. Cycle parking provision 26. Hours of construction/demolition 27. Construction method statement 28. Levels both existing and proposed. 29. Scheme to limit surface water 30. Scheme to manage risk of flooding 31. Drainage details 32. Archaeological work implementation programme 33. Open space provision . 34. Affordable housing 30% 35. Renewable Energy

Informatives-

Access for fire service- In accordance with Approved document B supporting the Building Regulations 2010.

Environmental Protection- Follow code of practice for noise and vibration control

Contact Environmental Protection should contamination be found

Public Right of way- No storage of materials/barriers

page 100

page 101

page 102